Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons on Human Rights and Privileges of Inmates

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
1 September 2006
JUDICIAL INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF INMATES

Chairperson: Mr D Bloem (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Judicial Inspectorate’s view on Human Rights and Privileges of Inmates Presentation

SUMMARY
Judge Nathan Erasmus, the newly appointed Inspecting Judge, presented the Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons’ view on the rights and privileges inmates currently enjoyed. Like all other stakeholders, the Inspectorate believed that basic human rights should not be tampered with but that the allocation of amenities should form part of a constructive rehabilitation process. All parties agreed that work programmes would not only aide rehabilitation but also social reintegration and that amenities could be subject to inmates’ participation in such programmes. Inmates’ lack of discipline and respect had negative effect on officials’ morale and ignoring the situation posed a real threat in terms of safety and security. The Committee felt strongly that the misconception that life in prison was easy and preferable to life outside of it, should be addressed as a matter of urgency. They felt that prisoners should not idle away their days but should earn their privileges.

Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons (JIOP) Briefing
Judge Nathan Erasmus (Inspecting Judge) accompanied by Mr Umesh Raga (Legal Services) and Mr Bertie Erasmus (Inspections) explained that the Inspectorate acted in accordance with the mandate set out in the Correctional Services Act 1998. The Inspectorate had had to re-identify its mandate in accordance with the Constitution and the White Paper on Corrections to ensure that the protection of the dignity and basic human rights of all individuals. Naturally the issue of inmates’ rights and amenities had arisen. He pointed out that the word ‘privileges’ did not appear in the new Correctional Services Act and that the objectives of the White Paper were aimed at creating a system whereby offenders were re-integrated into society in a dignified manner.

Judge Erasmus noted that the careless extension of amenities to offenders placed strain on the Department of Correctional Services and that the Inspectorate had not diligently monitored the Department’s capacity for implementation. The Commissioner was obliged to provide copies of all internal service evaluations as and when required and the Inspectorate intended to obtain these evaluations so as to form an objective view on how the impact of amenities afforded to prisoners was affecting prison officials.

Section 94 of the Correctional Services Act made provision for Visitors Committees. The Inspectorate had extended the number of Visitors Committees from 36 to 53 mirroring the number of area commissioners who reported to the Inspectorate. Three different Independent Prison Visitor (IPV) units had also been formed: IPV Legal, IPV Community Affairs and IPV Complaints. The Inspectorate joined forces with the Legal Aid Board to ensure that inmates had access to legal representation.

The Inspectorate was of the view that community awareness needed to be created around issues related to amenities. The Inspectorate was aware that offences had become more serious. The community had to understand that amenities were not aimed at appeasing offenders but should be afforded to offenders who were dedicated participants in rehabilitation and development programmes.

Discussion
The Chairperson thanked the JIOP for the straightforward presentation but noted that in dealing with Correctional Services and inmates, the perceptions and concerns of the public needed to be taken into consideration.

Mr J Selfe (DA) took note of the JIOP’s approach to the issues concerned. He agreed that a balance should be reached between punishment and rehabilitation. In assuming that the long-term objective of DCS was to rehabilitate offenders, he recommended that a contract between the offender and DCS be put in place where sanctions would be imposed on offenders who broke contractual agreements. He felt that working would play a cardinal role and asked why prisoners were not obliged to work when required to do so despite the Correctional Services Act (1998) prescribing it.

Judge Erasmus responded that there was a perception amongst offenders that they did not have to work. He was uncertain whether correctional officials clearly understood the legislation and implemented it with the necessary vigour. In their five year plan up until 2011 the DCS took into account issues related to labour. Inmates could not be forced to work if opportunities to do so were not available. This challenge reached beyond the scope of the DCS. Work programmes could be a good tool for reaching the ultimate objective of changing the pattern of offensive behaviour. While he did not believe that recidivism could be ended, it could be reduced by ensuring that people were able to enter into gainful employment upon their release.

Mr N Fihla (ANC) noted that perhaps the Committee’s mandate differed slightly from that of the JIOP, but that ultimately, both parties were interested in transforming offenders into better citizens. Correctional officers needed to be protected from the many dangerous criminals incarcerated in DCS facilities. Inmates’ sophistication and their ability to manipulate various resources and officials to further their own purposes were also mentioned. Mr Fihla argued that the extending of amenities to everyone who entered prison (especially to very dangerous criminals) needed to be reviewed. He felt that inmates should be occupied through constructive activities or else they had too much free time to plan escapes, etc.

Judge Erasmus said that mandates may differ, but the Committee and the JIOP’s national objectives were the same and aimed to address a safety and security concerns and not merely to punish. The JIOP considered the available resources and how they were being utilised and constantly asked the question why more useful labour opportunities were not being created. DCS subscribed to the United Nations Minimum Standards, which defined labour in a particular way which might not necessarily be the same as Section 40 of the Correctional Services Act. He stated that while basic rights had to be respected and were non negotiable as a collective South African ideal, amenities were another issue altogether. The JIOP had been considering whether the UN Minimum Standard was the correct standard for South Africa and Africa as a whole. It had been debated at length at the office of the JIOP and other stakeholders (such as the law societies) had also been consulted. A discussion document had been drawn up and their prima facie view was that in South Africa “we would have to work to find and define a set of minimum standards” which would include the approach to amenities. A week earlier the JIOP had made a presentation to potential donors who might fund research into the matter. The JIOP’s approach would be to look at how respect towards officials was monitored and what it was measured against. They would look at whether respect was measured against the UN standard, and whether that standard was appropriate for South Africa. Research would aim to determine whether South Africa should develop its own appropriate standard.

Mr L Tolo (ANC) related a story of a prisoner who commented on television that being in prison was better than being free because of the education and other ‘benefits’ inmates received. He suggested that statements such as these were influencing young children to commit crimes just to get an education.

Judge Erasmus, addressing the perception that life in prison was easier than life outside of prison, said that the JIOP was looking at whether a dangerous trend was developing as far as young women committing offences in order to give birth at the expense of DCS. Most of the offences were petty offences, committed while pregnant and the offenders refused to pay their fines choosing to have their babies in prison. At this point the theory was based on pure speculation and there was no empirical evidence to support these claims. He added that the in the JIOP’s experience the treatment mothers and babies received in correctional facilities was of a high quality. He noted that further research into these matters needed to be conducted. Some such research had been conducted in South America.

Mr S Mahote referred to the common term used amongst prisoners “eet en lê” describing the only activities inmates engaged in while in prison i.e. eating and sleeping. He asked the Judge to expound on the issue of amenities and asked whether amenities could form part of a reward system.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) said that through the Committee’s oversight role in prisons, she had noted a number of concerns, chief of which was overcrowding and the heath risks associated with this. She was also concerned about the safety of the correctional officers and told of an officer who had been stabbed to death at St Alban’s correctional facility. She requested the JIOP to support the Committee in its recommendation to minimise privileges particularly the use of telephones to communicate with people outside who might assist them in continuing their offensive behaviour even within the facility.

Judge Erasmus responded that when he first encountered the C-MAX approach he was not in favour of it. He then realized that it was a programme whereby people started off with almost no access to amenities but earned it during their imprisonment. He proposed that maybe that model should be considered, interrogated and imposed. One should also consider other alternatives so that offenders would earn their privileges. He has seen offenders who had gone through C-Max who had been referred to less secure facilities. One offender had told him of how being in C-Max had transformed him.

Mr S Cele (ANC) explained that some of the members had been imprisoned for political reasons and remembering their experience of prison had initially been sympathetic to inmates. They subsequently realised that latter day offences were not politically motivated. He agreed that privileges and amenities should be earned rather than given and felt that the issue of prisoners being idle should be addressed.

The Chairperson noted that during a recent visit to a facility in the Eastern Cape, officials complained of a breakdown of respect for officials and that inmates did not respond to instructions. He suggested that this be taken into account and that the mandate of both the JIOP and Committee be reviewed in this regard. He commented that the JIOP must see to it that the treatment of prisoners, while not taking away their basic rights, was balanced in terms of punishment and privileges. It was also noted that inmates pleaded with the Committee to go outside and work and thus it was not a question of them not wanting to work, but one of seeing to it that they had opportunities to do so. He argued that inmates should repay the community for the crimes they had committed.

Judge Erasmus told the Committee of an inmate the JIOP had recently encountered at C-Max who had been moved there a day before as the result of an incident that had occurred at the Pretoria facility. He had allegedly been the leader of one of the prison gangs, who had been planning to stab the head of the prison. The inmate had been caught with a spike and he was moved to the C-Max facility where he had shortly after his arrival set his cell alight. When prison authorities met with him. Despite knowing that the Inspecting Judge and very senior correctional officers were in the room, he brazenly requested to be returned to the Pretoria facility because his drugs and his cell phone were there. This incident illustrated the lack of respect some individuals had for the system.

Judge Erasmus explained that in terms of Section 25 of the Correctional Services Act, the JIOP dealt with and had automatic review power when amenities were taken away from offenders such as in cases of solitary confinement. He could not think of a single time since he had taken office that the JIOP had only once overruled the decision to withdraw amenities. The JIOP received a record of all the proceedings, did a personal interview with the offender, an interview with the JIOP’s attorneys and then decided whether a decision should be overruled.

The Chairperson understood that maximum security prisoners could not be allowed to go outside of the facility to work. He reiterated that other inmates could be allowed to work and argued for work activities. Prison, police station and hospital grounds had deteriorated while there were inmates who could tend these grounds.

Mr Fihla commented on the issue relating to labour in private prisons. He argued that the Committee did not see the point of rehabilitating or training people who were serving very long sentences and felt that training young inmates with medium sentences would be more viable. Young inmates, with the prospect of completing their sentences and being released, should be accommodated in the private facilities and centres of excellence because these facilities had the means to offer effective training and rehabilitation programmes.

Judge Erasmus said that both private prisons were classified as maximum security institutions. Their operation and outputs were governed by specific agreements between the operators and the DCS. Making changes to these agreements would be complicated. The JIOP noted the member’s concern and would monitor the situation and might even make recommendations.

The Chairperson concluded that the Portfolio Committee was concerned about how amenities were afforded in prisons and that criminals continued to challenge the State by killing policemen. He said that the Committee felt that privileges for certain categories of inmates had to be changed. The DCS should stop wasting resources by allowing criminals to think that prisons were holiday resorts and languishing in correctional facilities without parole. Punishment and rehabilitation should be paramount but could not allow blatant disrespect for the law because they believed that life in prison was easy.

He felt strongly that prisoners should do community work. In his constituency he had started creating vegetable gardens, maintained by prisoners. Allowing inmates to take part in work programmes would also alleviate the pressures overcrowding placed on infrastructure. He also pointed out that officials were complaining about the levels of disrespect and disregard they received from inmates. He said that after 1994 members had radically changed things in prison out of sympathy for inmates, not realising that the crimes they had committed were very different from the actions political activists had been incarcerated for. The Committee would call public hearings so that civil society could express themselves with regard to the privileges available to prisoners. He stated that the Committee was serious that changes needed to be made.

Judge Erasmus extended an invitation to the Committee to visit more prisons. He added that by the end of the following week, 80% of the independent prison visitor (IPV) posts would be filled. The Committee should contact the JIOP when they planned their visits to prisons so that IPVs could be at their disposal to offer assistance.

The meeting was adjourned.