A Brief History of Prisons in South Africa Published in Monograph No 29: Correcting Corrections, October 1998 At the time when the Cape was first occupied by the Dutch in 1652, it seems that the kind of punishment used for offenders was that directed at the body — public executions by firing squads and even public crucifixion. The imprisonment of convicted persons and the use of such persons for manual labour did not appear to be prioritised. In the Cape, detainees pending trial were held in early fortifications. Mass deportation occurred to the now famous Robben Island and other Dutch colonies in the East. As Van Zyl comments, "Deportation removed the criminal from a society which did not have much interest in his welfare."1 In 1795, the orientation of the penal system towards physical harm began to decline. In fact, it was during the first British occupation that such physical punishment was abolished and replaced with "incarceration for a fixed period proportionate to the heinousness of the offence."2 In 1807, the slave trade was abolished and full emancipation occurred in 1834. Penal policy soon began to develop in the Cape. This is not surprising, since slavery itself was a form of imprisonment, and its abolition consequently caused the supply of labour to the farms to suffer. Therefore, a rudimentary pass system for indigenous inhabitants — later to become a well-known feature of apartheid — was introduced. Those who abused the system were put to work as prisoners. During the 1840s and 1850s, convicts were made to work on public projects, particularly building roads and later ships. In 1871, similar demands for labour were felt in the rapidly expanding diamond mining industry. The prison system was to be used to provide labour and public policy regarding incarceration was adapted. In fact, it has been argued "that one of the distinguishing features of the development of the South African prison was its similarity to another key institution in South Africa’s history, the mine compound."3 Such compounds housed thousands of mine workers. They were specifically designed to ensure tight control over workers and to reduce the cost of labour to the mines. The focus of diamond mining shifted to Kimberley, where the first prison in the Cape was segregated along racial lines. In 1885, the De Beers Diamond Mining Company became the first private organisation to employ convicts for labour. The prison supplemented the labour force, as many workers spent time in prison as a consequence of the pass laws.4 Therefore, "the population of both compounds and prisons consisted not of criminals in the ordinary sense, but of a new labouring population criminalised by laws and controlled in new institutions."5 De Beers went one step further by building a branch prison which was controlled by the company. As Van Zyl Smit points out, "the role of the State as the provider of unskilled black labour for the mines through the penal system had become manifest."6 In addition, the penal policy that emerged was the first attempt to segregate prisoners along racial lines. Mine owners treated white workers differently from black workers. After the turn of the century, Africans continued to be incarcerated for failing to pay their taxes and for pass offences, which meant that imprisoned men were still available for work. Furthermore, the demand for prison labour by private contractors increased. During the depression in the 1930s, prison labour was made available to farmers at a very low cost. The farmers paid the government a certain amount per convict, and built prison outstations where the prisoners were housed and fed at their own expense. This continued for decades. Attempts to reform this system were made by the South African Institute of Race Relations (SAIRR) which appointed the Landsdown Commission in 1945. A series of reforms were suggested. However, the South African government of the time was not sympathetic to the Commission’s proposals. In 1959, major new prison legislation was introduced which was based on the policy of apartheid and entrenched the racial segregation of prisons. This not only meant the segregation of whites and blacks, but also the ethnic separation of black prisoners. Rhoodie suggested that, "[The Act] not only ... [implemented] a two-stream correctional policy for Bantu and European offenders, but also (so far to a lesser extent) special arrangements for members of different Bantu nations in one institution. Placing the Bantu offender in a correctional institution for people of his own group and race not only recognises existing ethnological differences but is in accordance with the national policy of differential developments."7 Giffard points out that the division of different ethnic groups was another feature shared with the mine compounds, and used to exercise control over the workers.8 The military culture of prison management was further enforced by the Act. Although staff members were defined as civil servants, their status was that of paramilitary personnel.9 In addition, all prisons became closed institutions: all media and outside inspections were prohibited. After 1959, prisons were managed under the rules of apartheid and the militaristic approach increased. At first, prisons were not used on a large-scale to control political unrest. However, this soon changed in the post-Sharpeville period of the early 1960s, when the incarceration of political detainees and sentenced political prisoners became a feature of South African prisons. The detention of high profile political prisoners raised great concern among international organisations such as the Red Cross, Amnesty International and the United Nations. In addition, there were gross human rights violations in South African prisons. Most prisoners were held in overcrowded communal cells, a situation which persists to this day in the older prisons. For example, in August 1992, Human Rights Watch found that Pollsmoor was 97 per cent overcrowded. Such cells do not have beds and most prisoners sleep on the floor on mats. Giffard argues that, "the significance of the mine compound in the development of the prison in South Africa did not disappear" as the labourers of mine compounds were housed in conditions similar to those of prisoners.10 Human rights violations included individual cases of assault, particularly of political prisoners. However, common law prisoners also experienced such assaults. These physical assaults inflicted by wardens on prisoners continued to the early 1990s and even as late as March and April 1994, prior to the democratic elections, hundreds of assaults occurred in prisons throughout the country.11 After the uprisings of 1976-77 and 1980 when youths protested against Bantu education, prisons were used to detain political activists. During this time, many of the prisons were filled with youths who were treated in the same way as adult prisoners. The prisons continued to fill, particularly during the various states of emergency in the 1980s. Some detainees were held for up to two years or more without being charged. After the release of Nelson Mandela and the unbanning of the African National Congress in the early 1990s, action was taken to start restructuring and reforming the Department. The department’s name was changed from the Department of Prisons to the Department of Correctional Services, suggesting that its objective was not only to be a "justifiable penological system", but also an institution that was transparent and accountable.12 Amendments to the Prison Act of 1959 dealt directly with the abolition of apartheid in the prison system. Most importantly, the segregation of prisoners was removed. In addition, the Department enforced correctional supervision, which supposedly would keep the increasing prison population at bay, as well as be financially beneficial for the Department. Nonetheless, the growing prison population was becoming a serious problem. A provision was made in 1991 for the mass release of approximately 57 000 prisoners. Giffard highlights that approximately 94 000 sentenced prisoners were granted "special remissions" between 1 April 1990 and the 30 June 1994. These ‘goodwill’ or ‘bursting’ remissions were granted in December 1990, April 1991, July 1991 and January 1994.13 In addition, the Department’s release policy was changed to its present format. Credits can be earned by a prisoner for good behaviour. Such credits bring the date forward when the prisoner is considered for parole. At the time, the practical operations of the new system was not understood by both the prisoners and the staff. The confusion which prevailed contributed to prison disturbances in April and May 1994. The democratic elections of April 1994 brought with it the ANC’s commitment to transform South African society at all levels. The Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP), introduced in 1994, was the policy on which such a transformation would be based. Apart from the fact that the document highlighted the need for the implementation of non-racial and non-sexist principles, it also focused on human rights, the rehabilitation of offenders, as well as the effective implementation of demilitarisation. In October 1994, the Department released the White Paper on the Policy of the Department of Correctional Services in the New South Africa. Its aim was to "stimulate debate on correctional matters and redefine priorities that will eventually lead us to where we should be ... coming to grips with a correctional model for the new South Africa."14 The paper failed to address the central problems of the correctional system in South Africa, and did not consider the implications of the RDP and the Interim Constitution for penal reform. Specifically, the paper did not suggest any forms of alternative sentencing, including various forms of diversion where the offender is reintegrated back into the community. The White Paper fell woefully short of the mark, "merely [attempting] to couch departmental policy in new rhetoric."15 An Alternative White Paper on Correctional Services was written by the Penal Reform Lobby Group (PRLG)16 in February 1995, which set out reforms to be considered for future legislation. Regardless of these problems and shortcomings, transformation has occurred in various parts of the Department. Such changes were precipitated by the Transformation Forum on Correctional Services. The forum, which included representatives from both government and non-governmental organisations, the prison unions and the PRLG, was established after a conference where international experts argued that civil society involvement was crucial for democratic transformation.17 Focus areas were prioritised, including demilitarisation, prisoners’ health, independent inspection, human resource management, and the establishment of a management team. The work undertaken by the forum did have some successes, but by and large, the forum’s aim to influence the transformation process was a failure for a number of reasons. Nonetheless, recommendations made by the forum regarding the establishment of an independent prisons inspectorate, a lay visitors scheme and a change management team, have been utilised and slowly operationalised by the Department. In addition, forum members worked with the Department on the issues of demilitarisation and health. The forum ceased its operations in September 1996 because of the withdrawal of the Department and conflict caused by political arguments. In general, the ‘interference’ of the forum was resented by the Department. The Draft Bill on Correctional Services is still to be approved by the Department and Cabinet. The primary focus of the Bill is on the rights and duties of prisoners, both sentenced and unsentenced, and of persons serving sentences of community corrections. Its aim is to provide a basic framework for the administration of corrections in conformity with the Constitution and international standards. Even though it is a great improvement on the previous and current versions of the Correctional Services Act, it allows the Minister too much discretion to generate his own standards of how prisoners should be treated. Van Zyl Smit argues that the "restrictions must be formulated sufficiently narrowly to ensure that prisoners are not exposed to overboard discretionary powers which deny them the protection of the law."18 Although the Bill has not been passed and will probably not go through before the 1999 elections, the Department is going ahead with various management and training projects, as well as the building of new prisons. This section documented the historical roots of penal policy in South Africa. The next section will provide a comparison between South African prisons and those in other countries, as well as a description of the prison environment as experienced by both prison officials and prisoners. Endnotes D van Zyl Smit, South African Prison Law and Practice, Butterworths, Durban, YEAR??. Ibid., p. 8. C Giffard, Out of Step? The Transformation Process in the South African Department of Correctional Services, unpublished MSc dissertation, University of Leicester, February 1997, p. 16. L Chisolm, The Pedagogy of Porter: The Origins of the Reformatory in the Cape Colony, 1882-1910, Journal of African History, 27, 1986, pp. 481-495. Giffard, op. cit., p. 17. Van Zyl Smit, op. cit., p. 15. E Rhoodie, Penal Systems of the Commonwealth: A Criminological Survey Against the Background of the Cornerstones for a Progressive Correctional Policy, Academia, Cape Town, 1967. Giffard, op. cit. A Dissel, South Africa’s Prison Conditions: The Inmates Talk, Imbizo, 2, 1996, pp. 4-10. Giffard, op. cit., p. 20. Ibid., p. 22. Ibid., p. 27. Ibid. Department of Correctional Services (DCS), White Paper on the Policy of the Department of Correctional Services in the New South Africa, Pretoria, October 1994. Giffard, op. cit., p. 31. The Penal Reform Lobby Group (PRLG) was formed in Johannesburg by a group of organisations, including the trade union POPCRU, the South African Prisoners’ Organisation SAPOHR, the National Institute for Crime and the Rehabilitation of Offenders (NICRO), Lawyers for Human Rights and research groups. The conference was entitled Civil Involvement in Correctional Services, and was held in Johannesburg from 16-18 March 1995. D van Zyl Smit, in Chaskalson et. al., Constitutional Law of South Africa, Juta and Co, Johannesburg, 1996, pp. 28-24??.