Maximum punishment

Seeking to show that its announcements were not simply rhetoric, the new high-tech maximum security prison, aptly named C-Max, was introduced to the media in September 1997. Key officials from Correctional Services only knew about the institution a week before it was opened, for fear it might provoke protests in the country. The institution is supposed to house convicts who pose the greatest threat to other prisoners and have the potential to escape. However, the criteria for selection seem rather vague. In December 1997, the Human Rights Commission (HRC) discovered during a routine visit that at least ten awaiting trial prisoners were being held in C-Max, alongside convicted murderers. Presently, the number of inmates in C-Max fluctuates between forty and fifty. It is difficult to know the exact number, since the Department refuses to name the inmates, say exactly how many there are, or detail their alleged crimes.

C-Max prisoners are kept in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, with only an hour per day for exercise and a short shower. The international human rights monitoring organisation, Human Rights Watch, has protested to the previous Minister of Correctional Services, Sipo Mzimela, that the solitary confinement imposed in C-Max contravenes international human rights conventions. Mzimela denied that this is solitary confinement, describing it as ‘tight security’. Prisoners are not allowed to smoke, shave with razors, watch television, talk or associate with other inmates or receive contact visits. Music is piped in from a central source. Only plastic spoons and cups are allowed. Books are supplied by the institution as the prisoners are allowed to study through correspondence.

Apparently, C-Max was inspired by the penitentiary in Marion, Illinois where the most violent prisoners in the United States are held under the most controlled penal conditions in the nation.1 There are several super-maximum security facilities that have been erected worldwide. In the United Kingdom, Milton Keynes houses fifty of the country’s most violent prisoners under identical conditions. C-Max is regarded as a pilot project. The Department is currently also taking bids for a super-maximum facility at Kokstad in the Free State that will house fifteen times as many prisoners.2

C-Max could potentially become an embarrassment to the government. Local human rights groups are outraged, not only at the conditions in the prison, but also at the lack of consultation with stakeholders before it was set up. The Human Rights Commission has now visited the prison twice and remains dissatisfied with the way it is run, the criteria used to incarcerate prisoners and the philosophy behind its establishment.

Reintegrating Offenders

The two new facilities (Goodwood and Malmesbury), recently opened in the Western Cape, and the present restructuring of the Department prove that the Department is starting to be progressive in the manner in which prisoners are housed and treated. The two case studies described below provide insight into how future prisons in South Africa will hopefully be managed and built. In addition, the Pre-trial Services Project, a pilot project to improve the efficiency of the justice system, has already proactively helped to alleviate the crisis in the prisons by limiting the number of people awaiting trial. Each is discussed in turn.

Goodwood Prison

Goodwood was opened in October 1997. The prison, which was built at a total cost of about R140 million, is intended to accommodate awaiting trial prisoners, particularly those from Pollsmoor prison. However, it was decided by the Department that the prison should be used to accommodate 1 700 prisoners who are serving the last four years of their sentence. The total population in March 1998 was 970.3 The majority of sentenced prisoners where transferred from Pollsmoor’s admission centre to provide space for prisoners awaiting trial.

Goodwood’s physical design is rather dated. It is a walled prison with several watchtowers built at various intervals. Apparently, the design was completed about five years ago and the structure was only recently erected because of the lack of funds in the Department of Public Works. The prison is built in four units. Each unit is divided into four sections. A section contains four communal cells, each accommodating a maximum of eighteen prisoners, and five single cells. Every cell has eighteen beds, lockers for personal goods and a bathroom, which is private. All the inmates in a cell can rent a television from the Department. Between the communal cells is an open-air courtyard which prisoners have access to between lock-up times. Each section has a dining area and a kitchen, where food is distributed to from the main kitchen.

Between the two units are control rooms, which are only functional during the day. All the doors in the various units are electronically operated. There is a 24-hour computerised central control room which can operate the 89 closed circuit television cameras and all the doors throughout the prison.

Although there is a proper area for an educational centre, including classrooms and a library, it is not yet in operation. Consequently, most prisoners, except those working on the grounds of the prison, hang around their sections with little to do. Hopefully, this will change when a budget is allocated to operationalise the education centre. The structure of the prison helps with prison management. It is run on the model unit concept (see the discussion of Malmesbury below), which encourages more direct supervision and contact between the inmates and the correctional officials.

Goodwood is a light and spacious prison. It is clean and houses prisoners in an efficient and effective way. However, the present lack of educational facilities and workshops needs to be prioritised. Although prisoners at Goodwood have a better living environment, much work has to be done in providing activities, which will encourage prisoners’ growth and development.

Malmesbury: A pilot project

Malmesbury, a ‘new generation’ prison, was opened in December 1997. Structurally, it is a modern prison with an inner and outer perimeter fence. All the doors are operated from a central control room and from smaller control rooms situated in the various units. Its aim is to focus on the reform of prisoners and to help with their reintegration into the community. It is a maximum-security facility, housing approximately 570 inmates, who have four years of their sentence to complete. At present, it is not fully operational. The education centre, workshops, recreational centre (including rooms for psychological counselling and a chapel), and football fields are near completion. These facilities are to encourage the self-development and education of prisoners. Like Goodwood, the prison is managed by utilising the concept of the model unit. Each unit has a unit manager and four case management supervisors who are responsible for the various sections within the units, as well as 28 case officers who deal with the prisoners on a daily basis. This structure encourages ownership of the task and better supervision of the inmates. This is the first prison in South Africa to be managed through direct supervision.

The sections have a number of double and single cells. The cells have beds, lockers, chairs and desks, as well as basins and toilets which are situated behind the door as opposed to in front of the door, thus respecting the prisoner’s privacy. The sections are self-contained units with a kitchen, dining area and laundry room. The central kitchen provides all the sections with food prepared daily. There is an open-air courtyard which prisoners can use while they are not locked in their cells. Such a design helps to group the inmates into standard living units.

When a prisoner arrives at Malmesbury, s/he has to undergo a personal evaluation test. This is done by computer, which asks questions in a specified language to which the prisoner has to reply. Such an evaluation helps case officers with the inmate’s background.

Malmesbury is a pilot project and its success will determine whether the Department will build more facilities of its kind. R190 million would have been spent when the project is completed. This facility certainly gives some hope that future prisoners will be better housed and reintegrated back into the community.

However, the physical structure of a prison does not alleviate the various problems of managing such an institution. The restructuring of the Department is fundamental to the provision of an effective system of management, ultimately contributing to a better environment for prisoners. The purpose of the Department in restructuring its management system is to establish the correct staff:prisoners ratio in order to deliver an effective service. The process entails the addition of fifty posts at provincial level, while abolishing 81 posts at head office. Management areas are also currently under investigation. Through this process of decentralisation, the Department hopes to enhance process management and the allocation of resources, as well as to shorten communication channels. Other projects to enhance service delivery include providing better management information and retraining personnel, specifically correctional officials. The training will be outsourced to a contractor. The contractor has to complete the training of approximately 400 trainers between July 1998 and February 1999.

The Pre-trial Services Office

The Pre-trial Services Office is an initiative implemented by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. It is a joint project of the Ministry of Justice and the Vera Institute of Justice in the United States. The objective of the project is to help address the problems surrounding the right to bail and witness protection which, until recently, have not been addressed in South Africa. A partnership initiative, the Pre-trial Services Office has been designed to identify and track accused offenders and witnesses through the justice system. This unique project in South Africa, which has already been a success in the United Kingdom and the United States, will ultimately have a significant impact on the granting of bail to those who deserve it, making sure the serious offenders are kept out of society, reducing the number of petty offenders who have not been granted bail because of lack of payment, and protecting witnesses/victims. Efficiency within the justice system will be improved by insuring that more witnesses and more accused persons will return to court, thus resolving cases quicker. This will allow justice and police officials to dedicate more time to the investigation of serious cases and collecting the evidence necessary to secure convictions.

Three Pre-trial Services Offices have been opened, one at the Mitchell’s Plain Magistrate’s Court, one at the Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court, and a third office at the Magistrate’s Court in Port Elizabeth. These Pre-trial Services Offices aim to introduce a system of supervised release with guarantees of compliance with conditions to South African courts. The offices provide the courts with verified information about accused persons that enables the courts to make better bail and pre-trial release decisions. It is expected that the Pre-trial Services Offices will improve the operation of the criminal justice system in South Africa through diverting those accused, particularly petty first time offenders out of the prisons, increase the number of serious, dangerous, repeat offenders held in custody, as well as limit witness intimidation. However, the Pre-trial Services Office is a pilot project of the SAPS’ National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS) and will be monitored to ensure that it has an impact on justice generally. If the Pre-trial Services Office is a success, it will become a national project for South Africa.

Alternative Options

Alternative options to the prison crisis fall under two categories, alternative sanctions and a different management structure. The government has started to explore both options. The Draft Correctional Services Bill touches upon ‘community corrections’, highlighting various methods of alternative sentencing. Although the Department is exploring this concept, it is still in its embryonic stage. Evidence has shown that alternative sentencing has proven to be effective in reducing the prison population in several developed countries.4 Alternative sanctions include many different initiatives, such as victim-offender reconciliation programmes, restitution and compensation, day fines, community service, electronic monitoring, intensive supervision programmes and boot camps. Nonetheless, it should be highlighted that such alternatives require both investigation and experimentation. In addition, these initiatives are not cheaper options of punishment because they require community involvement. On the contrary, such initiatives need a high number of trained personnel, as well as established administrative departments. The section below will briefly describe the essence of how such alternative sanctions operate. The purpose is to emphasise that there are many creative and proactive ways of limiting the number of people sent to prison, as well as of reintegrating them back into society.

Victim offender reconciliation programmes

Victim offender reconciliation programmes (VORPs) are in essence the organisation of a meeting between the offender and the victim, usually combined with compensation, including the payment of compensation, the return of stolen property or reparation for damage, as well as doing work as redress. Such mediation projects exist in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Austria, France, Norway and several other countries. The principle objective of such a meeting is to effectively recognise the interests of the victim through the reparation of the damage caused by the offender. In addition, this mediation is intended to promote a real ‘reconciliation’ between the offender and the victim, and to make the offender explicitly aware of what s/he has done.

In a number of countries (Norway Austria, Germany), mediation is used principally with juveniles. From a British Home Office investigation, it appeared that in projects exclusively directed at juveniles whose cases had been dropped, 57 per cent of the young people involved, attempted to give the victim an explanation of their behaviour and apologised. In a little more than a quarter of the cases, compensation was paid and in some cases work was done for the victim.5 In Canada, VORPs were imposed on adults as well as juveniles. There are about forty mediation programmes in Canada.

In some countries, particularly in the United States, mediation projects are run by private organisations. These private organisations generally find themselves on the margins of the criminal justice system, the result being that mediation is only used for petty crime. A successful VORP project in Boston, where the project is based on closer co-operation with the judiciary, proves that the more the judiciary are involved with the project, the greater the chance that mediation is imposed mainly for minor crimes.6 American research has shown that mediation projects result in a greater satisfaction for victims and offenders. They feel justice is being done through the compulsory payments of compensation.7

Restitution and compensation

In practically all countries of the world, restitution and/or compensation in some form are part of the sentence. In Canada, about three quarters of conditional sentences include compensation and/or unpaid work as special conditions. In the United States, there are restitution centres, which are types of open prisons where inmates must work in order to pay for any damage their offence caused. In most countries restitution is seen not as an independent sentence in itself, nor as an alternative for another sanction, but as a supplement to the sentence.

Day fines

The use of fines has always been more popular in Europe than in the United States. In West Germany during 1986, 81 per cent of all adult crimes and 73 per cent of all violent crimes were settled with a fine being imposed as the main sentence. In the United Kingdom, a fine dealt with 38 per cent of all crimes and 39 per cent of all violent crimes.8 In a number of countries, the fine has become the most important alternative for short prison sentences of up to six months. The advantage of the day fine is that the punishment element can certainly be as harsh as that of a prison sentence.

If the day fine is to be effective, the sanction must:

reflect the seriousness of the case (proportionality) and be tailored to the financial position of the offender; and



be enforceable; fines must be paid in full.

From American and British research, it is evident that three factors are associated with the successful collection of the fine. Firstly, the fine must not exceed the paying capacity of the offender to any great extent. Secondly, payment in instalments must be limited as much as possible and the payment period must not be too long.9 In Sweden, unpaid fines can be converted to a prison sentence: five day-fines are equal to ten days imprisonment, hundred days-fines equal to 64 days. In Germany, the overcrowded prisons led to a reform in the criminal justice code in 1969. A fine replaced the short-term prison sentence (up to six months), except in exceptional cases. Due to the success of reducing the prison population, a fine is presently imposed in eighty per cent of these cases and an unconditional prison sentence in only six per cent of cases.10

Community service

Community service as a penalty originally started in the United Kingdom in 1972. Since then it has spread to the United States, Canada, Germany, Finland and Zimbabwe. The way in which this penalty is applied, differs between countries. For example, in the United States, it is mainly restricted to so-called ‘white collar’ criminals, juvenile delinquents and to non-serious crimes. As a result of this, the sanction is used primarily as a supplement to other sentences and only rarely as a sentence in itself. In Europe, community service is imposed more frequently as an independent sanction. Community service is basically a payment for the crime that the offender has committed. The work undertaken by the offender has to be physically, psychologically or mentally taxing, as well as of benefit to the community.

An investigation carried out in the United Kingdom in 1985 illustrated that community service was imposed primarily for crimes against property (65 per cent) and traffic offences (27 per cent). About a third of those doing community service had previously been detained (detention centres, borstals or youth custody). A recent Home Office report showed that community service is not being implemented as readily as before. In 1996, the number of people starting a community service order fell by six per cent to 46 300, continuing the fall from the peak of 50 200 in 1994. This number had risen each year between 1989 and 1994.11 Part of this decrease may reflect the increasing use of combination orders, including a combination of community service and intensive probation supervision for a maximum of 100 days.

An experimental community service scheme in Zimbabwe has proven to be a success and relevant to developing countries because of its low cost. The scheme was implemented in 1992 in response to the rapidly rising prison population. The cost implication of such an increase was enormous. In 1980, the total prison budget in Zimbabwe was US $1,2 million, but rose to US $108 million in 1994.12 At present, instead of a prison sentence, offenders are given the opportunity to do community service work in a social welfare organisation, doing practical work of benefit to the community. The scheme has helped reduce the cost of imprisonment by six per cent. The cost per prisoner a month is roughly US $56, while the cost of community service for a prisoner is between US $10 and US $20 per month.

The success of the Zimbabwean model lies in the fact that it has not attempted to emulate the structures of some developed countries, where alternatives to prison are supervised and administered by a separate publicly funded service. The model is judicially driven and operationalised through the courts, avoiding the usual trap of such schemes not being used as alternatives to prison.13

Correctional supervision is available in South Africa. However, it is not effectively utilised, specifically by magistrates who tend toward giving the offender a prison sentence rather than community service. There are approximately 30 000 offenders participating in community service programmes across the country. These include working in various organisations such as the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) and hospitals, or being put under house arrest.

Electronic monitoring

Electronic monitoring has been the most popular in the United States.14 Experiments carried out in 1964 showed that, on the one hand, "it would reduce recidivism and on the other, communication with a central station would have an educative and humanising effect."15 There are two types of monitoring systems: an ‘active’ system whereby a transmitter in the form of an ankle or wristband is worn and a receiver telephonically transmits signals to a central computer. The second ‘passive’ system controls the whereabouts of the offender by the use of irregular telephone calls.

Although electronic monitoring was introduced in 1971 as a way of reducing the psychological destruction of detention and improving social integration, the sanction has changed to one providing a solution to prison overcrowding. In 1990, electronic monitoring programmes were established in all states in America. It has three components, electronic control, frequent contacts between staff and offenders, and urine tests to check on the use of drugs. The target group for the programme has included offenders of violent crimes, drug offences, property crime and traffic offences.

The implementation of electronic monitoring is not without problems. These include technical failures, such as transmitter breakdown, overloading of the telephone system and incorrect reports of the offender violating rules. In addition, the use of electronic monitoring goes hand in hand with an increase in supervisory staff. The consequence is an increase in the cost to run such a programme.

Intensive supervision programmes (ISPs)

Intensive supervision programmes are a new sanction that also originated in the United States. The programmes consist of a number of punishments and treatment elements carried out under the strict control and supervision of the probation service. It is an alternative to prison, oriented towards hardened criminals who have committed serious crimes — those offenders for whom a fine or community service would not be imposed. The criminal justice procedure in which ISPs are applicable, varies. Firstly, the court can sentence an offender to ISP as an alternative to custody. Secondly, the probation service can place an offender in an intensive supervision project if the court has imposed a conditional sentence with probation supervision. Thirdly, ISP can be laid down as a condition for early parole.

ISP is a demanding intervention. In a large-scale evaluation of fourteen ISPs, 25 per cent of those in detention turned down the opportunity to take part in a project, and preferred prison. An offender who had experienced both sanctions, said: "It’s harder to do time in the community than in prison. In jail you just do as you’re told, on ISP you have to take responsibility for your life."16

The average or standard ISP is characterised by at least two contacts per week, house visits at night, community service and restitution, usually combined with house arrest, urine checks and electronic supervision. ISP is described in the United States as "tough, strict, and harsh" and many people want it to be so.17 According to researchers, ISPs have kept a great number of offenders out of prison.18

Boot camps

Boot camps are a sentences imposed in the United States and the United Kingdom on young adult offenders. The objective of what is otherwise known as ‘shock incarceration’, is that this relatively short sentence (the average length is three months’ detention) is followed by a period of intensive supervision. Such a sentence is mainly directed towards young, non-violent first time offenders between seventeen and 25 years of age, who would have received a sentence of one to two years’ imprisonment. Instead of this, they can be sent to a boot camp for a maximum of six months.

Although there are various differences between boot camps, they do have a number of common elements. All boot camps are characterised by a military regime with a great deal of marching, physical training and military discipline, where even small misdemeanours are punished severely on the spot. These aspects are combined with hard physical labour, education, the acquisition of vocational skills, and sometimes counselling. The expectation is that the combination of a strict military regime with rehabilitation activities will lead to less repeat offences among these convicted young men.

Boot camps have become very popular in the United States as it is believed that there is great educational benefit to be gained from military training for young adults, and it offers young first offenders a chance to receive a relatively short but certainly sharp sentence. However, there is some doubt that the principles of a "strong hierarchy, unquestioning obedience, submissiveness, strict discipline and the learning of an aggressive combative mentality" can really lead to good behaviour and that they can succeed in deterring further criminality.19 As much as sixty per cent of boot camp leavers are rearrested within a year.20 Others point to the dangers of the sudden transfer from such a regime to the disorderly, disorganised and uncontrolled environment into which the offender is returned after six months.21 

Reintegrative shaming

Reintegrative shaming is not the shaming of the stocks and the pillory, but is a prelude to reintegration. The concept was developed by an Australian criminologist, John Braithwaite, who views ‘shaming’ as ‘conscience-building’.22 The concept works on the premise that sanctions imposed by people who are personally relevant to the wrongdoer have more effect than those imposed by a ‘remote legal authority’.23 He argues further that shaming as a response to crime will work because it effects the way people view the world and their place in it. They will want to behave differently after being ‘shamed’.

According to Braithwaite, "[c]rime is best controlled when members of the community are the primary controllers through active participation in shaming offenders, and, having shamed them, through concerted participation in ways of reintegrating the offender back into the community of law-abiding citizens. Low-crime societies are societies where people do not mind their own business, where tolerance of deviance has definite limits, where communities prefer to handle their own crime problems rather than hand them over to professionals."24

This is not suggesting the replacement of the ‘rule of law’ with the ‘rule of man’, but highlighting that the rule of law will become meaningless unless there is community involvement in moralising about and helping with the crime problem. These ideas are being put into practice in various parts of the world. In New Zealand, Family Group Conferencing has been used for young offenders between the ages of fourteen and seventeen. This involves several role-players, including a state official, an employee from the social welfare department, the victim, the offender and a police officer, coming together to make the decision on what sentence should be given to the offender. The conference draws up a plan involving an apology and restitution to the victim that may include money to be paid, work to be done or doing work for the wider community. Such a plan is put forward to the court and the court then adjourns the case for a few months while the plan is put into action. If the plan is successful, the proceedings are terminated. Evidence proves that such a process is beneficial to the victim and the offender.25 Similar programmes are being implemented in Canada and the United Sates.

The most important argument for encouraging the implementation of alternative punishments is that such programmes, in principle, realise the various objectives of punishment — retribution, deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation — far better than imprisonment. Imprisonment primarily achieves goals like retribution and incapacitation. No empirical study has proven that imprisonment has either a deterrent or rehabilitative effect.26 Yet, evidence suggest that many countries, particularly South Africa, would rather alleviate the overcrowding of prisons by putting their resources into alternative management of prisons and building more through privatisation. Implementing alternative sanctions will increase the system of justice, which will be costly. However, privatisation will also increase the system of justice by multiplying the number of prisons in the country. It appears difficult to get a precise calculation of the costs for the execution of alternative sanctions compared to the costs of more prisons. The most important reason of implementing alternative sanctions as opposed to more prisons should be a distinct decrease in recidivism.

Privatisation of prisons

As a result of prison overcrowding and a shortage of government funds, particularly for the building of new prison structures, the Ministry of Correctional Services decided to embark on a policy of involving the private sector in its programmes. In April 1997, the Minister announced private sector co-operation in building seven new prisons, including the two super-maximum prisons in Gauteng and the Eastern Cape. The other prisons were two maximum security prisons (Northern Province and the Free State), two juvenile prisons (the Eastern Cape and Mpumalanga) ,and a prison for awaiting trial prisoners (Gauteng). Both local and international companies were to be invited to tender for the projects. The tenders involved finance, design, construction and operation. The joint project with the private sector is part of the Asset Procurement and Operating Partnership System (APOPS) which is co-ordinated by the Department of Public Works. The government would own the land on which the prisons would be built, while the successful companies would train, supply and pay their own staff. If such projects are successful, then the plan would be to phase out existing prisons over the next twenty to 25 years and replace them with new penal centres under private management. In some cases, this may involve the privatisation of existing facilities.

Although prison privatisation is considered to be a new phenomenon in South Africa, contract and lease agreements between prison authorities and private entrepreneurs were common throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, either for the use of inmate labour, or for transportation. The re-privatisation of prisons started in the United States in the mid-1980s. The fundamental reasons for privatisation were the increasing prison population since the 1980s and governments struggling with the budget deficit thus turning to the private sector to assist in reducing costs. By the end of 1991, private companies in America operated approximately sixty secure adult facilities in twelve out of the fifty states, housing about 20 000 local, state and federal prisoners.27 The privatisation movement was exported to Australia and the United Kingdom mainly through the lobbying of some international companies. Currently, there are three private facilities in Australia that house about eight per cent of the total prison population. America has been involved in all three of the Australian projects. In the United Kingdom, legislation was introduced to extend privatisation to the mainstream prison system in 1991. At present, there are four private prisons operating in the United Kingdom holding both remand and sentenced prisoners. The cost of building these prisons was carried by the state. The private sector only manages these facilities; it does not own them. However, in a major shift in policy the government has recently signed contracts with private sector corporations to fund, build and manage two new prisons.

A report compiled by the Prison Reform Trust highlighted deficiencies in how Group 4, the private company who manages the Wolds remand prison, was running the prison. "Prisoners were for instance allowed to spend 14 hours out of their cell. No activities were however organised in communal areas, resulting in prisoners hanging around, feeling bored or bullying fellow inmates and staff." The report commented further on the "inadequate staffing levels, the widespread availability of drugs the level of incidents and disturbances and the high incidence of stress and sickness among the staff."28

The privatisation of prisons has become increasingly internationalised. The Corrections Corporation of America, for example, runs several prisons in the United States, the United and Australia. Some British companies, for instance Group 4, are also looking to extend their global interest. It is unclear whether they are looking to South Africa as their next place for investment.

The introduction of private prisons has raised issues of political and moral principle, which go beyond questions of performance and cost. For example, Mick Ryan questions whether it is "right of the state to delegate the delivery of punishment to private interest?"29 Surely, if prison sentences are executed in the name of the state, it should be considered improper to delegate this function to a private agency. Many critics of the privatisation of prisons raise this concern. Palley comments: "Symbolically, only the state should have the power to administer justice and to execute it by coercion, because only then will justice have legitimacy in the eyes of those subjected to it."30 Furthermore, on what basis should accountability be secured in a post-modern society where ‘public’ and ‘private’ domains are becoming increasingly difficult to separate? Such questions raise complex debates, which will not be covered here.

On the other hand, arguments in favour of privatisation claim that it is the best way to decrease costs and construct new and better designed prisons quickly. It is stated that private correctional services can operate more efficiently, because of less bureaucratic ‘red tape’ and a higher motivation to control costs. A report compiled in the United Kingdom stated that there was a 29 per cent difference in the weekly cost per prisoner, when comparing the private facility of Blackenhurst to a local prison.31 However, fewer staff will cut costs. For example, correctional officials are partly replaced by electronic surveillance, such as cameras. Critics have argued that "this depersonalises and dehumanises prison life, for both the inmates as well as for the prison officers. Moreover, reduced personal contact between the prison staff and inmates is known to affect security and control in prison."32

A qualitative project comparing a private and a state prison in New Mexico reported that "inmates moderately favoured the state prison on every dimension, except activity (work, education and training programmes). The inmates’ displeasure with the private prison related mainly to the more prison-related atmosphere and tighter administrative regime in comparison to their former conditions at the state prison."33 Furthermore, the ‘creaming off’ by the private sector — the selection, through contract specifications, of the easiest, most tractable, least expensive prisoners — will basically leave the public system to cope with the undesirable and more expensive prisoners.

Presently, little is known about how far South Africa is with its plans to award tenders to private businesses to build and run prisons. The per diem per prisoner is approximately R70 a day — possibly one of the lowest rates in the world. The question remains whether private business can offer the government a tender as low as R60 a day per prisoner. For the private company to make a profit while simultaneously cutting costs, there will have to be controversial reductions in the staffing of such prisons, which inevitably will affect the rehabilitation of offenders. It is important for the government to ensure that South Africa is not just a foreign investment opportunity for international corrections companies.34 Although there are issues of concern regarding the privatisation of prisons, it seems that South Africa will follow the United States and United Kingdom in providing bigger and better prisons, thus conforming to the ideal that ‘prison works’.

Endnotes

The Independent, 15 March 1998.



T Legget, Cmax: Incapacitation or Retribution?, Crime and Conflict, 10, Spring 1997, p. 29.



Department of Correctional Services, unpublished daily statistics for Goodwood Prison.



Dutch Research and Documentation Centre (DRDC), Ministry of Justice Alternatives to Prison Sentences: Experiences and Developments, Studies on Crime and Justice, Kugler Publications, Amsterdam, 1994.



T F Marshall, Victim Offender Mediation, Home Office Research Bulletin, 30, London, 1991.



DRDC, op. cit., p. 21.



M S Umbreit, Mediating Victim-offender Conflict: From Single-site to Multi-site Analysis in the US, in H Messmer & H U Otto (eds.), Restorative Justice on Trial – Pitfalls and Potentials of Victim-offender Mediation, Kluwer Academic Publications, Dordrecht/Boston, 1992.



DRDC, op. cit., p. 23.



Ibid.



Ibid.



Home Office Statistical Bulletin, 13/97, Research and Statistics Directorate, 22 May 1997.



Penal Reform International, Community Service as an Alternative to Prison in Zimbabwe, Publisher and Place??, April 1998, p. 1.



Ibid., p. 2.



DRDC, op. cit., p. 31.



R K Schwitzgebel, Issues in the Use of an Electronic Rehabilitation System with Chronic Recidivists, Law and Society Review, 7, 1969, pp. 597-611.



J Petersilia & S Turner, Comparing Intensive and Regular Supervision for High-risk Probationers: Early Results from an Experiment in California, Crime and Delinquency, 36(1), January 1992.



T R Clear & P L Hardyman, The New Intensive Supervision Movement, Crime and Delinquency, 36(1), 1990.



B S Erwin & L A Bennett, Dimensions in Probation: Georgia’s Experience with Intensive Probation Supervision, US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Washington DC, January 1987.



M Morash & L Rucker, A Critical Look at the Idea of Boot Camps as Correctional Reform, Crime and Delinquency, 36(2), 1990.



National Institute of Justice, Boot Camps for Adult and Juvenile Offenders: Multisite Evaluation of Shock Incarceration, US Department of Justice, Washington DC, November 1994.



M W Osler, Shock Incarceration: Hard Realities and Real Possibilities, Federal Probation, 55(1), March 1991.



J Braithwaite, Crime, Shame and Reintegration, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989.



Ibid., p. 7.



Ibid., p. 8.



See J Burnside & N Baker (eds.), Relational Justice: Repairing the Breach, Waterside Press, Winchester, 1994, pp. 94-97.



DRDC, op. cit., p. 82.



K Beyens & S Snacken, Prison Privatisation: An International Perspective, in R Mathews & P Francis (eds.), Prisons 2000, Sage, London, 1996, p. 241.



Ibid., p. 246.



M Ryan, Private Prisons: Context, Performance and Issues – Developments in the Use of Prisons, European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, Kugler Publications, Amsterdam/New York, 1996.



C Palley, The Possible Utility, Scope and Structure of a Special Study on the Issue of Privatisation of Prisons, United Nations, Economic and Social Council, Commission on Human Rights, Sub-commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, 45th session.



R Hopkins, The Formation of the UK Detention Service, paper read at the Private Gevangenissen in Nederland seminar, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1 December 1993.



Beyens & Snacken, op. cit., p. 252.



Ibid., p. 250.



C Giffard, Privatisation of Prisons not a Quick-fix Panacea, Business Day, 18 November 1997.