Parole Board Implementation: deliberations

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
08 September 2006
PAROLE BOARD IMPLEMENTATION: FURTHER DELIBERATIONS ON DISCUSSIONS WITH CHAIRPERSONS OF PAROLE BOARDS AND MINISTER
Chairperson: Mr D Bloem (ANC)

Relevant documents:
Copies of presentations made on 5 September 2006 to the Committee (see previous Minutes)

SUMMARY
The meeting had been called to discuss issues that had not been able to be dealt with in a meeting with the Chairperson of the Parole Board and the Department of Correctional Services the previous week. The Chairperson asked specifically that the Committee discuss and make recommendations on the issue of victim participation in process of parole and the issue of the terminally ill offenders.

Other issues were also raised In discussion. Members commented that there was a need to involve the victim and a need for proper medical assessment of inmates. They were concerned about the location of parole boards, the need for awareness campaigns to promote public participation in parole boards, the need for medical treatment in the prisons as an alternative to prevent recurrence of crime, and access to ARV treatment. Adequate preparation for parole board hearings by case management committees, and lack of social workers were identified as problem areas. Families’ rejection of inmates on release was another problem. Suggestions were made for open imprisonment for the last period of imprisonment, use of community correctional officers, a follow up on problems raised since 2004, and meetings with parole boards.

MINUTES
The Chairperson addressed the Committee, reminding Members that this meeting followed on from a meeting that took place on Tuesday 5 September 2006 with the Chairpersons of the Parole Board and the Department of Correctional Services, when there had been insufficient time to interact fully with the presenters. The meeting today would therefore focus on the report and presentations of the Chairpersons. A Committee Report would need to be compiled, for later presentation to parliament, and the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) would be called upon to explain any outstanding matters.

The Chairperson felt that there were two main issues raised by the presentations and he wished the Committee to discuss and make recommendations on the issue of victim participation in process of parole and the issue of the terminally ill offenders.

He then opened the floor for discussion.

Discussion
Mr N Fihla (ANC) reminded the Committee that the objective of the Correctional Services was dealing with people. In his view, South African Police Services (SAPS) did not give justice to the victims. Therefore the Committee must try to move away from the old policies and culture of “offender versus state” and place more emphasis on the involvement of the victim.

Mr J Selfe (DA) said he supported victim empowerment. South Africa could emulate New Zealand where a victim was permitted to claim damages from the offender. However, he cautioned that New Zealand was a more developed country than South Africa so their technology and methods were more advanced.

Mr Selfe commented further than the Parole Board was reluctant to release offenders on medical grounds, as there had been reports that inmates improved in health once released, owing to their access to anti retroviral treatment (ARVs). He suggested that a proper assessment of the inmates must be performed by a medical examiner.

Mr S Mahote (ANC) commented that the presentations on Tuesday seemed to indicate a fear by the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) that the Committee was trying to usurp its function. He was aware that the chairpersons of Parole Boards were representative of communities and recommended they form structures similar to the Community Police Forums.

The Chairperson commended Mr Mahote on his suggestion, and also commented that Mr Selfe’s suggestion on victims was positive. 

The Chairperson stated that there was a further problem; that the offender would be sentenced and imprisoned in one place but the parole board hearing would be held in another place. He suggested that the victims needed to be informed well ahead of time to prepare, and that the parole board need to look into recompensing these victims.

The Chairperson asked whether it was the duty of the Parole Board or this Committee to educate and encourage the public to participate in parole hearings. He believed the Department of Correctional Services should make use of awareness campaigns, media articles and pamphlets in the communities.

Mr Mahote said that on his visit to North West, he found that a man who was sentenced could not even stand up in court due to his illness. He asked Committee members what needed to be done in that situation, and if the matter should not be referred to DCS.

Mr Fihla responded that the Magistrate would need to decide whether a critically ill person could have committed a crime, but if so, then according to the law the offender must be punished.

Mr E Xolo (ANC) asked the Committee what procedures were followed if an inmate was released on medical grounds then committed a further crime after release.

Mr Mahote responded that the justice cluster should meet to discuss this issue .He asked whether there was a structure already in place to call the cluster meeting.

Mr Fihla responded that there was a legal structure within the parole board.

The Chairperson believed that in this situation the Parole Board would already have fulfilled its mandate and could do nothing further. He recommended that, in order to avoid repercussions, inmates should rather be given treatments in prison.

Mr Selfe agreed and commented that a released inmate could not be re-incarcerated automatically if he or she committed a further crime on release.

Mr Xolo cautioned that if the Committee suggested that the inmates must get ARVs this might cause friction with the Minister of Health, and could also cause unrest with the general public as prison inmates would be receiving treatment ahead of the general public.

Mr Selfe reported that on his visit to St Albans Prison he noted that inmates had access to ARVs, but in Westville prison they did not. He questioned the discrepancy, and also wished to know why the prisons had ARV available before the general public.

Mr L Tolo (ANC) mentioned that the Committee was not entering into a fight with government but were concerned with the different human rights issues.

Mr Fihla felt that there was another angle to this argument. There was a need to find a balance between punishing people who had committed offences against society and allowing them certain privileges. He viewed the giving of ARVs to prisoners as another privilege.

Mr Xolo reminded the committee that South Africa was a country that should treat all people fairly, which would include the use of public facilities and access to medication.

The Chairperson told the members that they must follow the provisions of the Correctional Services Act No 111 of 1998.

Mr Selfe said that there must be a general rollout of ARVs in South Africa so that people who had HIV or any other opportunistic diseases could be treated.

The Chairperson asked the Committee to consider the heavy burden confronting DCS. Section 79 of the Correctional Services Act provided that a prisoner could be considered for parole when a medical practitioner had diagnosed that the prisoner was in the final stages of a terminal disease or condition. According to the Act, terminal illnesses would not only be HIV but would also include cancer, tuberculosis or other conditions. In addition, any person under the custody of DCS would have access to medication.

Mr M Cele (ANC) said that government was making slow progress in accreditation of prisoners getting access to ARVs.

The Chairperson commented that a further matter of concern was that case management committees did not always prepare documents adequately before the inmates came before the parole board. Sometimes the police and courts misplaced the documentation that could lead to the parole application being rejected.

Another issue was that families often rejected the prisoner when he or she was released from prison. He felt that as long as these problems existed the overcrowding of prisons would not improve.

Mr Selfe said that sometimes the social workers had not completed their assessment of the inmate when the parole date arrived so that the board would not sit. They complained that this was due to lack of social workers and psychologists. He suggested that where there were too few workers the Department should subcontract outsiders.

Mr Fihla suggested reintroducing the inmate to society by putting him in open prison for his last year. This would enable his family and friends to visit him more often to acclimatize him to society.

The Chair suggested the employment of community correctional officers to assist in communities. This would require allocation of funding by government and DCS to be successful.

Mr Xolo commented that since the Department of Safety and Security had community police forums it should be possible for DCS to form something similar to be involved in the integration of the prisoner and his family before he rejoined society.

Mr Tolo said that it would be easier for offenders whose families do not want them back to integrate in society in the rural areas, where they could ask the Inkosi to assist them with accommodation.

Mr Xolo commented that there seemed to be a general lack of follow up since the Committee had tabled substantial information and had written many follow-ups. He suggested the reports be checked back to 2004 to isolate any outstanding problems.

Mr Fihla suggested that Members should have meetings with the parole boards in the Provinces to solve these problems.

Mr Tolo reported that on his visit to Tzaneen during winter recess, he found a prisoner, who was a teacher before being incarcerated, doing his community work by being a motivational speaker to the youth. He found that such involvement in the community would better enable prisoners, once released, to fit in to society.

The Chairperson commented that he knew the prison Mr Tolo spoke of since he had visited it two years ago. He found only dilapidated buildings without even any security fence. He had sent the Minister a request for it to be rebuilt. The Committee had interacted with DCS and yet nothing had happened.

The Chairperson commented that all Members should obtain a copy of the Correctional Services Act, and familiarise themselves with what were deemed to be privileges and rights under that Act,.

He reported that the issue of HIV / AIDS would be discussed with Parliament and public representatives the following week, and the discussion would also deal with the current survey of the HIV status in prisons and the release of the terminally ill on medical grounds.

He concluded by reminding the Committee of a study group meeting in preparation of Tuesday meeting on Monday.

The meeting was adjourned