Overcrowding in Prisons; Electronic Monitoring: briefing

23 February 1999
OVERCROWDING IN PRISONS; ELECTRONIC MONITORING: BRIEFING

SUMMARY
Owing to the overcrowding in prisons within South Africa, alternative solutions to incarceration need to be found and implemented. The use of electronic monitoring for less serious offenders was discussed.

Documents provided:
Briefing document: Options to alleviate overcrowding in prisons (available shortly)

MINUTES
Ms Hani (Chairperson) welcomed the Correctional Services, Mr B Skosana, who then made a short introductory statement. He emphasised amongst other things that the Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) was an integral part of the Criminal Justice System (CJS) in South Africa but so far this has not been seen to be the case. He called for greater co-operation between each limb of the CJS so that solutions to such problems as overcrowding would be more forthcoming and easier to implement. The Minister said that he had had discussions with both the Minister of Police and the Minister of Justice and had decided to explore alternatives to incarceration to reduce the overcrowding of prisons since "we cannot reduce the inflow of prisoners". Electronic monitoring and supervision of offenders outside of prison were his proposals. A side effect of using such alternatives, he added, would be a reduction in the expenditure of the DOCS.

The Minister then returned to the subject of co-operation between Departments and expressed support for closer relationships between the courts and magistrates; these judicial bodies could then be instrumental in increasing the use of alternative sentencing such as community correction for those offenders, for example, who cannot pay fines and would thus otherwise be put in prison.

The Minister concluded that society is not sympathetic to alternatives to prison. The public wants offenders to be "locked up". He then joked that this could be achieved if Mr Manuel could be persuaded to extend the Government’s budget a little more favourably in the direction of prisons.

The Minister then apologised that he could not stay any longer and left the meeting.

There then followed a run through of the briefing by Messrs Ramashala and Hlongwane of the DOCS. (see Briefing document)

Questions on briefing
The Chairperson asked for questions to be directed towards the representatives of the DOCS. These questions were dealt with in groups of three, thus giving time for the addressees to formulate their answers as well as for the benefit of the rest of the committee who took it in turns to have their questions dealt with. (Where questions clearly came from a single member of the committee as opposed to being shared by several, their name is noted.)

(from Mr Botha – FF) What are the latest figures for prisoners awaiting trial?

54,869 on 31/1/99 which shows an increase on last year’s figures.

(from Chairperson) Please can the presenters of the briefing clarify what options they are considering and what exactly is their request for help.

It was emphasised that the main thrust of the documents was to encourage other Departments to assist the DOCS. The DOCS would find it very difficult to find a solution on its own.

What is the number of amnesty prisoners who have come back?

Answer not known. In the opinion of the representatives present, not many. Unfortunately the Minister in charge had left so no clear answer could be given.

What category of awaiting trialists is the DOCS dealing with? Is the use of electronic monitoring (EM) open to be used on all offenders?

Those offenders who are required to pay R200 or less will be those considered for EM. The fee of R200 implies that the person has committed a trivial offence but the determining factor will be the fine/bail requirement.

The policy of the committee has been against "bursting" (i.e. releasing offenders on the basis of broad criteria). The committee demands that the briefing is not advocating "bursting" as a course of action but rather a way in which each prisoner can be treated equally, e.g. by assessing them individually before a court of law on the merits of each case.

The DOCS could not place those awaiting trial in any other system. The committee was assured that every offender would be treated individually.

Clarification was sought on the information set out on p.5 of the briefing.

The number of unsentenced prisoners is increasing because amnesty prisoners "came in" as prisoners awaiting trial.

Is the DOCS assuming too much by thinking that poor people are "not dangerous" people?

Such poor people will get into the Community Corrective System and will be dealt with in accordance with the system.

(Botha – FF) He remarked that he was "a bit depressed" by what he was hearing. What was the justification behind the decision to make the "cut-off" point for classification of minor offenders to be R200? Mr Botha requested i) a clearer definition of who would qualify; ii) a distinction between when Correctional Supervision would entail EM or Community work; and iii) a clear breakdown of how the DOCS came to the alternative solutions that it was suggesting.

The representative failed to understand the entirety of the question, claiming it was "too long" for his consideration. In answer to the reasons behind selecting R200 as a cut-off point , he asserted that "R200 was simply a suggestion" and did not provide an explanation as to why that figure was chosen.

This issue of the "cut-off" point was then considered in more general discussion. It was emphasised that the R200 must not be the only criteria. Each case must be dealt with on it merits, on the danger of the criminal and history, etc. Mr Botha (FF) again expressed worry about the release of certain criminals and several others on the committee shared this worry. He wanted to know whether or not the DOCS had considered putting criminals on release as labourers or something useful to society where they can at the same time be monitored effectively.

Mr Oosthuizen (NNP) added that there was a need for clarity and practicality. He assured the representatives of the DOCS that no one was questioning their motives or intentions but emphasised that it was not right for them to be basing the emphasis on the financial status of the offender. "Poverty is relative and nothing to do with crime," he concluded.

The representatives attempted to calm the concern of the members of the committee by repeating that their emphasis was on the trivial offence NOT on poverty as criteria.

A demonstration of the EM equipment followed.

Several members expressed concern over the possibility of offenders tampering with the EM wrist attachment but the DOCS highlighted that each offender is to sign an agreement not to tamper with the gadget otherwise they would be committing a criminal offence (…much laughter ensued.)

The range of the EM system was quoted as being 100m; some members thought that this was not very adequate.

The cost of the system was estimated at R10, 000 per annum but again this figure was attacked as being founded on unclear/non-existent principles.

Mr Botha (FF) was the last member to speak before the meeting was cut short (because another meeting had been booked for the same room). He summed up many of the members’ concerns by saying that he worried about the efficiency of the system. The range of the EM detector was "deplorable" and the system "assumes prisoners will be in range". It "does not take into account the territorial problem" and there are no indications of personnel costs".

The Chairperson closed the meeting briefly by stating on behalf of the Committee that the option of EM was accepted in principle but a few things needed to be qualified. No one was happy with the technicalities.

Representatives present:

ANC: Bloem, Mr D V
Chiba, Mr L
Diale, Mr N L
Fazzie, Mr H M
Fihla, Mr N B
Hani, Mrs L (Chairperson)
Kathrada, Mr A M
Malumise, Ms M M
Nel, Mr A C
Sosibo, Ms J E
Thompson, Ms B
Tolo, Bishop L J
Sikhakhane, Mr M

NNP: Gogotya, Mr N J
Marais, Mnr J A
Oosthuizen, Mnr G C

FF: Botha, Mnr W A

IFP: Neerahoo, Mr H M
Seaton, Mrs S A (AP)