Prisoners with Special Needs and Turkey’s Prisons Built for Adult, Sunni, Healthy, Heterosexual Turkish Men

Updated Introduction for the Translation

Prisons speak not only through their walls and iron bars, but also through the question of who they are designed for.

I first wrote this article in 2014. Despite the years that have passed, the observations it contains have not lost their relevance; in fact, in some ways, the problems have only deepened. That is why I have decided to share it again.

Today, the number of prisoners in Turkey has exceeded 400,000. More and more people are being incarcerated for longer periods and often under unjust conditions. Yet within this expanding picture, the question of whose needs the prison system is built to accommodate still goes largely unasked.

In this article, I question the assumption that prisons are constructed solely for “adult, healthy, Sunni, heterosexual Turkish men.” Drawing on field-based findings, I try to show how the needs of women, children, disabled, LGBTİ+, elderly, and foreign-national prisoners are systematically ignored.

The text was first published in 2014 in the “Confinement” issue of Teorik Bakış journal. The fact that these issues remain largely invisible to the broader democratic public makes it necessary to bring this article back into circulation.

As someone who opposes incarceration itself—who believes that alternative methods of justice should increasingly replace imprisonment, and that the institution of confinement should eventually be abolished—my aim in this article is not to reform the prison system. Rather, it is to expose whose needs are being systematically excluded. Making such patterns of exclusion visible is the only way to open space for more radical forms of transformation.

Exposing whom the system chooses to ignore also reveals how such disregard turns into a multiplied form of punishment. My ultimate goal is to help build a society where incarceration gradually disappears. But until that day comes, we cannot remain silent while lives are quietly crushed behind prison walls.

Mustafa Eren
Zürich, May 2025

Prisoners with Special Needs and Turkey’s Prisons Built for Adult, Sunni, Healthy, Heterosexual Turkish Men

Mustafa Eren[i]

Teorik Bakış, Issue 4, May 2014

Do a country’s prisons get designed, constructed, and administered solely with the needs of adult, healthy, heterosexual men who belong to the dominant nation and religion in mind?
To narrow the question further: Are Turkish prisons designed and run only for Turkish, Sunni, adult men?

Throughout this article, I will attempt to answer this question. By engaging with the provocations embedded in such a formulation, I aim to present a perspective that begins not from prisons themselves, but from those who are imprisoned.

The most immediate and seemingly reasonable answer to the question might be:
“Prisons are primarily designed for dissidents, those in conflict with the existing political system, and social marginals.”

This is partly true. Since the 1970s, policies targeting political prisoners have indeed shaped prison practices in Turkey — from regulations like Directive 16/1, which defined prisoners as soldiers and demanded submission to military authority, to legal amendments that categorized political prisoners as “terrorists” and subjected them to a separate penal regime, and finally to the construction of F- and D-type prisons specifically designed for them.

When we consider these developments, it is not incorrect to state that Turkish prisons have been designed and operated for the political opponents of the regime.
However, aside from periods of military coups, political prisoners have constituted only about 10% of the total prison population in Turkey. That leaves us with the remaining 90%, about whom we must also say something.

This article, while acknowledging the partial truth in the earlier answer, seeks to open another window. A second question might help clarify this alternative perspective:
“Have Turkish prisons been designed, built, and managed with the needs of women, children, the elderly, the disabled, foreign nationals, the sick, and LGBTI individuals in mind?”
To start thinking about prisons in relation to these prisoners with special needs[ii] is to challenge — and ultimately move beyond — the conventional boundaries of how we conceive of incarceration.

To respond to the second question posed above, we conducted a study under the umbrella of the Civil Society Association in the Penal System (CİSST)[iii], titled “Prisoners with Special Needs.” This year-long study, which took place between November 2012 and November 2013, focused on LGBTI [While “LGBTQ+” is more commonly used in current international literature, this text retains the term “LGBTİ” to reflect the terminology widely used in Turkey’s civil society at the time of writing (2014)], elderly, foreign-national, and disabled prisoners.

The project was carried out in three phases. In the first phase, while collecting data related to the topic, we also organized meetings — initially one-on-one, and later in group settings — with relevant civil society organizations (CSOs).[iv] These meetings aimed both to bring prison-related issues onto the agendas of the CSOs and, where applicable, to benefit from their existing experience and knowledge in the field.

In the second phase, we organized prison visits with delegations composed of representatives from the CSOs who had participated in the earlier meetings. The goal of these visits was to observe the prison facilities, obtain information from the administration, and, ideally, conduct face-to-face interviews with the prisoners in order to hear their problems and proposed solutions in their own words.

However, although the Ministry of Justice approved our prison visits, it denied us permission to meet with the prisoners. As a result, during the visits we were limited to receiving information from the prison administration and touring the facilities themselves.[v] We attempted to compensate for the lack of direct contact with prisoners through written correspondence and interviews with formerly incarcerated individuals.

In the third and final phase, we drafted our reports based on the information gathered during the prison visits, in consultation with the relevant CSOs.[vi]

During and after the course of the project, we expressed our general observations and findings regarding prisoners with special needs.[vii] Providing a few examples to elaborate on these findings will help clarify the situation.

In response to our right-to-information request dated 8 July 2013, the Ministry of Justice stated that there were 115 disabled detainees and convicts in prisons and detention centers across Turkey. Considering that the prison population at the time was around 130,000 (a number that rose to 152,000 by April 2014), and that in 2013 an average of six coffins were leaving prisons each week, it is clear that this figure is far from credible.[viii]

The Ministry’s decision to report such a low number is directly related to its failure to even define the criteria by which someone would be considered disabled. It lacks even the most basic data on this matter. Since disabled individuals are rendered “invisible,” architectural, legal, and everyday accommodations for them are deemed unnecessary.

Moreover, in the same right-to-information request, we asked what types of arrangements had been made in prisons for disabled individuals. The Ministry’s response was as follows:
“There are 360 penal institutions in our country. These institutions are not multi-storied; therefore, there is no situation that hinders the living conditions of disabled individuals.”

Yet nearly all prisons built before 2000, despite being dormitory-style facilities, are in fact two-story buildings, and the majority of shared-use spaces are located on the upper floors. As for the newer prisons built after 2000, a significant portion of them follow what the state proudly refers to as the “villa-type” model — that is, a “cell system” where sleeping quarters are located upstairs and common living areas downstairs.

In light of these realities, the Ministry’s response is entirely lacking in credibility.

A similar situation exists for LGBTİ prisoners (as commonly used in Turkey at the time, referring to lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and intersex individuals). In its response dated 24 July 2013 to our right-to-information request submitted on 5 July 2013, the Ministry stated that there were 79 LGBTİ prisoners in Turkey’s correctional institutions.

In a subsequent request dated 23 August 2013, we asked whether these 79 LGBTİ prisoners consisted solely of trans individuals. If not, we further inquired about their distribution across the categories of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans. The Ministry’s response to this question revealed just how unprepared and inexperienced the authorities were on the matter:
“Regarding your first question, no detailed data is available within the General Directorate, and therefore, no response can be provided.”

Beyond the unreliability of the statistical data, another crucial issue concerning LGBTİ prisoners is that they are distributed across 18 different prisons in Turkey.[ix] From this distribution, it becomes evident that some LGBTİ prisoners are the only individuals with such identities in their respective prisons.Excluding two prisons, the average number of LGBTİ prisoners in the remaining institutions is around three or four.

The Ministry’s response to our request also included the following statement:
“LGBTİ individuals are planned to be taken to common areas and social activities in such a way that they do not come into contact with other convicts or detainees.”
This means that for those who are the sole LGBTİ prisoner in their institution, such arrangements may result in solitary confinement that effectively lasts throughout their entire incarceration.[x]

The situation for elderly and foreign-national prisoners is no different from that of disabled and LGBTİ prisoners. Even though statistical data for these groups is available — as they are more visibly identifiable — there exists no effort or initiative aimed at addressing their specific needs.

For foreign-national prisoners, problems begin at the moment of detention: they are interrogated by law enforcement officers who do not speak their language, and later defended by attorneys who likewise lack the necessary language skills. These issues continue inside the prison, where the lack of foreign-language materials and the inability to communicate persist. Although the visitors of foreign-national prisoners typically come from far away and visit far less frequently compared to those of Turkish prisoners, they are subjected to the same visitation durations and conditions.[xi]

As for elderly prisoners, there are no architectural or practical arrangements that take their physical or psychological conditions into account. In response to our right-to-information request submitted on 5 July 2013 — in which we asked, “Are there any regulations concerning elderly prisoners in Turkish penal institutions? If so, what kind of regulations exist?” — the Ministry stated on 24 July 2013 that there were no such arrangements:
“There is no ongoing legislative work by our General Directorate regarding elderly prisoners housed in correctional institutions.”[xii]

The situation of disabled, LGBTİ, foreign-national, and elderly prisoners demonstrates that, from architecture to legislation to everyday prison life, prisoners with special needs are not taken into account.

According to data from 3 March 2014, there were 1,834 juvenile prisoners aged 12 to 18 in Turkey, yet only 3 Juvenile Correctional Institutions and 1 Education House existed to accommodate them. Similarly, despite the presence of 5,398 women prisoners, there were only 5 Closed Women’s Prisons and 2 Open Women’s Prisons in operation. This indicates that prisons in Turkey are designed almost exclusively with adult men in mind.[xiii]

Only a small portion of women and juvenile prisoners are housed in facilities specifically built for them, while the rest are placed in wings designated for them within other prisons — often alongside adult male prisoners.[xiv]

The data and findings presented above, derived from our Prisoners with Special Needs project conducted between November 2012 and November 2013, reveal that prisons are constructed without consideration for the needs of prisoners with special requirements. When such needs arise, the state ignores them and designs the entire prison system around adult men who reflect the dominant national, religious — and even denominational —[xv] identity of the state.

In this form, prisons fall short of meeting prisoners’ needs and, through both their architectural structure and the legal and practical frameworks that fail to accommodate specific needs, become spaces of de facto ill-treatment.

Although Turkey’s prisons are often brought into public debate due to state-imposed restrictions on political prisoners and the resistance such restrictions provoke, the broader failure of prisons to meet basic needs is frequently overlooked.
Social scientists and civil society organizations must also confront this deeper structural problem, exposing and challenging the systemic neglect it entails.

Notes

[i] Graduate of the Department of Sociology at Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University (MSGSÜ). Completed a master’s degree in Cultural Studies at Bilgi University. Currently attending doctoral courses at MSGSÜ and serving as Project Coordinator at the Civil Society in the Penal System Association (CİSST).
Contact: mustafaerennn@gmail.com

[ii] In the social sciences literature, groups commonly referred to as “disadvantaged,” “vulnerable,” or “fragile” are, in my view, more accurately described as “groups with special needs.”
Labels such as “disadvantaged,” “vulnerable,” or “fragile” focus the problem on the group itself — its body, identity, personality, or culture. Within such a discourse, the reason for the group’s vulnerability or disadvantage is presumed to lie within the group itself. By contrast, the expression “groups with special needs” shifts the focus to their needs and thus creates more space for rights-based advocacy.

For this reason, not only as a sociologist but also as a civil society activist engaged in rights-based work, I believe that the term “groups with special needs” is more appropriate.

A conceptual distinction can be proposed here:
The label “disadvantaged groups” may be used for those — such as political prisoners — who face discrimination because of who they are, and who are subjected to differentiated treatment based on that identity. On the other hand, “groups with special needs” can be used for those — such as disabled, female, child, elderly, or foreign-national prisoners — who are subjected to ill-treatment not necessarily due to discrimination, but because their specific needs are neglected.

In one case, the disadvantage stems from discrimination; in the other, from unmet needs. Of course, these two categories are not mutually exclusive. For instance, in the case of LGBTİ prisoners, both special needs and discrimination may intersect. It is important not to overlook the ways in which these distinctions may sometimes overlap.

[iii] The Civil Society in the Penal System Association (CİSST) was founded in 2006. It works to bring Turkish prisons into greater alignment with international standards and human rights principles, to reduce rights violations against prisoners, and to promote increased civil society engagement with issues related to prisons.
For more information, visit: http://www.cezaevindestek.org/

[iv] The meeting on disabled prisoners was held on 12 January 2013 with the participation of 16 individuals representing 14 institutions and organizations.
The meeting on LGBTİ prisoners was held on 29 January 2013 with the participation of 17 individuals representing 12 institutions and organizations.
The meeting on foreign-national prisoners was held on 7 March 2013 with a total of 21 participants.

[v] As part of the project, visits were conducted to the following prisons:
Bakırköy Women’s and Juvenile Detention Center on 29 July 2013 for foreign-national prisoners;
Ümraniye Type E Prison on 31 July 2013 for disabled prisoners;
and Maltepe Type L No. 2 Prison on 2 August 2013 for LGBTİ prisoners.
Observations related to elderly prisoners were conducted at all three facilities.

[vi] The report from this year-long project was presented to the public at a press conference held on 7 November 2013.
For the full report, see: http://www.mustafaeren.net/?p=291

[vii] 1- During the course of the project, it became evident that neither the Ministry of Justice nor the General Directorate of Prisons and Detention Houses had any existing policy concerning prisoners with special needs. (The Ministry’s first initiative on this issue only emerged after our project began and was shared with the public.)

2- The Ministry and the General Directorate lack the statistical data necessary to formulate effective policies for prisoners with special needs. Particularly in the case of disabled and LGBTİ prisoners, data collection had only just begun, and due to the absence of established criteria, the existing figures lack the reliability required for meaningful evaluation.

3- The shortcomings in statistical data demonstrate that the Ministry and the General Directorate currently lack both knowledge and experience in dealing with the needs of prisoners with special needs.

4- No personnel are employed specifically to work on these issues. Neither the Ministry nor the General Directorate employs staff responsible for addressing the needs of prisoners with special needs, nor is there any effort to assign or train existing personnel to specialize in this area within prisons.

5- The application processes and denials of permission encountered during the project suggest that the Ministry and the General Directorate are reluctant to accept civil society organizations as legitimate actors concerning prison-related issues.

[viii] For a detailed assessment of the situation of disabled prisoners within the scope of the project, see:
“Preventing Prisons from Becoming a Nightmare for Disabled Prisoners”, March 2014.
Available at: http://www.engelliler.biz/forum/sakatlik-calismalari-inisiyatifi/128487-hapishanelerin-engelli-mahpuslar-icin-kabus-olmasinin-onune-gecebilmek.html

[ix] According to data from the Ministry, the distribution of LGBTİ prisoners across various institutions is as follows:
11 in Maltepe;
9 in Eskişehir;
7 each in Antalya Type L and Metris Type T No. 2;
6 each in Alanya Type L, Ankara Type L No. 2, Bafra Type T, and Kocaeli Type T No. 2;
5 in Çorum;
4 in Ankara Type L No. 1;
3 in Kocaeli Type T No. 1;
2 each in Adana Type E and Buca;
1 each in Afyonkarahisar Type E, Burdur Type E, Nevşehir Type E, Sivas Type E, and Tokat Type T.

[x] For accounts provided by LGBTİ prisoners themselves regarding allegations of isolation and their experiences of prison life, see the blog “LGBTİ in Prison” at:
http://lgbthapiste.wordpress.com/

[xi] According to data dated 15 April 2013, there were a total of 2,222 foreign-national prisoners held in Turkish prisons: 1,109 convicted and 1,113 in pre-trial detention.

[xii] According to data dated 3 March 2014, there were 2,080 prisoners aged 65 and over in Turkish prisons. Of these, 112 were over the age of 80.

[xiii] The data was obtained from the official website of the General Directorate of Prisons and Detention Houses (dated 4 April 2014).

[xiv] In response to our right-to-information requests — submitted on 11 March 2014 regarding the number of children in each prison, and on 22 February 2014 regarding the number of women and 0–6-year-old children staying with their mothers — the Ministry of Justice stated that they could not provide the requested figures because doing so would “require special examination, research, and work.”
Thus, although the total number of women and child prisoners is published on the website of the General Directorate of Prisons and Detention Houses, it is not possible to determine how many of them are held in which specific institutions.

[xv] It is worth recalling media reports indicating that the Ministry of Justice rejected requests from prisoners of the Alevi faith to be visited by Alevi religious leaders instead of Sunni imams.
For more on this issue, see: Ezgi Başaran, “Let the Ja’fari make do with the imam too!”, Radikal, 12 December 2013.

* This translation was produced with the assistance of ChatGPT and revised by the author.

Translation Glossary / Çeviri Sözlüğü