Impact of Imprisonment on Women & Children: briefings by Centre for Study of Violence & Reconciliation, & SA Human Rights Commis

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
25 August 2006
IMPACT OF IMPRISONMENT ON WOMEN AND CHILDREN: BRIEFINGS BY CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF VIOLENCE AND RECONCILIATION, AND SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Chairperson: Mr D Bloem (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Minority Report: The imprisonment of women and girls in Gauteng
Violence and Abuse in the Lives of women and Girls incarcerated at three Gauteng women’s prisons
The Impact of Imprisonment on Women and Children
Unchartered Territory: The Imprisonment of Women in Africa (not discussed)
Now we have Nothing: Exploring the impact of maternal imprisonment on children whose mothers killed an abusive partner (not discussed)

SUMMARY
The South African Human Rights Commission and the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation briefed the Committee on the impact of imprisonment on women and their children. Both presented the results of studies done. Both organisations agreed that because the female inmate population was so small it was very often neglected as far as care programmes and training were concerned. They urged that non-custodial sentencing should be considered, while bearing in mind that some women had committed serious crimes, and that some offenders, both male and female, would not be rehabilitated. It was also felt that all role players needed to get involved to ensure that sentencing was just and that the rights of those who were in prison were guarded. All role players needed to be educated around the impact of imprisonment, especially parole boards.

Members raised a number of questions and discussion points. These included the need for education of children in prison, the effects, both social and financial, of imprisoning mothers, problems posed for women around reproductive organs, and special nutritional needs of mothers and children in prison. The involvement of NGOs in correctional facilities was clarified. Re-skilling and training were raised, with reference to the different opportunities offered to men and women prisoners. Sentencing parameters and considerations were discussed. The abuse of social grants and education around these issues was an important point. Generally many of the comments spoke to broad issues relating to poverty, crime and general social dysfunction, and the high levels of crime and violence in South Africa. It was agreed that this went beyond the scope of the Department of Correctional Services alone, but would need to involve social and justice clusters.

Since the issue of children in prison had been raised in the State of the Nation address, the Committee had to respond to the challenges and needed support from all sectors of society including the media. The Chairperson undertook personally to guide the Committee in addressing the overcrowding situation, as well as issues relating to women and children.

MINUTES
Chairperson’s opening remarks
The Chairperson appreciated the attendance of both the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR) and the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) to brief the Committee on the impact of imprisonment on women. This month commemorated the 1956 women’s march to the Union Buildings to protest against passbooks. The sacrifices women had made contributed to South Africa’s advancement and would not be forgotten.

The Committee was very concerned about the plight of women and children who found themselves in prison. Terrible conditions prevailed in correctional facilities. He knew that many of the women had committed very serious crimes, such as murder and robbery, but felt that the majority of them were in prison owing to economic offences. Long-term damage could be caused to these women and their children.

The Chairperson had visited a Johannesburg correctional facility with Ms Lisa Vetten of the CSVR two years earlier and knew that CSVR and SAHRC organisations were very involved in this field. They would brief the committee and would make recommendations that would hopefully give some guidance as far as finding solutions. He expressed concern about a new trend that had been highlighted by the area commissioner responsible for the Durban Westville facility, that many women were charged with “loitering” or “trespassing” and incarcerated.

Minority Report Presentation – CSVR Presentation
Ms Lisa Vetten (Researcher, CSVR) briefed the Committee on the findings of a study done in Gauteng. She reported on the methodology that had been used as well as the limitations of the study and its key findings. The length of time served by the women ranged from one month to more than 11 years and most had already served two years of their sentence. The study extended to the women’s educational background, their exposure to abuse (prior to entering the facility as well as during their incarceration) and their employment history. It also considered the impact their imprisonment had on their relationships with each other, their families and their children. The study revealed that women requested more activities while in prison, better access to mental and physical health services and that 10% believed that the system of punishment, sentencing, incarceration and release needed to be reformed.

Violence and Abuse - CSVR Presentation
Ms Vetten reported that this study, that was done at correctional facilities in the Gauteng area, focused on the crimes women had committed and the sentences they received, the various types of sexual violence the women had been exposed to (in and outside of an intimate relationship, as well as in prison) and how the findings compared to international data. The key finding was that the women had experienced a higher than average degree of violence in their intimate relationships, with almost 90% of them having experienced at least one form of abuse in their intimate relationships during their lifetime.

The Impact of Imprisonment on women and children SAHRC Presentation
Ms Judith Cohen (Commissioner: SAHRC) focused on the impact of imprisonment on children whose mothers were in prison and children who were in prison with their mothers. It specifically focused on the need for education of children who were in prison. The children of female offenders were affected in a number of ways, including a change in their caregivers, emotional and behavioural changes, added responsibilities, social stigma and they often fell into conflict with the law. These effects were exacerbated in children of women who had killed their partners. Ms Cohen emphasised that all children had the right to basic education, which included education for children who were older than 15 but whose basic educational needs had not yet been met. The SAHRC’s recommendations included the need for more education and research, greater use of non-custodial sentencing and the need to educate parole boards on the impact of their mother’s imprisonment on children.

Discussion
The Chairperson commented that the situation was very serious and that both organisations had given the Committee much to work on.

Rev L Tolo (ANC) agreed that the information was very important. He wondered whether the two organisations were aware that at the women’s section of the Thoyoandou correctional facility women were given only water to prepare food for their babies.

Ms Vetten explained that issues around reproduction and reproductive organs (questions of pregnancy, birth and menstruation) illustrated another important difference between the imprisonment of women and men. Although she had not highlighted issues of pregnancy, birth and menstruation in her presentation they were matters of concern. Poor women especially complained that they could not afford to buy the sanitary products they needed. If their families could not visit them, these women had no access to such products at all. She wondered whether there was any way that one could convince companies to donate sanitary products on a monthly basis.

Ms Vetten agreed that the nutritional needs of pregnant and lactating mothers were not necessarily met, as they required more milk and a different diet. There needed to be an investigation whether their needs, as well the nutritional needs of babies and toddlers, were being met.

Rev Tolo said that at the Committee’s recent visit to the Eastern Cape members found that a pregnant mother, who already had a two year old, had been sentenced to 12 months in prison because she had stolen a pair of shoes worth R99 for the toddler. The woman gave birth while in prison.

Ms Vetten said that it was a sad fact that the South African public had become so punitive, and tended to imprison for every offence. There was not always an adequate understanding of poverty and life circumstances. It was also a waste of taxpayers’ money to jail someone who had stolen something of very little monetary value. She felt that it would be worthwhile to determine what had become of the Law Reform Commission’s discussions on the new sentencing framework. It was necessary to come up with different and innovative ways of looking at sentencing and it was important to revive those discussions because prisons really should be kept for those who most deserved them.

Rev Tolo commented that not all women were victims of abuse, as the presentations appeared to suggest. Some of them were very dangerous and had committed very serious crimes.

Ms Vetten agreed that there were women and men who truly belonged behind bars so that society could be protected. She emphasised that those men and women who committed petty crimes posed no threat to society and did not belong in prison. She reiterated that sentencing was an area that needed to be addressed.

Ms S Rajbally (MF) said that the presenters had highlighted many important matters and that the Committee must attend to some of the matters raised. She wondered whether the CSVR had any authority relating to visiting correctional facilities and the women imprisoned in them, and what level of involvement it had.

The Chairperson agreed that this was a very valid question, and asked to what extent non-governmental organisations (NGOs) were involved in correctional facilities.

Ms Vetten said that her organisation had been visiting the women’s section at the Johannesburg facility since 1998. They also visited the women’s sections at Heidelberg, Potchefstroom and Pretoria. Much of their work related to representing women who had killed their abusive partners, writing expert witness reports, sometimes assisting them with trying to locate and resume contact with their children, getting social grants for their children, getting the Department of Social Development (DSD) to intervene, such as in cases where the children were being abused by the alternative caregivers. There was inconsistency between how DSD and Department of Correctional Services’ (DCS) social workers dealt with children. Children whose mothers were in prison often fell through the gaps since there did not appear to be anyone who monitored their well-being.

CSVR was representing these women in court and was now trying to assist them with matters related to parole. There were also attempts to run some training programmes but these were hampered by the fact that many prisons, like the one in Johannesburg, were extremely overcrowded.

The Chairperson asked Ms Vetten to give greater clarity on CSVR’s relationship with DCS and to comment whether  there were any blockages

Ms Vetten responded that the relationship with DCS was extremely challenging.

The Chairperson assured her that the Committee would look into it.

Mr N Fihla (ANC) commended the research Ms Vetten had presented. He noted that the research indicated that the facilities available to women were far fewer than those available to men, especially in relation to skills training. When the Committee visited the Durban-Westville facility they saw that the women had access to computers and education. He wondered whether Ms Vetten felt that these privileges were not enough to keep the women occupied.

Ms Vetten said that between the hours of 2pm and 8am, when they were locked in their cells, inmates had nothing to do. This was not to say that DCS was not trying and it was not running some training programmes, but she felt that women should be trained in areas that would be of greater use to them upon their release, rather than only in sewing, laundry and hairdressing. Women needed to receive training that would give them better opportunities when they were released and would prevent them from getting involved in criminal activities again. Women also needed access to those unique skills such as the ones needed in the steel and timber industries, which had traditionally been male domains, since they offered greater opportunities and better wages. DCS should perhaps also try to determine where skills were needed and then train women in them so that they could serve in those areas of the economy.

Mr Fihla noted that 37% of the women who took part in the study were in prison because they had committed murders. The Committee had met women at Durban Westville who, despite their commendable behaviour in prison and the fact that they were very highly educated, had committed serious and premeditated crimes. He wondered whether Ms Vetten thought it fair that such women should receive alternative sentences.

Ms S Chikunga (ANC) cited an example of a group of women who habitually stole from large retailers in Ermelo, and sold the goods in their village. They would set bail money aside when transacting. Magistrates said that it was cheaper to send these women to prison than to go through the costly bail process each time they appeared before the court. She asked whether Ms Vetten advocated that gender should be used as a mitigating factor so that men and women were not sentenced equally when committing the same crime. She added that some youth were extremely cruel despite their young age.

Ms Vetten refuted the perception that women should receive special sentences. Such a belief would negate everything that one wanted to achieve on gender equality. She urged members to bear in mind that across the world men and women had very different backgrounds. In some ways women were more disadvantaged than men. Magistrates and judges needed to be cognizant of mitigating circumstances. In sentencing they should look not only at the crime that had been committed but also at the values of the offender’s community, the offender’s circumstances and the opportunities that had been available to them. In this manner judges and magistrates would arrive at fair judgments and fair sentences. Using these guidelines they might find that it was not always necessary to send every offender to prison.

She was not suggesting that the women should not be held responsible for their actions but wished to stress that if mothers were imprisoned for long periods the impact on their children was greater than imprisonment of fathers. If women were to be sent to prison for long periods proper support structures must be in place for their children and families. Both women and men should be held responsible for their actions and should be made to repay their debts to society, but their lives should not be destroyed in the process. Many people who were in trouble with the law were not bad people, but lived in bad circumstances.

Mr Fihla reminded everyone that DCS received offenders who had already been sentenced and so there was a constant need for interaction between the Departments of Justice, Correctional Services and Safety and Security. Ideally, senior officials from all three departments should assess offenders to decide the best sentencing option. This would prevent imprisonment where it was not justified.

Mr Fihla was aware that gangsterism was less rife in female prisons than male ones. Women prisoners were generally not as violent as their male counterparts. Nevertheless the conditions in prisons impacted on the children who were there with their mothers. There were not enough crèches in correctional facilities. There was a need to move towards a restorative rather than retributive system. He added that many people were in prison because they could not afford to pay their bail. The Justice Cluster should try to address this matter and such people should be released from prison since they did not pose a threat to society.

Rev Tolo commented on the number of mothers who had taken part in the CSVR’s research. He wondered why the number of women in prison had increased.

Ms Cohen said that there was a general increase in the number of people in prison. There had been an increase in the length of the sentences and the prison population would increase in direct proportion. There was much discussion around the adverse effect that minimum sentencing legislation had on the prison population.
 
Rev Tolo said that in the rural areas the government had tried to assist children by rolling out the child support grants. Their mothers however often spent that money on themselves and consequently the children suffered. He wondered what SAHRC thought could be done.

Mr M Phala (ANC) added that Government had tried to address the problems around the care of children by making the child support grant available. He wondered whether the organisations felt that women who abused the grant should be arrested and jailed.

Ms Cohen said that in addition to community service programmes, other organisations, such as National Institute for the Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation of Offenders (NICRO) and civil society organisations, should also run programmes that educated women on the impact of imprisonment on themselves and their children should they commit offences. A far more rehabilitative approach was necessary. It was necessary to ensure that the punishment was fair and that the necessary social support systems and access to social security were available.

Ms Cohen said that many questions had been raised on rural areas and the abuse of social grants. It had also been said that many women purposefully fell pregnant in order to access the child grant. More research was needed to verify this. Communities, civil society organisations and churches could play a role in identifying grant abuse. Children had a right to the grant, which admittedly was limited but made a huge difference to the poor.

She reminded the Committee that older persons, who received a substantially larger grant, also fell victim to social grant abuse, often due to the extreme levels of poverty in some areas. This raised questions around what was being done to address poverty and social dysfunction. Church groups and community-based organisations could play a role.

The Children’s Bill would deal specifically with street children and the abuse they faced. Ms Cohen said that South Africa should have effective mechanisms in place that would ensure that children were adequately cared for.

Ms Rajbally wondered whether any research had been done as far as placing women offenders under house arrest and having them report to authorities on a regular basis. They would then be able to serve the community in a number of activities. Only repeat offenders should be sentenced to prison.

Ms Cohen felt that many of the comments spoke to far broader issues that related to poverty, crime and general social dysfunction and the high levels of crime in South Africa. They went beyond DCS but also involved Social and Justice Clusters. They linked up with much of the current discussion around why South Africa had such high rates of social dysfunction and violence. It was necessary to examine what was done incorrectly, determine where interventions were needed, and create a human rights culture where everyone was treated with respect and dignity, properly in accordance with South Africa’s Constitution.

The law already made provision for mechanisms that would make non-custodial sentencing possible. Courts needed to be encouraged to use them. It was important to raise awareness among magistrates, judges, public prosecutors and defence attorneys. Offenders who could not afford legal representation, had defence attorneys appointed by the Legal Aid Board. Often these attorneys were young and inexperienced. It was important for all role players to be sensitised to all the issues that were involved when representing a woman who was also a mother. Often it was easier to give a prison sentence than to go the alternative route. At the initial phases this route was more costly and more time consuming. This however was far outweighed by the physical costs (R44 000 per inmate per year), and the social costs of incarcerating someone who could be diverted and effectively rehabilitated, and the impact of their incarceration on their children. It would be in the best interests of the children involved if mothers were given alternative sentences wherever possible, so that there was less negative impact which could potentially lead to the children themselves becoming offenders.

The Chairperson felt that sometimes civil society organisations were not vocal enough as far as sentencing procedures were concerned. He recalled that two judges had spoken out very strongly against a sentence that had been passed in a Limpopo case. SAHRC too should speak out strongly against inappropriate sentencing.

The Chairperson asked if the reasons for the high number of murders that were being committed by women were known, so that the problem could be addressed. He reiterated that many women were imprisoned for economic crimes. He requested the CSVR and the SAHRC to make recommendations that would assist in responding to the difficulties that had been raised especially as far as alternative sentencing was concerned.

Ms Vetten said that magistrates should consider the nature of the crime and then pass a sentence that would enable the offender to make reparations e.g. a person who stole from a shop could be made to work in that shop until the cost of what had been stolen was recovered.

The Chairperson wondered whether the legislation made provision for such sentencing. Ms Vetten suspected that such sentencing might be included under the community service laws. She suggested that the sentencing framework be scrutinised to determine whether it provided for more creative sentencing. Some judges sentenced men to weekends in prison, so that they could still work during the week to provide income for their dependants. If magistrates and judges sentenced people in creative ways, it might create a space conducive for restorative justice.

Ms Rajbally wondered how accommodating and accepting employers would be of employees who were placed under weekend arrest.

Ms Vetten said that she was not aware of employers’ attitudes to employees under weekend arrest. She said that it was a challenge the organisations would need to take up. She knew that employers did not want to employ women who had been in prison. Sensitising society and employers around issues affecting offenders who had been released was a challenge organisations needed to take up.

Mr Fihla said that 13 000 people were in prison because they could not afford bail; and in East London about 3 000 people were in prison for traffic offences. He felt that alternative sentencing was important. NGOs, by highlighting the issues, could put pressure on the Departments of Justice and Correctional Services to take action so that these offenders were diverted or were given weekend sentences.

Rev Tolo said that children had the right to basic education. Two weeks earlier the Committee had visited East London correctional facilities where most of the boys were denied education and did not want to be part of the education system.

Ms Cohen said that South Africa was one of two countries in the world that had a higher drop out rate for boys than girls, and one of the reasons might be that more boys were involved in crime and ignored their education. This posed the question whether DCS could impose conditions on young offenders to make them participate in activities and programmes. Education was seen as a way of ensuring that young boys did not return to criminal activities when released. They should not be permitted to say that they did not want education. Obviously the Department of Education would have to work with the DCS and concerted efforts must to be made to ensure that all children in correctional centres or in awaiting trial facilities had access to education.

Rev Tolo commented that when he had caught a person stealing from his shop, he had opted to have the offender work in his shop for three weeks instead of pressing charges. That person was now one of his most loyal employees. He emphasised that people should not be sent to the already overcrowded correctional facilities for minor offences.

Ms Cohen said that this highlighted that there were better ways to address the issues. The Committee had been exposed to New Zealand’s systems for dealing with children. Whilst South Africa might not have the same resources it needed to consider alternative and more creative ways of addressing crime and implementing non-custodial sentences.

Chairperson’s closing remarks
The Chairperson said that in his State of the Nation address the President had specifically raised the issue of children who were in prison. It was true that some of them had committed serious offences but exposing children to the harsh reality of life in prison would create a time bomb that could explode at any time.

The Committee was always very disheartened when they saw women in correctional facilities. He understood that many of them had committed serious crimes, but felt that many were worthy cases for alternative sentences.

He agreed with SAHRC that parole board chairpersons should be educated. The Committee would be meeting with these chairpersons on 5 September and would raise the matter.

The Chairperson assured the organisations that the Committee would keep in touch with them and needed their input. The Committee needed to respond to the challenges the President had raised in his address and needed support from all sectors of society including the media. He undertook personally to guide the Committee in addressing the overcrowding situation, as well as the matters relating to women and children.

The meeting was adjourned.