Correctional Services Inmates Privilege System: Department briefing

Correctional Services

18 June 2008
Chairperson: Mr D Bloem (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Chairperson referred to recent media reports around prison rapes, and another report alleging that Commissioner Petersen, National Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services, had behaved in an inappropriate manner during an official dinner, and called for a report. The Commissioner explained that in respect of his own alleged behaviour he had been advised that the allegations were being dealt with by the Public Service Commission, with whom he would cooperate fully. The prison rapes were distressing to the Department and would be examined during a conference later in the month.

The Department then gave a presentation on the awarding of inmate privileges according to inmate classification. This had been requested since the Committee, whilst not wishing to tamper with any human rights, was concerned that inmates were in many cases receiving better privileges than their victims and law abiding citizens. The Department explained the classification of inmates, the re-classification procedures, the definitions of privileges, both individual and group, and the objectives of the privilege system. It was stressed that the system enabled offenders to have controlled access to amenities in order to promote and support their interaction with their families, to promote social and moral responsibility, secure the interest and cooperation of offenders in their treatment, promote cooperation with officials, provide offenders with the opportunity to interact with the outside world, and address the needs of foreign offenders. The classification criteria and the types of privileges were fully set out across the privilege groups. It was noted that the privileges included visitation, purchase of delicacies, making telephone calls, letters and cards, purchases, Christmas concessions, photos, musical instruments, hobbies, wearing of jewellery, personal possessions and reading matter, private televisions, broadcast of radio and TV from a central master set, choirs, concerts and religious meetings. The challenges included overcrowding, limited space, infrastructure, resources and capacity. The Department needed to set up more conducive facilities for visits, including child-friendly day care centres so that adults and offenders could spend time together. A service delivery plan had already been launched. The particular challenges around telephone calls and the abuse of this system were known.

Several Members expressed their disquiet about the privileges currently being enjoyed, which included individuals having their own televisions, linking their radios to power sources, lack of controls over what was being smuggled into the prisons in radio sets, lack of control over programmes being watched, use of telephones and cell phones. Whilst the Committee was not trying to affect any human rights, it did believe that the current system of privileges was disproportionate to seriousness of the offences committed, with the perception that offenders were getting “a five star stay”. Members asked what would guide the review of the policy on privileges, and questioned the abuse of telephone calls and the measures put in place to ensure that this tendency was minimised, access control, telephones being answered by prisoners, control of television viewing, and the child-friendly centres. The Department stressed that privileges were an essential part of the rehabilitation process and were a vital tool. The Committee asked that the policy under review must be brought to the Committee as the Committee wished to suggest some changes, particularly in regard to telephones, possible monitoring of calls, and restriction of TV viewing.

Meeting report

Correctional Services Issues raised in the media: Explanations
The Chairperson noted that recent media reports had focused on National Commissioner Vernon Petersen. Although this Committee had full confidence in Mr Petersen, he asked him to give an explanation for the reports.

Comm Vernon Petersen, National Commissioner, Correctional Services, expressed the pain he had felt in reading about the trauma experienced by Mr Carl Niehaus, when he was violated while in prison, and this story had been carried extensively in the media. The experiences of Mr Niehaus in fact continued to happen to other inmates. The Department of Correctional Services (DCS) was aware of changes to legislation, which included the definition of male rape. DCS would be hosting a seminar this month together, with the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation and the Stop Prisoner Rape Organisation, and hoped to explore that topic thoroughly.  He acknowledged that these reports, painful as they were, did give the DCS an opportunity to reflect on the situation in the DCS facilities.

Comm Petersen then noted that various allegations had been made against himself personally in connection with his alleged behaviour during an official dinner, and this had been a source of great distress to him and his family. On 6 June the Minister, in the presence of the Deputy Minister, informed Comm Petersen that there was no investigation against him based on the allegations made in the media. He had also agreed with the Minister that he would not deal with the matter, through the media but he had to account to the Committee not only for what happened in the Department but also for his personal behaviour. He had stated, in his communication following the media reports of 3 June, that he had learned through media reports that the Public Services Commission would institute an investigation against him, and he had stated that he had full confidence in the Public Services Commission and would give his full cooperation. He had not yet heard from the Public Services Commission about any investigation
 
He had since been informed by the Area Commissioner in Pretoria that she could not trace any inmate with the name mentioned in the letter, or in the jazz band that was at the function, and he believed, when analysing the letter purportedly written by an inmate, that this was not in fact about raising concerns about the allegedly “drunken behaviour” of the National Commissioner. Instead it referred to stereotypes about black people, and low morals of people who engaged in drunken behaviour, and who had disrespect for the authority of institutions and our leaders. The letter further suggested opportunism in that he was allegedly disrespectful to three serving Cabinet Ministers. He rejected this letter with the contempt it deserved and whoever was behind it discredited his own cause. He suspected who was behind the letter and why they used that platform.

Comm Petersen said that throughout this period he had felt affirmed by members of this Portfolio Committee from all political parties. He was extremely proud of the vast majority of DCS officials who were committed to integrity and committed to transformation, good governance and democracy. He would not tolerate bad practices for any reason and he would not allow anyone to rob DCS of the gains that had been made during the week of 27 to 30 May. In the words of the Chairperson of the Conference of the Southern and Central Heads of Services, as said in his letter of 10 May, the conference was “a very important and successful event. Commissioner Petersen read that letter that acknowledged his job well done.

The Chairperson thanked the Commissioner for clarifying the matter. He reiterated the confidence of the Portfolio Committee in him.

Correctional Service Inmates: Rights and Privileges
The Chairperson noted that the Portfolio Committee had engaged with many stakeholders since 2005, and Mr Lukas Muntingh, Senior Researcher, Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI) was present as one of the stakeholders consulted. Other consultations had been held with judges, including the Inspecting Judge of Prisons, the Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union (POPCRU), the Public Servants Association (PSA), and others. Parliament, as law makers, had consulted the broader public extensively. The Portfolio Committee had been most concerned to see that prison inmates had better facilities than many people in hospitals. The Committee was most concerned that inmates had been permitted to watch a SABC 3 programme entitled “Prison Break” . Although the Committee did not attempt to tamper with the human rights of inmates, it must be noted that privileges were not human rights. The Committee did wish to address the topic of privileges. 

Commissioner Petersen responded that DCS was keen to engage with the committee on the matter. In some cases privileges had reduced good order. However, some of those privileges were central to rehabilitation and correction outcome. He was happy that the Committee accepted the fact that discussions would be based on respecting the rights of inmates. Given the levels of unemployment in our country, and the conditions and privileges that the people who had committed crime enjoyed in the facilities, there was a contradiction as to whether DCS was serving the best interests of the level of expanding DCS services. While there should be care taken not to reduce the standards of incarceration to the lowest possible levels, it was necessary also to remain sensitive to the South African scenario.

Comm Petersen read out Section 57 of the Basic Minimum Standards of the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners; and also Section 70 of those Rules, referring to privileges.

Comm Teboho  Motseki,  Chief Deputy Commissioner, DCS, explained that the system of privileges was intended for the facility to gain maximum control by providing services that would assist prisoners to decide how to conduct themselves in certain situations. This was formed in part by security classification systems. Offenders gained privileges either as a group or as individuals, and the privileges differed within each group. This was applicable only to sentenced offenders.

Comm Motseki noted that the Bill of Rights, in section 35(2) enshrined the rights of all who had been detained to communicate with and be visited by their spouse, next of kin, chosen religious counsellor and medical practitioner.

The White Paper on Corrections of February 2005 further provided, in Chapter 4, that offenders must be given opportunities and resources to interact with events in the outside world. It further held that the external relations to both offenders and family were of such importance that disciplinary measures should not be used to withhold offenders from exercising their right to family visitation or contact.

Section 41 of the Correctional Services Act, 1998 provided for the rendering of rehabilitation services aimed at preparing offenders for their return into society.

Rule 39 of the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the treatment of Offenders, provided that ‘Offenders shall be kept informed regularly of the more important news by the reading of newspapers, periodicals or special institutional publications, by hearing radio transmission, by lectures or by any similar means as authorised or controlled by the administration’.

Comm Motseki then went on to describe the classification of inmates, the privilege system, its objectives and the privilege programme. He noted that inmates were classified into minimum, medium and maximum. Those high risk offenders that could not be housed in a normal maximum correctional centre were placed in a High Risk Security Facility (Super Max). Offenders were categorised using an Admission Security Risk Classification Tool. The scores would be checked by a senior official, and could be overridden, provided that certain factors applied. Offenders would be reclassified from time to time depending on changes in their risk behaviour and levels, using a Security Reclassification Tool. The time periods at which this could be used depended upon their sentences, and was fully explained (see attached presentation).

Privileges were any goods or services, education and / or work programmes that were directly linked to an offender’s good conduct and good performance. This also included additional rights accorded to an individual or group of sentenced offenders in their different classification categories. Individual privileges were subdivided into three groups, to provide for maintenance, retention and promotion of family ties, aimed at facilitating re-integration of offenders into the community. Group privileges applied to participation of group offenders in musical activities, sports or recreational games, radio programmes broadcast from a master set, video and television, recreational meetings, concerts, choirs and arts and culture participation. Privileges were exercised through the provision of amenities.

The objectives of the privilege system were to enable offenders to have controlled access to amenities, in order to support interaction with their families or “significant others”, to promote social and moral responsibility, secure the interest and cooperation of offenders in their treatment, promote cooperation with officials, provide offenders with the opportunity to interact with the outside world, and address the needs of foreign offenders.

The classification criteria for specific privilege groups were fully set out (see attached presentation) as well as the specific privileges around visitation, purchase of delicacies, making telephone calls, letters and cards, purchases, Christmas concessions, photos, musical instruments, hobbies, wearing of jewellery, personal possessions and reading matter, private televisions, broadcast of radio and TV from a central master set, choirs, concerts and religious meetings, in each of the three classification categories.

Comm Motseki noted that there were several challenges with regard to implementation of the Privilege System. Overcrowding placed serious constraints on the effective and appropriate implementation of the Privilege system. There were limitations with regard to amenities (space), infrastructure, resources and capacity. Family visits could not occur as envisaged in line with the specified time allocated, as there were so many offenders that needed to see their families with limited amount of visitation rooms and limited amount of hours per day. In addition, DCS needed more conducive facilities for visits, such as child friendly day care centres while adults and offenders were talking. DCS acknowledged these deficiencies and had registered a Service Delivery Improvement Plan to enhance visitations in line with Batho Pele principles.

DCS faced a challenge with regard to telephone calls. Officials tended to allow the privilege to be abused. While there were guidelines there was insufficient control in place, which also posed a security risk.

He concluded that DCS was engaged in a concerted effort to continually enhance its services to offenders and their families to ensure effective reintegration into society through the awarding of privileges to qualifying offenders according to their classification.

Discussion
The Chairperson thanked Chief Deputy Commissioner Motseki but disagreed that prison should be a comfortable place for criminals. It must be remembered that DCS was dealing with serious offenders. In the Zonderwater incident, where an official was shot, the gun was smuggled into the prison in a radio. The Committee was not suggesting that rights be taken away. He noted that the inmates were enjoying a Family Day and wondered whether the same could be said of the victim. He was concerned that the inmates were simply getting a comfortable place despite the most serious offences committed.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) noted that musical instruments may be played daily on an individual basis in the cell after normal working hours, yet a further bullet point stated that no musical instrument may be played in the cell after normal working hours. This was contradictory.

Mr Motseki responded that there was a distinction; if an inmate was in a single cell he or she could play the radio or an instrument after hours. If the inmate was in a communal cell the time would be limited to the times when everybody else was awake and would not be disturbed.

Mr E Xolo (ANC) agreed with the Chairperson that there was a tendency to make prisons too luxurious, and that offenders could enjoy the privileges. He noted that the policy on privileges was under review, and asked which document DCS was using to guide areas under review.

Commissioner Petersen said that DCS would be getting input from the portfolio committee.

Mr Xolo noted that telephone calls tended to be abused by both offenders and officials allowing the exercise. He asked what measures were in place to ensure that that tendency was minimised in the light of the security risk.

Comm Motseki replied that telephones were a difficult issue. DCS was of the view that the ramifications of the matter did not lie solely with them, as there were a whole lot of considerations they needed to be put in place as to how to manage the issue of telephones. Part of the consideration was whether to block calls altogether. There had been further questions as to whether use of cell phones around the prison, or within a precinct of the facilities, should be permissible and DCS was in discussion with agencies, taking all security issues into account.

DCS was also in the process of reviewing access control. They had delegated responsibility for the installation of public telephones to the Regional Area Management and the intention was to streamline that and use technology to develop systems of control. That would address the abuse of the facilities.

Ms L Chikunga (ANC) noted that these privileges were used for rehabilitation, but this was a very sensitive point for the victims of the crime. She asked how the DCS was balancing the privileges of inmates with the perceptions about prisons.  She understood the points about the right to information. However, many of the victims of crime did not have and could not afford to buy a newspaper, while the offenders had access to TV and a radio and newspapers. Several prisons had televisions in every cell and prisoners were sitting on their beds watching. She also noted that she had placed a call to a telephone booth, and a prisoner had answered the phone. She was most concerned that this was not being properly controlled.

Comm Motseki noted that there were inmates in some categories that assisted in the kitchen or with other things, who could have answered the telephone, which demonstrated the limitations around control.

Comm Petersen said that the Committee’s concerns were being taken seriously by the Department and the DCS too was perturbed that there were victims of crime who did not have any of these basic privileges. He thought that televisions took it to the extreme. TVs were not really accessing entertainment while within the confines of a correctional facility. It was important to keep people busy and the primary purpose of those tools must not be lost sight of. He noted that the procurement of TVs in the cells was essentially to advance rehabilitation and were part of the programmes designed by DCS to address the behaviour of the offender. DCS must use whatever tools and technology were available to advance rehabilitation.

Mr M Cele (ANC) asked whether the policy under review was influenced by pre 1994 thinking, as it seemed that the kinds of privileges given to the criminals were those which, pre-1994, were supposed to be given to political prisoners – who, incidentally had to fight to get them. He asked what were the advantages and disadvantages.

Comm Petersen responded that this was based on an old policy and that in itself was the crux of the matter. He did not think there was any kind of distinction, it was a general policy based on a classification system for inmates.

Ms Ngwenya asked what were the particular challenges around the child friendly day care centre.

Comm Petersen responded that many members of the community were in the vicinity of the visitation station. That atmosphere was not at all good for a child. If the offender could not leave the cell the child would need space, and that space did not presently exist. DCS thus needed to create a facility so that the children were provided with a space and conducive environment.

In respect of the rehabilitation aspects, Comm V Moodley, Deputy Commissioner: Development, DCS, explained that it was very important that DCS retain the classification tool. It also gave guidance. DCS needed to have objectives and set criteria against which the Department could determine what course to take against the offender. The tool was very important, it could be structured and rigid, with the risk classification tool looking at different categories. She gave the example of a person who had been convicted of murder, where the tool would look at predisposing factors, the nature and the circumstances around the crime and future risks.

The Chairperson said the last review was done in 2000 but the Portfolio Committee had not seen that document. When the policy was reviewed it should also come to Parliament.

The Chairperson was pleased to note that TVs were being used for rehabilitation. He referred to Ms Chikunga’s comments and noted that the prison had given the explanation that when new TVs were installed then the old ones were also put in the cells. He asked how there was control of the programmes being watched.

Comm Petersen said that with regard to the loose TVs in single cells, there should be instructions with immediate effect that there must be more control.

Ms Ngwenya asked the Department to ensure that they monitored properly. Radios must be monitored when working with batteries or electricity.

Mr Cele asked what was the criterion before an inmate in a single cell, who would presumably be one committing a serious crime, could get a radio. He also asked how did overcrowding impact on reclassification.

Comm Petersen noted that a single cell did not necessarily mean that the inmate had committed a serious offence. He thought everybody should be in a single cell.

Mr Xolo submitted that during the budget vote there had been a call for the public to desist from bringing radios, because all sorts of dangerous things and drugs were being carried in the radios. He asked how the DCS could allow this to happen.

Mr Motseki said that there were other issues of people charging radios with electrical wiring. He pointed out that somebody in prison management should have been aware of that and was tolerating it, and he would have expected that managers should have been called to account.

Ms Chikunga asked the Department to provide the Committee with the policy under review. She noted that some of those privileges posed a security risk, and she wanted to know how the Department was controlling it, and, especially given the overcrowding, how it was ensuring that the risk was minimised.

Comm Petersen agreed that there was a connection between security and some of the privileges. He had previously reported on the situation where there were multiple escapes from one prison during the screening of a major soccer match. Too many matters were taken for granted in doing this review and he agreed that DCS really need to ask questions on security. He would give the Committee the base document and they would engage around it. He noted that the policy was a very broad statement but would give procedures and regulations with which the Committee could begin to interface. Sometimes there were numerous good intentions. DCS was not always responsible for people’s conduct that made it impossible to continue with the plans and intentions.  If the threat to security was high, DCS’s concern would be the security element. This would be within the framework of what was provided. There were often larger difficulties in the smaller facilities as problems of overcrowding made it difficult to manage.

Mr Motseki stressed that it was not the policy but the privileges that were being questioned.

Comm Petersen said that the issue of cell phones and phones was a bit of a problem, and the Area Commissioner was conducting a survey on the use of public booths. The proliferation of cellphones made security difficult and the task now was how to streamline and control the use of them.

The Chairperson reiterated that the Portfolio Committee felt very strongly about the issue of phones in prisons. The Committee would like all telephones – and public phones – to be removed from prison, alternatively to have all calls intercepted and controlled. An awaiting trial prisoner had actually sent him an SMS from C-Max Prison, at A5 Section, and mentioned that they had even confiscated cell phones. It was not right that prisoners should have those cell phones.

The Chairperson said that the Committee was also very sensitive to the fact of minimum security, as most of the concerns had been around the maximum security facilities.

The Chairperson stressed that the Committee supported rehabilitation. However, the Committee was very serious that prison cells should not be “five-star” with all facilities. They would be happy if TV viewing was restricted to rehabilitative programmes. The issue of telephones and TV had to be addressed.
 
Ms Chikunga requested DCS to provide the policy on privileges under review before the recess.

Comm Petersen thanked Members for the robust discussion on a complex issue.

He cautioned that it was not wise to formulate policy and begin to generalise on the basis of matters that had gone wrong. There were many relationships and many interactions that went well. DCS had heard and understood the Committee’s concerns, and would work on those and ensure there was better control. He had recently read research on prisons as model institutions, and this would place an obligation on the Department to hold to certain standards of morality, to respect basic decency, trust and safety within that environment. He assured the Committee of the DCS’s continued commitment to engagement.

The meeting was adjourned.

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: