Correctional Services Act: Monitoring Implementation: presentation by Open Society Foundation

Correctional Services

11 August 2006
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
11 August 2006
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ACT: MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION: PRESENTATION BY OPEN SOCIETY FOUNDATION

Chairperson: Mr D V Bloem (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Open Society Foundation Presentation; Monitoring the implementation of the Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998

SUMMARY

The Open Society Foundation gave a overview of their joint project with the Department of Correctional Services to monitor the implementation of the Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998 and to promote the development of legislation that was both sound and capable of implementation. The various areas to be monitored included the conditions of incarceration; oversight and protection of human rights; prison management; the functions and duties of parole boards; health care and rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders into society. Funding of R3 million funding had been provided and the expected project outcomes over the next three years were summarised. A conference on sentencing issues would be held in October. The OSF looked forward to constructive engagement with the Committee.

Questions from members related to the criteria for OSF funding other organizations, their activity in rural areas, and their involvement in child offenders in prison. There was a lengthy comment on minimum sentences and it was clear that the Committee considered minimum sentencing legislation to be an effective deterrent and was unconvinced that it affected overcrowding in prisons. The OSF had no stance as yet and would await the outcome of its research. Other questions related to the review of parole policy, the inadequate use of safe facilities for children, and the need to balance punishment and rehabilitation, and the often conflicting rights and privileges relating to prisoners. It was also important to consider the rights of Correctional Services staff.

MINUTES
Ms Louise Ehlers (Senior Project Officer, Criminal Justice Initiative, Open Society Foundation of South Africa (OSF-SA)) reported that OSF-SA and the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) ran a joint project to monitor the implementation of the Correctional Services Act No 111 of 1998.
OSF aimed to support holistic approaches to the reduction of crime in South Africa, with a particular focus on strengthening accountability in the criminal justice system.

Ms Ehlers described and explained the rationale behind the project, which would promote the development of legislation that was both sound and capable of practical implementation. Several areas of the Act that would be monitored included the conditions of incarceration; oversight and protection of human rights; prison management; the functions and duties of parole boards; health care and rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders into society.

OSF-SA had given R3 million funding to the project. The expected project outcomes were summarized over the following three years.

Discussion

The Chairperson thanked the presenters commented favourably on the briefing and asked for the OSF’s criteria in deciding to fund an NGO.

Ms Ehlers commented that the foundation’s particular agenda, was building democracy and creating accountability. She explained that OSF-SA had developed a strategy for administering funds based upon current issues, so that all NGOs were free to submit proposals for consideration. If the proposal fell within the strategy of OSF and the NGO could demonstrate that they had sound management, governance and financial systems, it would be considered. OSF-SA’s Board met four times a year to consider recommendations submitted, and if the criteria were met, funding would be allocated.

The Chairperson asked how many NGOs were currently funded by OSF-SA.

Ms Ehlers said that she would give the committee a copy of the OSF-SA annual report, which contained a list of all OSF-SA’s grantees. This information also appeared on the website www.osf.org.za.

Mr Sean Tait (Criminal Justice Initiative, OSF-SA) clarified that the Open Society Foundation had a budget of R40 million which was spread across all its three programmes, and which was negotiated annually. The criminal justice initiative on averaged disbursed R10 million per annum. There were currently between 15 and 20 organisations funded by OSF-SA.

The chair commented that as the committee had visited prisons across the country it found that NGOs were very active in prisons in urban, but not rural areas. He questioned what OSF-SA was doing to aid the development of NGOs in rural areas.

Ms Ehlers explained that OSF-SA was a foreign donor, and since funds were channelled from outside the country, it could only provide funding for NGOs on an annual basis, and therefore could not definitely commit itself to funding ongoing service delivery of small NGO
s. OSF-SA had to exercise strategic spending. It tried to  encourage its grantees to engage with smaller organisations and offer assistance and training, and NGOs making application for grants were asked how they intended to strengthen other organizations.  in there area would be strengthened. For example, OSF-SA, as part of its strategy on working on violence against women, had funded The Network on Violence against Women, who in turn strengthened smaller organisations in their sector.

Mr N Fihla (ANC) raised the question of minimum sentences that was referred to in the presentation. He questioned how this could be balanced against the upsurge of serious crimes in the country, and asked for further clarity on the monitoring of this issue

Ms Ehlers confirmed that this issue definitely required further debate, which was why OSF-SA had started the project. When the minimum sentencing legislation was introduced, it was intended as a temporary measure to address and reduce serious and violent crimes. Despite several reviews of the legislation there had been very little real update on the research conducted by the South African Law Commission in 2000. There had also been insufficient analysis whether the minimum sentence provisions had effectively reduced the level of violent crime in South Africa. OSF-SA therefore needed to gather empirical evidence as a starting point for discussion on comprehensive sentencing reform.

Ms Ehlers believed that the legislation was currently very cumbersome. Cases that were tried in regional courts, which were referred to the High Court for sentencing, took far too long and placed a burden on the prosecution services. There were many other technical issues also in the legislation that needed to be reviewed and resolved.

It was also necessary to engage in serious debate about how best to reduce serious and violent crime, including a decision on whether this could be achieved through the current legislation. It would also require a comprehensive decision on sentencing policy. She suggested that a possible solution would be to promote alternative sentencing for petty offences but firm and just penalties for crimes of a more serious nature.
 
Ms Ehlers reported that OSF-SA had commissioned one piece of research on whether the minimum sentencing legislation had achieved its intended impact, and another on the impact of sentencing practice on overcrowding.
At this stage there were no conclusive findings, because the research was not finalised. OSF-SA was holding an international sentencing conference on 26 and 27 October, which would be attended by sentencing experts from America, United Kingdom and possibly Australia, and which would debate how sentencing practices in South Africa could best address serious and violent crime.

Mr Filha commented that one school of thought held that the enactment of minimum sentencing had created the overcrowding phenomena in prisons. He, however, firmly believed that long periods of imprisonment, perhaps even life sentences, would be a better deterrent, considering the rise in violent crime in the country. He noted that currently 70 000 people were serving minimum sentences; an increase from 35 000 in 2003. He believed this was a justifiable increase as society regarded their serious crimes as deserving of this punishment.

The Chairperson stated that these sentiments were generally shared by the committee. He added that the Committee felt there was a real need to bring in harsher sentences for serious crimes. The Committee were as yet unconvinced that that overcrowding was caused by minimum sentencing. Nothing had yet persuaded them to detract from their original view that the legislation must be supported. 70% of prisoners had been convicted of minor offences and only 30% of rape, murder and other serious crimes.

The Chairperson suggested there needed, however, to be a review of the parole policy.

Ms Ehlers agreed that there was as yet very little hard evidence to substantiate the link between overcrowding and sentencing. This had been the reason for OSF-SA’s decision to delay the debate until it had conducted adequate research. Although she could not as yet comment on the findings, she pointed out that the minimum sentencing policy would not yet have impacted on overcrowding as only the start of the sentences were being served. The long term projection, taking into account the full length of sentences, as well as extra time relating to  parole provisions could well differ, and this would also be addressed in the research. Ms Ehlers commented that it was necessary to develop a system that dealt properly with serious and violent crime but was also fair in respect of less serious offences. For this reason OSF-SA had decided not to limit their research only to minimum sentencing, but include a comprehensive review of sentencing policy. OSF-SA held no particular position and were open to persuasion following the research.

She pointed out that there were many ways of ensuring a long sentence other than the current minimum sentencing policy. The experience and expertise of international judges and judicial officers would expand on this at the conference. Members would receive invitations to the conference in October, and should expect a lively debate on the best interests of the country, and balancing the public’s right to protection with the rights of those in the criminal justice system.

Mr Fihla commented that the Committee had been impressed by a visit to New Zealand that focused on their justice system. The New Zealand system emphasised that there was no reason to keep small-time offenders in prison. Of 26 thousand sentenced to prison, only six thousand people were actually held in prison at that time. Those who had committed minor offences had been released. Mr Fihla suggested OSF-SA could assist the Committee in monitoring minor offences committed in South Africa and analyse how offenders who were not a danger to society could be reintegrated into normal society.

The Chairperson noted that there would be a review of the Correctional Services Act, which OSF-SA felt was outdated. He asked which areas OSF-SA considered needed review. He also pointed out that there was a sharp increase of children in prison, particularly in Eastern Cape, and questioned how OSF could assist DCS in keeping children out of prison.

Ms Ehlers confirmed that OSF-SA was very concerned about children in the criminal justice system, and had given support to organisations that were working on diversion programmes. She believed that the Child Justice Bill must be brought back into discussion urgently, as many of its provisions would protect children and keep them out of prison.

On the issue of rehabilitation OSF-SA were concerned that the Correctional Services Act had not met the aims of the White Paper in defining rehabilitation in explicit terms. The work of DCS needed to be more closely aligned with defined objectives.

Mr Lukas Muntingh (Prison Reform Initiative, OSF) commented that at a recent workshop Eastern Cape magistrates reported that they were experiencing problems with children in the criminal justice system. Department of Social Justice (DSJ) had reported that the current secure care facilities for children were under utilised, whilst children were imprisoned instead. He noted that DSJ, at the request of National Treasury, had embarked on a programme to increase the capacity of secure care facilities nationwide, and this would hopefully reduce the number of awaiting trial child prisoners. The figure of one thousand children in prison had reduced by half over the past three years, which demonstrated that, given sufficient impetus in the Cluster, it was possible to utilise secure care facilities.

Mr Muntingh added that the Child Justice Bill had been delayed since 2003. If the broader question of children in conflict with the law was to be addressed, Parliament must now revive it to create the necessary legislative framework

Mr Muntingh stressed that OSF-SA could not speculate on how the Correctional Services Act should be amended pending the outcome of the research.

Mr Freddie Englebrech (Area Manager, Department of Correctional Services), commented that the DCS had already amended the Act to align it with the White Paper and did not agree that the Act was badly outdated. He was Nationally responsible for children in prison, and met on a monthly basis with the Department of Social Development (DSD). This was the first time he was made aware that secure care facilities were under utilized, and he would certainly take this issue up with DSD.

The Chairperson noted that the presentation had also mentioned monitoring of human rights of inmates. He believed that the issue of rights needed to be balanced against the issue of privileges of serious offenders.

Mr Fihla believed privileges needed to be balanced against the type of crime a person had committed and whether inmates could be rehabilitated. A proper balance between these issues was necessary. 

Dr Bengu (DCS) confirmed that this issue was a challenge, and often involved competition between contradictory rights. He added that the rights of the DCS staff also needed to be taken into the equation.

Ms Ehlers expressed her agreement and explained that the broad areas selected for monitoring were taken from the Act. She suggested that DCS, as a management issue, should investigate how privileges were created, managed and monitored. She emphasised that OSF-SA was also concerned with DCS staff who worked under incredibly stressful circumstances. These issues would emerge as OSF collected data, and it would respond accordingly.

The Chairperson welcomed the OSF’s concern with DCS staff, whose jobs could traumatising and frustrating, with the staff perception often being that inmates enjoyed more privileges and experienced a greater protection of human rights than staff.

The Chairperson also stressed that the steps taken to prevent recurrence of crime must be reviewed and there should be a proper balance between punishment and rehabilitation.

Ms Ehlers commented that OSF had achieved interesting work with other portfolio committees in the past and welcomed the opportunity to engage with this Committee.

The meeting adjourned

 

Audio

No related

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: