A Decade of Criminal Justice in South Africa

The Case for Effective Offender Reintegration

by
Khanyisile Mpuang
 
 
 
 
 
 

Khanyisile Mpuang is the National Programme Specialist for Offender Reintegration at the National Institute for Crime Prevention and Reintegration of Offenders (NICRO).

South African Context

Crime has continued to plague many states throughout the world and different strategies and methods have been tried in trying to eradicate crime. Imprisonment remains one of the most popular sanctions. Imprisonment was aimed at inflicting punishment by curtailing the movement and freedom of the suspect or offender as well as deterring others from offending. From the look of things, it has only achieved the first objective. It is amazing that despite this gross failure of imprisonment, it has continued to be the most preferred form of dealing with crime and those that offend.

"In addition to a prison sentence being both a public mark of disapproval and a punishment, it must also have a role in reducing crime. Opinions vary as to how it can fulfil this role, but the following factors are viewed as contributory:

It is common expectation and practice that those who commit transgressions against fellow citizens should be punished for their transgressions. The Judiciary normally performs the task of punishing. This form of punishment, however, has over time been proven to be ineffective as it is more retributive than reconciliatory. Punishment, at the least, should accord the offender an opportunity to change and amend the wrong done. At the moment, not only in South Africa, imprisonment as the method of punishment is proving to be very costly. This cost is not only measurable in monetary terms (the high cost of keeping a suspect or offender in prison) but also in terms of human socio-economic capital for the country (the large number of suspects or offenders who lose their jobs or cannot get jobs because of imprisonment).

In South Africa today, there are 241 prisons, with an approximate total of 33 475 correctional officers, which comprise of:

The South African prison population is estimated at around 184 806 prisoners of whom almost 48 345 is awaiting trial. Prison capacity is 114 747.3 Awaiting trial prisoners spend an average of between 76 days and 132 days in prison before their cases are finalised.4 There are bizarre instances where prisoners have awaited trial for long periods of two to five years.

Below is a table depicting the different categories of incarceration. These numbers create some concerns. The first is with regard to the fact that the large majority of prisoners (51193) are short-term prisoners (0–5yrs) and the second concern is the high number (30822) of long-term prisoners (10-20yrs). With regard to the former, instead of imprisonment, these offenders could have been given alternative sentences which enable them to serve their sentences outside prison. There is nothing positive achieved with a prison sentence of 6months, or anything less than 5 years, except the stigma and possible victimization through sexual and other violence. The latter is an example of the possible impact of the minimum sentences legislation. The high numbers of offenders being arrested is a result of improved and increased policing.

Table 15
Sentence Categories: Prisoners in Custody: 31
January 2004
Sentence Groups Female Male All Genders
Unsentenced 1183 54694 55877
0-6 Months 394 5299 5693
>6-12 Months 264 5964 6228
>12<24 Months 175 5998 6173
2-3 Years 446 16459 16905
>3-5 Years 434 15760 16194
>5-7 Years 267 11783 12050
>7-10 Years 399 20802 21201
>10-15 Years 323 20924 21247
>15-20 Years 95 9480 9575
>20 Years to Life 132 13490 13622
Other Sentenced 19 1822 1841
Total Sentenced 2948 127781 130729
Grand Total 4131 182475 186606
Approved Accommodation 4374 109125 113499
% Occupation 94.44% 167.22% 164.41%
Accomodation Need -243 73350 73107

Increasingly there continues to be a public outcry to 'lock offenders up and throw away the keys'. The calls are for tougher action, but without careful consideration of what the impact of that may be. NICRO is concerned about what works in crime prevention, and about ensuring a realistic expectation of the Department of Correctional Services. The ability of the Department of Corrections to achieve 'correction' is highly compromised by the conditions which are often counter-productive, and an understanding of the prison situation is essential if we are to look at what can change.

As the government was introducing more stringent measures to deal with offenders (operation crackdown, scorpions, minimum sentencing, improved police efficiency, etc.), little has been done to prepare the Department of Correctional Services for the increase in numbers of prisoners. The only long-term strategy put in place seems to be the building of more prisons, and the amount of beds that are planned for (30000) will not in any way ease the problem. The focus must be on the speeding up of the justice system - simply, offenders have to know that they will be caught, have to know that they will be prosecuted and have to know that the punishment will fit the crime. The focus cannot be on the continuous creation of more beds behind prisons walls.

Between 7 000 and 9 000 prisoners are released from prison every month in South Africa.6 Despite this, there remains very little public or government interest about what happens to these people when they come out and get back to society. NICRO often points out that however long a person is sentenced for, unless they effectively serve a life term, they will come out. And when they come out, they are likely to be more damaged not only from having been removed from society for so long but from the imprisonment itself.

The reintegration of offenders, some of whom may have spent many years in prison, is unfortunately not a matter of national priority as a legitimate crime reduction intervention. Even the national crime prevention strategy, which has been adopted by various government departments says virtually nothing about offender reintegration. The emphasis is rather placed on the prison construction programme and how the Department of Correctional Services will deal with high risk prisoners.7 It certainly would not have been a far-fetched idea to include offender reintegration as a key strategy of the NCPS since the target group is a captive audience and are probably the highest risk group in terms of re-offending.

To achieve its mandate, the DCS has developed a three-year strategic plan8 and embarked on a process of transformation. "Humane custody and rehabilitation are now at the centre of the core business of DCS. Restorative justice principles underpin the rehabilitation process. There has been a process of improving the conditions of certain prisons and transforming them to unit management institutions to create an environment that is conducive to rehabilitation. The concept of 'new generation' prisons has been broadly accepted for construction of new prisons to enhance growth and development."9 The present reality, however, makes it very difficult for the DCS to uphold this commitment and its mandate for rehabilitation to its full extent. Some of the challenges that face the DCS, other than overcrowding, include the inappropriate recruitment of staff and lack of retraining of current staff, as well as the corruption and crime by DCS members inside prisons.

2. What is Done to Rehabilitate and Reintegrate Offenders?

2.1 Nicro Offender Reintegration Project

NICRO has reworked it's offender reintegration programme, the oldest part of NICRO's work (which started in 1910). The aim of starting this new project, the "Tough Enough" programme, is to ensure that we do indeed have impact on the crime situation in South Africa, this through ensuring that ex-offenders take seriously their responsibility to be community builders, not destroyers of the social order.

This service will not only be meaningful, relevant and bring change to the client's life but will also enable clients to make a shift from being victims to being opportunity makers and takers for themselves and their families.

The programme is specific and places a lot of the responsibility on the prisoner, however, creates a supportive environment for maximum growth and participation by the prisoner, and for choosing a constructive life.

"Are you Tough Enough?" (TEP)

The Target Group:
Principles of Offender Reintegration
objectives of the programme
Non-negotiables in the Programme

The non-negotiables are what will make the programme successful. The clients, NICRO and DCS will be guided by these non-negotiables.

The Programme (TEP):

This is a 9-12 month intensive programme that challenges the prisoners to take responsibility for their action and hold themselves accountable for their future and that of their families. The prisoner enters into a contract with NICRO which details the service, responsibilities, commitment, and duration.

The programme involves the prisoner approximately three months before he/she is released from prison. Upon release, the prisoner and the family, are supported for a period of 6-9 months, after-which the service is terminated depending on the prisoner's progress at the time. Services may be extended and a new contract entered into.

The programme assists the prisoner and his/her family to explore the opportunities and possibilities in assisting him/her to reintegrate into their community.

The communities role is paramount as it is also challenged to provide an environment that encourages the ex-prisoner to function and contribute positively within the community.

Phase One: Recruitment and Assessment

Prisoners select themselves into the programme and are individually assessed by the facilitator (NICRO worker). A maximum of twenty participants is allowed in the group. The success of the programme is dependant on the commitment of the participants. It is vital that the participants want to change their circumstances, thus, the principle of self-selection into the programme. Upon successful entry into the programme, the prisoner enters into a contract with NICRO which details the service and duration. The contract also ensures commitment from both and specifies the non-negotiables. The prisoner identifies three primary areas of his/her life that he/she wants to see changed at the end of the programme. These will be the primary focus of the intervention, but other issues or concerns will also be addressed during the programme.

Phase Two: Setting the Challenge

This is a group-based five day intensive phase which challenges the individual participants to objectively look at their lives (the past and present) and draft a path that they want to follow. The emphasis is on the future and how it should be different from the past. The participants take responsibility for their actions, especially the crimes they have committed, and make plans for restoration.

Participants discuss the issues facing them, for example, their fears, anxieties, expectations upon release and experiences with imprisonment. They identify systems within their communities which can support them and their families and also develop strategies to access those systems. They commit themselves to certain actions and decisions which will impact positively on their reintegration.

Phase Three: Facing the Challenge

Running over eight weeks (8 sessions), this phase is the beginning of the actual implementation of the decisions made in the previous phase. Participants handle issues either, in a big group or, smaller groups (with similar issues) as well as individually. Work with families or other support structures, and victims begins at this time, through either, Family Group Conferences or, Victim Offender Mediation.

Participants are provided with support and encouraged to tackle challenges with a positive attitude. Participants develop 'projects' - their life plans - and get a coach to support them. Resilience and perseverance by the participants in the implementation of their plans is crucial, as new or unexpected realities will be dawning for some of them.

During this time, the facilitator actively engages the community and challenges them to commit towards the reintegration of the imprisoned participant.

Phase Four: Overcoming the Challenge

This is the most crucial stage, as all the results of the work done in the previous phases become important. The ex-prisoner comes back to the family, community, friends and other support structures. A lot of uncertainties around acceptance, promises and decisions made, might be experienced by the ex-prisoner and family. The life plan becomes the actual daily life, not just a project, for the ex-prisoner and the future becomes the present.

This phase runs over a 6-9 month period. During this time the ex-prisoner acquires independence and strengthened relationships with the family and other relevant people. The community becomes an important support system for the ex-prisoner and his/her family. Wherever possible, a mentor is appointed for the ex-prisoner and/or the family.

Phase Five: Staying Out

This phase is continuous for the ex-prisoner. The whole programme is about him/her staying out of prison and not re-offending. The previous stages determine the success of this stage. The ex-prisoner should be stable and making a positive contribution towards his/her family and the community. NICRO support, through facilitator, should be minimal or not necessary. Community and family support continues to provide for the sense of belonging and accountability by the ex-prisoner. The ex-prisoner accepts full responsibility for staying out.

Phase Six: Tracking

An important feature of the programme is the ability to track and measure the impact and success of the programme. All the programme participants will be tracked at least twelve months after completion of the programme.

Key indicators that would inform the evaluation are:

3. Prisons, Communities and Offender Reintegration

3.1 Prisons and imprisonment

The South African Correctional Services Act (111 of 1998)10 states that:

2. The purpose of the correctional system is to contribute to maintaining and protecting a just, peaceful and safe society by:-
(a) enforcing sentences of the courts in the manner prescribed in this Act;
(b) detaining all prisoners in safe custody whilst ensuring their human dignity;
(c) promoting the social responsibility and human development of all prisoners and persons subject to community corrections.

The Act also encourages the participation of the prisoner in designing a programme for his or her 'rehabilitation' during incarceration. The reality in the prisons of overcrowding, staff shortages and staff incompetency resulting from a militaristic past based on brutality and blatant disregard of prisoners rights, almost make a mockery of the intentions of corrections as stipulated in the Act.

In order to make a realistic assessment of what is happening and what needs to happen with regard to offender reintegration it is necessary to look briefly at what is happening in prisons, who the people are who are living there and why they are there. As shown above in table 1, the majority of prisoners are serving short sentences of less than 6 months. During this short period however, prisoners are already introduced to a prison life encircled by an inescapable life of crime and imprisonment (there is no doubt that the re-awakening of community service orders, as started by NICRO in the early 1980s, is one way to reduce prison overcrowding - to start with, all prisoners sentenced for 6 months or less could, by law, have to be considered for community service before being sentenced to prison).

On average, 95% of all prisoners are ultimately released back into society: the question is, to do what exactly? Menninger argues that "with a planelessness and stupidity only surpassed by that of their original incarceration they are dumped back upon society, regardless of whether any change has taken place in them for the better, with every assurance that changes have taken place within them for the worse."11 With some measure of good luck a few ex-prisoners will get by but the rest will be back in prison within the first or two years after release.

Muntingh argues that "it is known that imprisonment per se does not rehabilitate people nor does it facilitate the ultimate goal of reintegration. It contributes to the formation of a prison sub-culture within an environment where social relations are based on survival, violence and hierarchy. Can we then say that after a period of imprisonment that prisoners are better equipped to deal with life?"12 Unlikely, yet, society, through the criminal justice system, punishes offenders by sending them to prison. There is an immense belief in the premise that tough rather than humane justice is the answer to society's crime problem. For society to continue with this strategy of incarcerating people for periods of time and then expecting them to have transformed themselves as by a miracle, is indeed futile.

3.2 Communities and offender reintegration

Why do we continue punishing people for the wrongs they did? Muntingh sites the philosopher Hegel's conclusion that:

We punish people because we acknowledge them as human beings. By punishing people we are inflicting pain for a wrong deed in much the same way we reward good behaviour. If we do not punish, we are not accepting the rights of the individual to be treated like a human.13

The role of communities within punishment is significant as they stand to benefit in the reduction of crime. In our society this role is taken over by the judiciary which exerts retributive justice. The punishment is imposed on the offender and the offender will experience the punishment without ever being challenged to take responsibility for the crime that was committed.

The restorative justice theory was borne out of the realisation that the retributive approach to punishment is ineffective as it does not compel the offender to take responsibility for his or her actions. More importantly, it completely ignores the rights of the victim and the interests of society and there is, therefore, no attempt to restore the breach that was created. Retributive justice defined a crime as the breaching of law and therefore an offence against the state and its laws. Restorative justice on the other hand defined a crime as an offence against a person and a relationship and that the main purpose is to restore the rights of the victim and the relationship.14

The purpose, therefore, with which we punish becomes very significant as it will determine further behaviour. Punishment as either a deterrent, effecting incapacitation or meting retribution has failed to make any major impact on crime.

Reintegration demands that the scope of the legal system be enlarged so that the future life of the offender in the community is considered in sentencing and during the correctional phase. By now it should be clear that the reintegration concept not only serves the social interest by preventing recidivism, but also the personal life of the offender who benefits from the opportunities of a crime free life. Reintegration should introduce the broader social issues into the criminal justice system, creating an area of convergence with the social welfare, public health and educational systems.15

The majority of prisoners, particularly those serving short sentences, receive little practical support, before release or afterwards. The result can often be a piecemeal, untailored response, based on what happens to be available in that particular prison or area, rather than what the prisoner needs to tackle his or her offending behaviour.

Most offenders in South Africa are unemployed, impoverished, uneducated and by virtue of these social and economic circumstances often find themselves driven to a life of crime. Unless efforts are made to enable offenders to escape these constraints, little relief in the crime rate can be anticipated. More and more people find themselves existing within toxic environments characterised by the degeneration of moral values and standards. The age of offenders is decreasing with young children in prison for violent and serious sexual crimes.

What is the future of these children? What kind of a country will South Africa become in generations to come with dysfunctional citizens embroiled in a life of crime? It is indeed a frightening picture that comes to mind. There is an imminent culture of tolerance towards crime in South Africa reflecting apathy and a lack of social responsibility. For example, stolen articles and property still find a market within our society.

What then can be done? All South Africans, state and civil society must converge and work together towards the social reconstruction of the society and regeneration of morals and values. Muntingh quotes in his discussion, the reintegrative approach, put forward by Reitan, which states that "criminal behaviour represents a breach or absence of community and the justifying purpose of punishment is to help restore community at that breach or establish community where it is absent."16 This approach takes a normative view of community, meaning that there must be a unifying bond, a mutual concern and refrainment from exploitation. The community exists when each member of the group values the interests of the other group members enough to take those interests into consideration when making decisions.

To build a system that can reduce the level of re-offending is a major challenge. One key element is a transparent and robust sentencing framework, geared towards crime reduction. But reform of sentences would not, of itself, be enough. Major changes to the way in which those inside and outside the criminal justice system operate are necessary to ensure that the system is focusing resources sufficiently to deal with the right people, using robust systems of accountability and joint working, and delivering in innovative ways. Long-term change is needed to ensure that all those dealing with prisoners and ex-prisoners make the maximum possible impact on re-offending. The benefits of reform would not only be felt by the criminal justice system. There are likely to be multiple returns to services dealing with employment, housing, benefits, families, health and education."17

Punishment, therefore, has to achieve two things to restore the breach created by the crime: firstly, it must cleanse away the stigma attached to the crime so that both the offender and society can put it behind them and that it does not affect their further interaction, secondly, it must compel a higher commitment from the offender to be part of the community of good citizens and act according to the principles of mutual respect and non-exploitation. Punishment has to be seen to be just, there has to be a clear connection between the crime and the punishment and it should be meted with utmost respect to the offender.

To punish someone with the aims outlined above will indeed create a positive environment for reintegration but it will not in itself achieve reintegration. Through re-integration it is aimed to see that those individuals who have offended are part of society and are able to function and live as any other member of the community of good citizens. It is especially with those offenders who have been imprisoned that a more drastic intervention is required in order for them to acquire the necessary skills and knowledge to view community in its normative sense and conform to the principles of mutual respect and non-exploitation. These interventions are usually referred to as programmes and there are many varieties in existence. I have already given a description of and discussed the NICRO Offender Reintegration Project.

The Social Exclusion Unit provides a comparative summary, shown below18, of how a prison sentence can be used as an opportunity to improve or worsen the factors identified as influencing offending or re-offending. The prevailing situation in South African prisons could fall within the category of worsening.

Factor Prison sentence can help Prison sentence can worsen
Education Education and training programmes can give prisoners the skills needed to gain employment. Existing skills can be eroded or become outdated during the sentence. Can reinforce existing negative views of education.
Can disrupt education in the community.
Employment Opportunity to gain valuable practical experience of paid work. Opportunity to make contact with employers prior to release. Loss of existing employment. Work in prison can reinforce the view of work as mundane and low paid, with little connection to real opportunities. Existing work skills can be eroded or become outdated.
Drugs and alcohol Prison can be an effective place to get drug treatment, helping many who have had no help before. Can make valuable links to community treatment. Drugs are available in prison – some prisoners may start to use, others will entrench an addiction. Without proper aftercare, released prisoners can return to a level of usage that is especially dangerous.
Mental and physical health Access to proper diagnosis and treatment, often for the first time. Ensuring that ex-prisoners able to take up opportunities such as employment and training on release. Lack of provision and patchy co-ordination; the experience of imprisonment and subsequent inactivity can exacerbate existing mental illness. Prisoners released to chaotic lifestyles, without proper follow up support.
Attitudes and self-control Opportunity to take part in programmes to improve thinking skills, anger management. Opportunity to learn from past experiences, separated from some peer pressures. Other prisoners can reinforce negative attitudes towards crimes and victims.
Institutionalisation and life skills Prison can provide a safe place for offenders to develop positive life skills. Can reinforce an institutionalised background, such as previous experience in care. Heavily structured regimes, and lack of activity, can damage prisoners' abilities to think and act for themselves, with knock-on effects in areas such as employment and housing.
Housing Opportunity to save tenancies, reduce Housing Benefit, mortgage and rent arrears. Repaying rent arrears, assessing housing needs and beginning a move to stable, supported accommodation. Opportunity to gain skills in managing tenancies. Housing can be lost on entry, rent arrears can build up, leading to barring from housing. May increase the chance of an offender being homeless. Lack of housing can lead to further problems, such as accessing children in care, health services and benefits.
Benefits and debt Prison can provide access to debt advice and can improve the chances of accessing financial support on release via the setting up of benefits interviews. Offers the chance of earning and saving money. Debts can worsen during a prison sentence. Prison can break the link between offenders and legitimate means of support. Prisoners are released without sufficient financial means to cover the period before benefit payments are made.
Families Prison can give prisoners' families the opportunity to have an input into a prisoner's rehabilitation needs. It can separate offenders from a criminal background, or give a family respite from a difficult or dangerous family member. Prison can damage the positive links between a prisoner and their family – breaking stable relationships with partners and children. Can lead to financial, emotional and health problems among family members.

4. Alternatives Towards Punishment for Reintegration

The needs of both the offender and the victim must be taken into consideration when punishment for a crime, is being meted. The establishment and maintenance of good citizenry within which exists respect for one another, must be a national priority. Sentencing and punishment must have the objective of reintegration.

Sentencing options that encourage the offender to maintain contact with the community and not lose sight of their responsibility to contribute as constructive citizens, must be further explored and strengthened. Options like correctional supervision, community service and diversion must be employed as much as possible. The legislative framework in South Africa makes provision for the implementation of alternative sentencing. The Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977 makes provision for different types of punishment and the Correctional Services Act 8 of 1959 currently provide the legal context for alternative sentencing, in particular Chapter VIII dealing with correctional supervision.

5. What Types of Resources are Needed and Where?

When considering what the SEU stipulates as important factors that should be addressed to ensure effective reintegration, it becomes clear that reintegration is not the responsibility of one government department but a collaboration that ensures that offenders do not continue to be excluded from the social services and structures.

"There is now considerable evidence of the factors that influence re-offending. Building on criminological and social research, the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) has identified nine key factors:

In 2002, a workshop to identify indicators for recidivism and reintegration was held by the NICRO national office. The workshop was in preparation for the impact evaluation of the Tough Enough Programme. In attendance were representatives from DCS, CCR and Southern Hemisphere (research company). The workshop came up with very similar risk factors in terms of successful reintegration. The following were identified as risk factors:

Many prisoners have experienced a lifetime of social exclusion. Compared with the general population, prisoners are:

In addressing the factors that contribute to re-offending, correctional services often have to remedy a lifetime of combined service failure, often unaided. And when prisoners are released, agencies are far from pro-active in identifying them, and indeed there is evidence that prisoners are actively de-prioritised. Many experience real obstacles to re-engaging in learning or drug programmes on release; but these pale into insignificance compared with their difficulties in accessing housing and benefits.21

No one is ultimately responsible for the rehabilitation process at any level — from national policy, to the level of the individual prisoner. Responsibility and accountability for outcomes can be very unclear. The problems in prisoners' lives are often highly complicated and inter-related. They require a co-ordinated multi-agency response, within prison, across the crucial transitions between community and custody, and sustained long after release. Without this, they are likely to fall into the gaps between services. This task is made more complex by the need to assess the risk posed by released prisoners to public safety, and in some cases, to manage any potential threat across a number of areas, including housing and employment. However, joint-working mechanisms are not robust, and are not backed by shared targets, leverage, or up-to-date management information."22

"To build a system that can reduce the level of re-offending is a major challenge. One key element is a transparent and robust sentencing framework, geared towards crime reduction. But reform of sentences would not, of itself, be enough. Major changes to the way in which those inside and outside the criminal justice system operate are necessary to ensure that the system is focusing resources sufficiently to deal with the right people, using robust systems of accountability and joint working, and delivering in innovative ways. Long-term change is needed to ensure that all those dealing with prisoners and ex-prisoners make the maximum possible impact on re-offending. The benefits of reform would not only be felt by the criminal justice system. There are likely to be multiple returns to services dealing with employment, housing, benefits, families, health and education."23

6. Conclusion

There is no doubt that offender reintegration as a strategy for crime prevention should be regarded as priority in South Africa. The general public apathy towards nation building is brazen and must be eradicated.

In a bid to hastily halt the crime inferno and appease the public, the state is looking at imposing harsher sentences instead of humane punishment. It is true that certain crimes require such harsh measures including imprisonment, but it is also true that 95% of all people sentenced to prison will come back to society. It is this eventuality that we need to consider, and address, as soon as imprisonment begins.

What will this person serving a long-term prison sentence do when he or she comes out? Will they have a skill to secure a job? Will there be a job for them even? Will they have family or support structures? Will they consider themselves as part of the society? What will they see their role as being? Will they have a place to stay? What about their victim(s)? Would the prison term served by the offender have appeased the victim? To some of us these may be just questions but for most offenders they are life issues that are real and need to be addressed.

Sentencing and punishment, therefore, can no longer be meted in isolation from the eventuality of reintegration. Imprisonment as it is experienced now, cannot fulfil the function of reintegration. The overcrowding and staff shortages undermine any possibility for effective correction whilst offenders are incarcerated. Therefore, a lot of offenders go through the criminal justice system only to come out better criminals. They then find themselves trapped in the spiral of crime and prison.

The time has come for South Africa look at practical, cost effective and relevant solutions to crime, punishment and sentencing. We cannot continue condemning people to oblivion. Sentencing options like community corrections, community service and diversion can be effective, especially for people sentenced to serve six or less months in prison. With every prison sentence there should be a life-changing programme that has high impact, high intensity and personalised for those offenders that want to participate in such programme.

Notes:

1 Social Exclusion Unit, Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners, UK, 2002.

2 "Will building more prisons be a solution to overcrowding?", Paper presented by M. Sekhonyane, ISS, July 7, 2003.

3 Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons, 2004.

4 Department of Correctional Services, Overpopulation in South African prisons.

5 Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons, 2004.

6 Muntingh, L.M. (1997) NICRO Occasional Paper no. 12.

7 National Crime Prevention Strategy, 1996.

8 Mvelaphanda Strategic Plan of the Department of Correctional Services, 1/4/2002 to 31/3/2005.

9 Department of Correctional Services Annual Report 2001/2002.

10 South African Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998.

11 Menninger, K. "Therapy, Not Punishment," in Murphy, J. Punishment not rehabilitation, California, Wadsworth, 1973, p. 133.

12 Muntingh, L.M., ISS Monograph: Offender Reintegration, 2000.

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid.

15 Unknown author, Rehabilitation of Offenders, Chapter 4, p. 88.

16 Reitan, E. "Punishment and the Community: the Reintegrative Theory of Punishment," in Muntingh, L.M., ISS Monograph: Offender Reintegration, 2000.

17 Social Exclusion Unit, Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners, 2002.

18 Social Exclusion Unit, Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners, 2002.

19 Ibid.

20 Ibid.

21 Ibid.

22 ibid.

23 ibid.

 
Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation
Criminal Justice Conference Proceedings

eXTReMe Tracker