Formation of subjectivity and responsibility of convicted youth as a target guideline for resocialization in UFIC

UDC 316.6+343.8-053:37
DOI 10.20339/AM.06-26.100

Mikhail V. Bocharov, Cand. Sci. (Biology), Member of the Public Council at the Office of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia for the Yaroslavl Region, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6918-5523/, e-mail: m.bocharov2012@yandex.ru

This article is devoted to the issue of the formation of subjectivity and responsibility among youth convicts, as one of the prerequisites for successful re-socialization. Modern forms of organizing work with convicts aimed at developing their qualities that contribute to successful integration into society after release are considered. The important role of correctional centers, which create favorable conditions for obtaining education, mastering labor skills and maintaining social ties, is emphasized. Special attention is paid to the implementation of the subjective position of young convicts in educational programs, collective creative and leisure activities, interaction with family and civil organizations. This is due to the fact that young convicts are more motivated to gain new knowledge and experience, strive for self-expression and self-realization. The results of a study conducted on the basis of the UFIC of the Federal Penitentiary Institution IK-8 of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia in the Yaroslavl region, the main part of which is youth convicts, showed that targeted measures to form subjectivity and responsibility lead to increased discipline of convicts, the development of their subjective position, increased motivation for self-improvement and a decrease in the tendency to antisocial behavior. All this together affects the likelihood of successful re-socialization of former convicts.

Keywords: young convicts, re-socialization, subjectivity, responsibility, correctional center, prevention of recidivism

References

1.       Antonyan, Yu.M. (2004) Criminology: selected lessons. Moscow: Logos. 448 p.

2. Brushlinsky, V. (2003) Collection: reflection, teaching, change. 2nd ed., corr. Moscow: MPSI. 408 p.

3. Vasiliev, A.I. (1969) On the evidence of management of foreign companies. Government. No. 6. Pp. 127–129.

4. Zimnyaya, I.A. (1997) Basic pedagogical psychology. Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix. 480 s.

5.       Kozlovsky, S.N. (2019) The re-socialization of convicts in correctional institutions. Vestnik of the UNN State University. No. 1. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/resotsializatsiya-osuzhdennyh-v-isprav... (accessed on: 16.02.2026).

6.       Kotelevtsev, N.A. (2019) Definition of the subject and subjectivity in Russian psychological science. Scientific notes. Electronic scientific journal of Kursk State University. No. 3 (51). URL: https://api-mag.kursksu.ru/api/v1/get_pdf/3645/ (accessed on: 12.01.2020).

7. Pishchelko, A.V., Sochivko, D.V. (2003) Readaptation and resocialization. Moscow: PER SE. 323 p.

8. Rubinstein, S.L. (2002) Fundamentals of general psychology. St. Petersburg: Peter. 720 p.

9. Rybak, M.S. (2001) Re-socialization of those sentenced to imprisonment: problems of theory and practice. Saratov: SSTU Press. 252 p.

10. Statistics of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia: official website. URL: https://fsin.gov.ru/statistics / (accessed on: 04.02.2024).

11. Ushatikov, A.I., Kazak, B.B. (2000) Psychology of basic means of correction and resocialization of convicts. Ryazan: RSPU, 2000. 361 p.

12. Schroeder, O.B. (2011) Re-socialization and social adaptation of persons released and released from penal institutions. Tomsk: Publishing House of Tomsk State Pedagogical University. Pp. 78–91. (In Eng.)

13. Bandura, A. (2008) An agentic perspective on positive psychology. Positive psychology: Exploring the best in people. Vol. 1: Discovering human strengths. Lopez. Shane J. (Ed.); Westport. CT. US: Praeger Publishers / Greenwood Publishing Group. Рp. 167–196. (In Eng.)

14. González Rey, F. (2011) A re-examination of defining moments in Vygotsky’s work and their implications for his continuing legacy. Mind, Culture, & Activity. No. 18. Pp. 257–275. (In Eng.)
15. Hughes, D., Colvin, E., Bartkowiak-Théron, I. (2021) Police and Vulnerability in Bail Decisions. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy. 2021. Vol. 10. Pp. 15–23. (In Eng.)
16. Markus, H.R., Kitayama, S. (2003) Models of Agency: Sociocultural Diversity in the Constructor of Action. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Vol. 49. Cross-Cultural Differences in Perspectives on the Self. Lincoln (NB). P. 5. (In Eng.)
17. McKay, C. (2016) Video Links from Prison: Permeability and the Carceral World. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy. Vol. 4. Pp. 21–37. (In Eng.)
18. Wikström, P., Treiber, K. (2018) The Dynamics of Change. Criminogenic Interactions and Life–Course Patterns of Crime. In: The Oxford Handbook of Developmental and Life — Course Criminology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 28 p. (In Eng.)