Department Report on Special Remissions: briefing

Meeting report

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
23 August 2005
DEPARTMENT REPORT ON SPECIAL REMISSIONS: BRIEFING

Chairperson:

Department Report on Special Remissions 2005
Minister’s briefing
President’s Minute No 358

SUMMARY
The Department briefed the Committee on the Special Remissions of sentence process and the rate of re-offending by those released under the programme. Much of the ensuing Committee discussion focused on the pre-release programme and the occurrence of re-offending. The Department and Members made it clear that communities would have to play an integral role in the reintegration of offenders.

MINUTES

Minister’s remarks
The Minister of Correctional Services said that the President had exercised his constitutional prerogative in granting special remission of sentences to qualifying offenders. He thanked all stakeholders for their participation in the releases, and said that the Department expected the Committee to be its partner in assessing the process.

He noted that amnesty was not a simple process, and acknowledged some recidivism. The Department had managed the process as responsibly as possible. He appealed to Members to continue mobilising communities to reintegrate released offenders. Communities would have to act in partnership with the Department and other stakeholders to ensure that repeat offending did not occur.

Department briefing
Ms Jabu Sishuba, Department Chief Deputy Commissioner: Development and Care, explained the rationale behind the process as well as the Department’s recommendations. He detailed the approval granted by the Cabinet and the President. The report indicated how the release schedule process had been implemented. It went into detail regarding the total number of releases from Community Corrections facilities, as well as Correctional Centres. It featured figures and comments regarding re-offending, the Department’s experience of the process, and its recommendations for future processes.

The report stated that Special Remission was enshrined in the Constitution and was a normal practice in democracies worldwide. In South Africa it was governed by placing safety first and promoting shared responsibility for the correction of offending behaviour as well as for rehabilitation.

Cabinet gave its approval for the President to be approached and recommended that the process should include, amongst others, a compulsory pre-release programme, a programme for restorative justice as well as the participation of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), community-based organisations (CBOs) and faith-based organisations (FBOs).

The Department had recommended that a maximum of three months special remission, irrespective of the crime committed, should be granted. In addition it had recommended that for those crimes that were not aggressive, sexual and drug related a maximum of seven months special remission should be granted. The President approved a maximum of six months special remission for all offenders regardless of their crimes and a maximum of fourteen months special remission for those serving sentences for crimes other than those which were aggressive, sexual, firearm or drug-related. Those sentenced under the Mental Health Act and those who had escaped and were still at large by 30 May 2005 were also excluded.

The report gave a week-by-week breakdown of the release schedule. The first two weeks had focussed on administration and assessment programmes as well as releases from Community Corrections. Week three saw the release of women, youth, children, the disabled as well as the aged, irrespective of their sentence categories. Weeks four to ten saw the release of all those offenders who qualified for special remission depending on the length of their sentence.

Approximately 64 000 offenders had benefited from the process: by 10 June 2005, 33 972 had been released from Community Corrections and by 10 August 2005, a further 11 501 had been conditionally and 20 364 unconditionally released from Correctional Centres.

The report made special mention of the 242 offenders above the age of 65, eight offenders who were disabled and 1 202 women offenders who had been released. Within the first week, 34 mothers and their babies had been released.

By 10 August 2005, 157 (including six women) had been readmitted to Correctional Centres as awaiting trial detainees. Their crimes were largely economic, but there were also eight cases of rape and three of murder. Interviews would be conducted with these detainees to establish what had caused their alleged re-offending.

The Chief Deputy Commissioner noted that on the whole, the experience had been positive especially as far as planning and coordination were concerned. Much had been learnt and would be applied in future projects. The special remissions programme had been aided by partnerships between the Department, external service providers, media as well as other stakeholders. The strengthening of partnerships with external service providers as well as the use of computerised programmes for the early detection of re-offenders entering the correctional system were amongst the practices that would be continued and developed.

The Department recommended that Special Remission should mark special national events. All stakeholders should have a common understanding of the process. It should be structured in a way that would allow adequate time to prepare prisoners as well as their families and communities for their reintegration. In addition, the process should be well documented for future reference.

The Chief Deputy Commissioner said that he felt compelled to comment on the recent rape of a three-year-old in the Western Cape by an offender who had been released under the special remissions process. He condemned this and similar horrors. The offender had been due for release on parole in September 2005. He had been convicted on charges of indecent assault and had himself been abused as a child. Now that the offender was back within the correctional system, something different needed to be done in order to try and rehabilitate him. A detailed report regarding the total number of re-offenders would be made available later.

Discussion
Mr J Selfe (DA) said that no Member had a problem with special remissions per se. However, he had concerns about the conditions that accompanied such remissions, especially regarding the release of offenders who could reasonably be expected to commit crimes again. Pointing out that an offender had commented to him that the pre-release programme was a ‘joke’, Mr Selfe requested greater detail regarding the pre-release programme and was interested in whether any correctional supervision was required after release.

He pointed out that the above mentioned case in the Western Cape raised many questions regarding the type of assessment that had been done to determine which offenders would be released, and whether adequate structures had been put in place to deal with such offenders.

Furthermore, he noted that between 4 August 2005 and 10 August 2005 the number of re-offenders had escalated by 26. How did this compare with the average rate of re-offending? Was this the standard rate?

The Chairperson reiterated that the offender in the Western Cape, regardless of the special remission, would have been eligible for parole, to which every prisoner was entitled, three months after his release. He could not have been kept within the correctional system beyond that point.

Mr Shishuba pointed out that in its original memorandum to the Cabinet, the Department had requested ten weeks in which to prepare those prisoners who qualified for release. Somehow the ten-week preparation period had become a ten-week release programme. The programme had been intended for a particular timeframe.

He had only heard from Mr Johan van Niekerk that the release programme was nothing more than a ‘sham’. No prisoner who had gone through the programme had made such a comment to him. He acknowledged that the Department could not develop an adequate release programme in the time they had been allocated to complete the entire process. The fact that there was no serious rehabilitation programme for offenders had contributed to the development of the White Paper. The Department accepted that they were not releasing rehabilitated, ‘corrected’ prisoners, but now there would be a programme in place, irrespective of whether they were to be released or not.

Regarding the case in the Western Cape, the Commissioner too reiterated that the prisoner could not have been kept beyond his parole date and that there had been no signs that he would re-offend. If he had been released in September, that release would have been without community supervision.

But for the release programmes that prepared offenders for their reintegration, the Commissioner noted that Community Supervision was still not adequate. He pointed out that very often the officers deployed were not the best the Department had to offer, often including those who had become an embarrassment to the Department. A process aimed at overhauling community supervision was under way but he stressed that it was an enormous task.

Without the support of families, communities and community-based organisations, the successful reintegration of offenders remained a difficult task. Communities and families together with community-based organisations would have to take responsibility and play a critical role in the process.

When giving the percentages of re-offending the intention was not to be propagandist. Although the low rate of re-offending was commendable, the Department was not claiming victory as yet. The usual rate of recidivism was 60% (although this had not been proved beyond a doubt), and so far 2.4% of those released on special remission had re-offended. The Department together with communities had a responsibility to ensure that offenders did not return to correctional facilities.

The Minister emphasised that the release programme was not a sham but had been hard work. The Department had done what it could. The Department had acted responsibly and had tried its best to be efficient. He noted that some, like the Commissioner and himself, came out of the process "bruised", especially considering the negative media coverage they had received. They were not acting in the interest of acquiring more funding but on behalf of all South Africans. The Department would continue doing this kind of work in their efforts to improve society.

Mr Selfe responded that he accepted the Minister’s response, but would like a more specific answer regarding the release programme. Ms S Rajbally (MF) also asked whether all prisoners had gone through a process of rehabilitation before their release.

The Commissioner said that for the first time, amnesty had been accompanied by a pre-release programme. Before 1994 prisoners were released without preparation. Time constraints did not allow for an adequate release programme. Those prisoners not released within the ten-week period would have been held illegally. It was also possible that those prisoners released later benefited more from the pre-release programmes than those released earlier in the process. Much of the programme dealt with how offenders would be reintegrated into the communities. Programmes had not necessarily been crime specific. Some preparation had been done prior to Cabinet approving the process, but offenders could not be prepared for release unless it was definite. Now crime specific programmes were being designed.

The Deputy Commissioner said that it was disappointing that an offender who had been given the opportunity to become part of society again had referred to the release programme as a joke.

She pointed out that the pre-release programme was aimed at preparation and not at rehabilitation. The Department had assessed the risks for relapse as well as the needs of the offenders.

The Department had worked with NGOs and other specialists in different fields to analyse their assessment tools.

The programme had not been intended to be therapeutic, but aimed at assisting the soon to be released offenders in finding employment, restoring relationships with families, communities and in some instances, victims. It offered assistance in financial management as well as health care issues; it also offered assistance in dealing with drug abuse. These were aimed at preparing the offenders for reintegration.

Mr N B Fihla (ANC) commented that dealing with individuals was not similar to dealing with inanimate objects. An offender entered prison a raw product but did not necessarily come out as a finished product. He noted that one of the aspects that jeopardised effective rehabilitation was overcrowding in prisons. Offenders often left correctional facilities worse off due to the fact that in prison they mixed with hardened criminals.

He commended the Department for the fact that only 157 of the more than 60 000 prisoners released had re-offended and said that the special remission process had greatly reduced the number of people in prison. If special remission could be identified around important dates as recommended by the Department, this would further assist in reducing over-crowding in prisons.

The Minister responded that the challenge posed by over-crowding needed to be addressed. He said everyone in the Portfolio Committee was aware of the challenges the Department was faced with in terms of putting programmes in place. He agreed with the Commissioner that an overhaul of Community Service was necessary; albeit difficult especially considering that the service had been stagnant for years. Most officials needed to be retrained. He hoped that the Portfolio Committee would assist the Department in its efforts to make it more cohesive.

Risk assessment of sentenced as well as unsentenced prisoners, too, was a massive undertaking. He commended the Committee for its commitment to its task, especially regarding its suggestions with regard to the training of new recruits.

Mr L J Tolo (ANC) pointed out that the Department would always be called to the Committee to explain those aspects of its activities the Committee did not fully understand. When the Department was called to explain, it was not to fight, but to gain a better understanding of its activities especially since the Department and the Portfolio Committee should act as one.

The Chairperson thanked the Minister for the clarification on the 157 re-offenders. He requested that robbery should also be defined since in many cases such offences were motivated by poverty.

Ms L S Chikunga (ANC) noted that rehabilitation was not absolute but relative. She too applauded the Department for acting responsibly. The advantages of the special remissions clearly outweighed the disadvantages. She echoed the Minister and the Commissioner’s request that communities needed to participate. She also condemned acts of violence.

On a visit to a correctional facility in Limpopo, the Committee had found that almost all awaiting-trial detainees had been accused of serious offences. Only serious offenders were imprisoned while those accused of less serious offences served their sentences within the community. This assisted in keeping the number of people in prison low. In many cases, poverty and unemployment could not be disregarded as contributing factors.

Mr S Mahote (ANC) pointed out that constituencies too needed to take responsibility. After all issues had been debated, it was important that appropriate actions were taken. After workshops and briefings, officials were invited to his constituency to address them. The Committee should also be included in the partnerships that had been spoken about and should also give feedback regarding their activities.

Ms S Rajbally (MF) asked whether there were still mothers and babies in prison. What happened to foreign nationals on their release?

The Commissioner responded that there were still mothers and babies in correctional facilities since their release depended upon the nature of their crimes. The exact numbers would be made available later.

Those foreign nationals who were in the country legally were released like any other offender. Those in the country illegally however, were deported in collaboration with the Department of Home Affairs and the relevant embassies.

In closing, the Commissioner said they would report back to the Committee once the finalised report had been presented to the Cabinet.

The meeting was adjourned.