The problems in South Africa’s overcrowded prisons are slowly building, with potentially explosive consequences. The prison population has increased by an additional 36 280 from 1984/85 to 1998 (see Figure 1). South Africa’s 231 prisons contained 146 435 thousand inmates at the end of March 1998. This is 47,31 per cent over capacity and the problem is going to get worse.1 Pollsmoor, in the Cape Peninsula, one of the most overpopulated prisons in the country, is 39,64 per cent fuller than it should be.2 By 1999, the population is expected to rise to 156 000 (see Figure 2).

Figure 1: Total prison population, 1984-March 1998*



Figure 2: Prediction of future prison population*

Although the rising prison population in South Africa is of great concern, it is certainly not just a South African problem, but an international phenomenon. In countries of the developed world, such as the United Kingdom and the United Sates, prison populations are increasing every year. At the end of November 1997, the prison population in England and Wales stood at 63 868 compared to just over 40 000 only five years before.3 This steep rise in imprisonment is not the result of increasing crime, but a consequence of the sentencing reforms introduced by former Home Secretary, Michael Howard, which were seen as an attempt to safeguard the public and reinforce faith in the criminal justice system by arguing that ‘prison works’.4 The increase in the prison population from May 1997 (60 000 to 63 000) suggests that many of the policies associated with Howard have been continued by the new labour government.5 For example, mandatory sentencing has been implemented. The British Home Office estimates that the prison population will increase to 92 600 by 2005, assuming that further increases will occur in the proportion sentenced to prison while keeping sentence lengths constant.6 It is not known where all these prisoners will be housed, as the six new prisons that are planned will not be ready to take in inmates for several years.

Britain’s ‘getting tough’ initiative seems to be following America’s policy of mass incarceration. America has the highest prison population in the world, reaching almost 1,8 million in 1998 (683 per 100 000 of the population), an increase of about seven per cent a year since 1990.7 More prisons, particularly private ones, have been and are still being built to alleviate overcrowding. The costs of running America’s constantly expanding prison system is approximately US $30 billion a year. The United Kingdom is facing similar expenditure increases with the urgent need to build more prisons. The costings are approximately £9 million for a new prison and £24 000 per prisoner per year. Some of these costs have been masked by joint financing arrangements with the private sector under which most new establishments are being built.8

Recent developments in South Africa suggest that it is also heading towards a ‘punitive society’. In February 1998, there were 382 people per 100 000 of the population in prison, which is the highest rate in Africa, the next being Algeria where the rate was 125 in 1996, Nigeria 61 and Cameroon 1169 (see Figure 3). Contradictory prison statistics from various sources suggest that such figures are unreliable.10 It is better to compare South Africa’s rate with that of Russia, another country transforming from an authoritative regime to a democracy, as both countries show similar trends of imprisonment.

Figure 3: Prisoners per 100 000 of the population in selected countries*

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the history of imprisonment in Eastern Europe and countries of the former Soviet Union have shown two distinct phases. At first, prison populations decreased as political prisoners were released and new prison directors were appointed. Existing staff, in greater or lesser numbers, were dismissed or chose to leave and penal executive codes were introduced or planned, to fulfil their main objective in their attempts to become members of the Council of Europe. In the second phase, as argued by King, "prison systems have been required to respond to the anomic problems of fledgling market economies; in the inevitable timelag between the establishment of new systems of production and distribution, criminal activity is perceived to be filling the vacuum created by the collapse of the old communist systems."11 Thus, prison populations grew dramatically. The prison population in Poland has increased by more than fifty per cent in four years, but without creating problems with overcrowding. Increases in the size of the Russian prison population, on average over the past five years, have been "equivalent to adding the 1995 prison population of England and Wales every year to a system that is already vast."12 The Russian incarceration rate now exceeds that of the United States with 690 prisoners per 100 000 of the population.13

Russia’s rising prison population may be the consequence of the rise in crime and the inadequate system of justice during the transformation. However, in other countries, particularly the United Kingdom and United States, prison populations are rising as crime declines as a result of, some may argue, the more effective system of justice. The relationship between crime rates and trends in penal populations is worth explaining and has particular consequences in South Africa’s case. Many examples tend to defy that there is a relationship between the increase in crime and the prison population. The Netherlands, Australia, and Ontario reduced their prison populations in the context of rising crime rates, as indeed did the United Kingdom in the 1920s and 1930s.14 Downes casts serious doubt on the notion that there is a proportionate relationship between a rising crime rate and an increasing prison population.15 The argument that penal trends are dependent on the methods of sentencing being implemented at the time, rather than that crime rates have an effect on the rising prison population, sounds far more convincing.

South Africa’s penal population confirms this trend. However, the rise in the prison population has a complex explanation. Looking at Figure 1, there is a slight increase in the prison population in 1986/87, possibly due to the state of emergency implemented at the time. Between 1990 and 1992 there is a significant decline, resulting from the release of 57 000 sentenced prisoners, which included political prisoners. From 1992 there is an increase and then a general stabilisation until 1995. The increase may be related to the rapid increase in crime in 1990, the year in which the political transition began, and then steadily increased until 1996 when a general stabilisation occurred (see Figure 4).16 A brief overview of crime trends since 1980 suggests that increases relate to some extent to the transition to democracy in the country. Indeed, high levels of crime elsewhere have accompanied transition from authoritarian to democratic rule, for example Russia. This is not to say that crime is necessarily a feature of democracy. Instead, dramatic changes in societies which move from authoritarian to democratic governance often weaken state and social controls, generating increased levels of crime. Short of massive social and economic disruption, crime will not increase at the same rate after the core period — from 1985 to 1995 — of the political transition. The consolidation of democracy in South Africa is leading towards stabilised crime levels from 1996 onwards as shown in Figure 4. But the danger is that unacceptable high levels of crime will remain a permanent feature, unless adequate measures are taken.

Figure 4: Property and violent crime, 1980-1997

Throughout 1997, the prison population has steadily increased in contrast with the stabilisation of the crime rate. There are many explanations for this:

the enforcement of better policing which increased the number of people arrested and then put into prison while awaiting trial;



the time taken by the justice system to process those awaiting trial;



the Justice Department enforcing longer sentences; and



the processing of the backlog of people awaiting trial from 1995/96 who were finally convicted while out on bail.

Yet, the factor which has contributed the most to the increasing prison population from 1996 and 1997 is the increase in the number of unsentenced prisoners from 1995 to 1997 (see Figure 5). Prisoners awaiting trial increased from 24 265 in January 1995 to 41 435 in December 1997. This enormous increase in the unsentenced population is as a result of blockages elsewhere in the criminal justice system. As the Department of Justice is the ‘gatekeeper’ to the prisons, it therefore determines the rise and fall in the prison population.

Figure 5: Total number of awaiting trial prisoners, 1995-1997*

Justice as ‘gatekeepers’ of prisons

South Africa’s high number of prisoners awaiting trial are approximately one quarter of the prison population. In Pollsmoor Prison in Cape Town, almost half of the prison population are awaiting trial — 2 989 out of 6 052 — and 225 are youths aged seventeen or younger.17 Statistics from Pretoria Central Prison show a more serious situation with almost 4 000 of its 4 800 inmates awaiting trial.18 The two main reasons for such a crisis is the inadequate application of the new bail law, implemented in September 1995, and deficiencies in the criminal justice system which greatly contribute to the declining conviction rate.19

Although the current bail law is "comprehensive, emphasis[ing] the need for each case to be investigated thoroughly and stressing the importance of weighing up both the rights of the community and those of the individual accused", the way in which it is applied, keeps a large number of accused in custody awaiting trial.20

This was evident in a profile of Pollsmoor’s awaiting trial population which showed that 75 per cent of those who were detained pending their trial, had been granted bail by the court. These prisoners were probably too poor to afford to pay the bail amounts, despite these being relatively low. Of the population granted bail, "45,9% had been granted bail of R500 or less and a further 45,9 % had bail set at more than R500 but equal to or less than R1 000."21

In general, the bail amounts granted by the Magistrate Court, at first appeared to be relatively low. However, these amounts need to be considered in the light of the poor socio-economic condition and high unemployment in Cape Town.22 The profile indicated that most accused persons could not pay bail at court on the day that it was granted if the amount exceeded R300. The net result has been the large number of unsentenced prisoners contributing to the already overcrowded prison system. The court is required to set a bail amount that is affordable to the accused and to provide a better alternative to a money-based bail system where condition and supervision programmes are initiated. However, the problem of the increasing awaiting trial population is complex. The flaws lie in the criminal justice system as a whole.

Recently, the National Assembly of Parliament passed new bail and sentencing laws, which came into effect in April 1998. These laws are intended to strengthen the hand of the government in the fight against crime. The laws include:

tougher criteria for the granting of bail – it will be extremely difficult for a person accused of serious crimes to be granted bail, and only if exceptional circumstances can be proven, will bail be granted;



heavy minimum sentences which cannot be suspended;



qualifying for parole after serving a longer portion of the sentence. The new parole system provides that all prisoners must serve at least fifty per cent of their sentence, and that the court can increase this to 67 per cent. Prisoners serving life sentences must serve at least 25 years before they can apply to the court for parole.

Although these laws send a clear message to those who commit serious violent crimes, they will have the unintended consequence of filling prisons. Tougher conditions of bail, minimum sentencing and a tougher parole system will obviously increase the number of inmates going to and staying in prison. With the severe problem of overcrowding, it is unclear where all these criminals are going to be housed. In particular, the harsher bail law will further increase the number of people awaiting trial in prison, adding to the enormous number of people already being ‘warehoused’ by the Department. This raises enormous challenges for the Department of Correctional Services in the next decade.

Declining conviction rates

The latest official estimates indicate that convictions for most crimes have declined steadily since 1992/93. According to the police, numbers of reported crimes — in real terms and measured per 100 000 of the population — have recently stabilised and in some cases, are declining. If fewer crimes are reported to and investigated by police, it stands to reason that the numbers of convictions would also drop. But the disturbing reality is that the decline in convictions preceded the levelling off of reported crimes by several years. In fact, many of the serious crimes were still on the increase when convictions began to decline.

Members of the South African Police Service (SAPS) — as the front-end representatives of the criminal justice process battling high crime levels — come into contact with the general public more regularly than any other agency in the delivery of safety and security. Policing problems, of which detection and statistics collection are major headaches, have therefore not escaped public scrutiny. In contrast, too little is known about court processes and attendant problems, in particular the detective-prosecutor interface. The steady drop in convictions — even for drug-related crimes and traffic offences which rely almost entirely on police action and usually provide the prosecution with concrete evidence — reflects grave deficiencies in this area.

While these trends are too consistent across varying crime types to be attributable to statistical peculiarities, the collection of conviction figures is not without its problems. Statistics on the workloads of courts (involving the number of cases police bring to court, backlogs, etc.) are presently recorded manually from court records — indeed, no information in the Department of Justice is computerised, and court sentencing figures are unavailable. Furthermore, a trend peculiar to South Africa is that the police — and not the Justice Department — collect court statistics.

Once dockets of cases which have proceeded to court are returned to the police station which issued them, copies of the final decision are sent to Central Statistics for summary and publication. Some of the problems which the police experience in the collecting and processing of their own data on the Crime Administration System (CAS), arguably also apply to the statistics reflecting the police’s clearance rate and subsequent court proceedings.

Clearance rates

The ‘clearance rate’ is calculated as the ratio of the number of cases handled by the police which are referred to court, withdrawn or unfounded to the total number of cases either cleared23 or undetected (see Figure 6).24 This definition is similar to that used in other countries, particularly for crimes that are simultaneously recorded and cleared up, like shoplifting, drug-related offences and illegal possession of firearms.25 For violent crimes, particularly murder, the SAPS’ clearance rate is substantially lower than that, for example, in European countries. Between January and June 1997, nearly forty per cent of murder cases remained undetected (representing a 60,4 per cent clearance rate). Among the violent crimes, aggravated robbery had the lowest clearance rate, with 77 per cent of cases remaining undetected (see Figure 7). Property crimes, with the exception of shoplifting, are notoriously difficult to solve, with between eighty and ninety per cent of burglaries and theft of and out of motor vehicles going undetected (Figures 8 to 9). Of the cases which do eventually reach court, a large proportion are withdrawn during proceedings — one of the main factors contributing to declining conviction rates. Nearly half of all cases of attempted murder, aggravated robbery, rape, serious assault and other robbery were withdrawn in court in the first six months of this year. There are several possible reasons for this. Prosecutors can decline to proceed with a case if there is insufficient evidence — something which may only be established on the day of the court appearance due to extensive workloads. The lack of evidence, in turn, relates to poor detection by investigating officers — a predictable symptom of bad management and the continuous ‘brain drain’ from the police’s investigating departments.26 As a result, the system of police docket inspection has weakened. Cases are also frequently postponed when investigating officers fail to bring the case docket to court or to subpoena witnesses. Detectives have also had to adjust their past investigating skills to comply with the variety of rights included in the new Constitution. However, the police and courts are not solely to blame. Withdrawals also result from the disappearance or death of witnesses, or when victims retract the charges before finalisation of the case, particularly in cases of domestic violence and rape (see Figures 10 to 11).27

Figure 6: Murder cases cleared and undetected January-June 1997

Figure 7: Disposal of case dockets – aggravated robbery January-June 1997

Figure 8: Disposal of case dockets – burglary January-June 1997

Figure 9: Disposal of case dockets – shoplifting January-June 1997

Figure 10: Cases disposed of in court – rape, January-June 1997

Figure 11: Cases disposed of in court – murder, January-June 1997

 
It is not only withdrawals in court, however, that pose a problem. Half of all common assaults, more than two-thirds of serious assaults and 23 per cent of rape charges are withdrawn before reaching court. While this is often regarded (especially by the police) as the victim’s decision, the type of service provided by the police (and the legal system), and their attitude towards victims reporting such crimes to police stations, probably play a crucial role in decisions to withdraw cases.

Expertise and resources

Incompetent investigating on the police’s part is also perpetuated by prosecutors’ inexperience in guiding investigations. According to one prosecutor, "[w]ithout exception the job of a state prosecutor is a stepping stone to another career in the field of justice."28 That the twenty prosecutors at Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court have already worked 3 800 hours of unpaid overtime from January to August 1997, is one example of the unprofessional treatment and low salaries that state prosecutors have to tolerate.29 The reason for this situation is the Department’s lack of financial and personnel resources. Prosecutors have to work overtime in order to keep up with the many cases in hand, although they are not paid for these hours. The salaries earned by prosecutors have been described as a "national disgrace" in the latest Hoexter Commission Report.30

The Department of Justice’s ‘penny wise and pound foolish’ attitude is affecting victims’ co-operation with the judicial system, as well as the state’s ability to convict. There is a lack of essential equipment, such as photocopiers, fax machines and computers. Typists are few and far between — those working at courts in Soweto have to send their typing to the Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court, slowing down the processing of cases. Limited office space — the 23 prosecutors at Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court have two offices — means victims and witnesses are interviewed in an office already occupied by ten people. There are also too few prosecutors. According to the Department of Justice, numerous posts in the prosecution service should be created for an effective functioning of the service: 22 chief state prosecutors, sixteen senior state prosecutors and 167 state prosecutors.31 Lacking expertise, basic resources and with fifteen cases a day, it is not surprising that prosecutors seek employment elsewhere and that the consequent high staff turnover prevents the development of expertise.32

Trends in Sentencing

Although evidence suggests that convictions are declining, statistics show that there is a general increase in the number of sentenced prisoners for all provinces from 1995 to 1997 (see Figure 12). Reasons for this include two possible scenarios:

The declining conviction rate does not directly affect the number of sentenced prisoners in custody.



Penalties have become harsher over time, which means prisoners are spending longer periods of time in prison, causing the number of sentenced prisoners to increase over time.

Figure 12: Number of sentenced prisoners in custody per province, 1995-1997 *

Statistics provided by the Department of Correctional Services show that Gauteng, followed by the Western Cape and KwaZulu-Natal, has the largest population of sentenced prisoners in the country, indicating where the majority of crime occurs. Most of the sentenced prison population has been convicted of crimes of an aggressive, economic and sexual nature (see Table 1 and Figure 13). Again, the upward trend in the number of sentenced prisoners from 1995 to 1997 is evident for all categories of crime except ‘other’.

Figure 13: Criminal categories of prisoners in custody, 1995-1997

The lack of accessible data from the courts on sentencing trends has made it difficult to prove whether penalties have indeed become harsher over the years. Statistics illustrate that most offenders convicted for sexual crimes generally receive sentences ranging between two and ten years (see Figure 14). In any given year, only seven and one per cent respectively, were sentenced to between ten and twenty years, and to twenty years or more. Between 1995 and 1997, however, sentencing for crimes of a sexual nature has become more stringent. In the past three years, there has been an increase in the percentage of the prison population sentenced to between five and ten years from 47,6 per cent in 1995 to 52,9 per cent in 1997. Over the same period, those receiving lighter sentences (between 2 and five years) have decreased from 40,8 per cent in 1995 to 34,8 per cent in 1997. This compares to the stable percentage of prisoners given very long sentences.

Figure 14: Percentage of sentenced prisoners in custody for sexual crimes, 1995-1997 *

Although penalties for sexual crimes have become harsher, the opposite applies for those sentences for crimes of an economic nature. From 1995 to 1997, nearly half of all those convicted of economic crimes received light sentences of between two and five years. The percentage of prisoners with a two to five year sentence has remained stable between 1995 and 1997 whereas those sentenced for between five and ten years have decreased from 1995 to 1997 (see Figure 15). The only category of sentence which has increased is the shortest (less than two years) from 20,7 per cent to 24,7 per cent. This may be the result of more petty offenders of economic crimes — who receive shorter sentences — passing through the criminal justice system, or because more lenient sentences were given for such crimes over the past three years.

Figure 15: Percentage of sentenced prisoners in custody for economical crimes, 1995-1997 *

The majority of prisoners convicted for aggressive crimes are serving a sentence of between five and ten years (see Figure 16). Over the past three years, there has been a slight decline in the percentage of prisoners convicted for between five and ten and two to five years. While these medium duration sentences have declined, the percentage of prisoners sentenced to longer periods (ten to twenty years, and twenty years and more) have increased. This suggests that either sentencing for such crimes has become harsher, or that the crimes committed have become more serious in their nature thus warranting longer penalties.

Figure 16: Percentage of sentenced prisoners in custody for aggressive crimes, 1995-1997 *

The statistics show that sentences for crimes of a sexual and, to a lesser degree, aggressive nature, have gradually become harsher between 1995 and 1997. Yet such an increase may not be the result of changes in the justice system, but because criminals are committing crimes of a more serious nature and thus receive longer sentences. With a lack of accurate and accessible information on sentencing in South Africa, it is difficult to prove which scenario outweighs the other. It is possible that both contribute to the increase in the percentage of convicts receiving tougher penalties.

Despite this upward trend, however, the majority of the prison population (82 per cent) were serving short to medium term sentences of ten years or less in 1997 (see Figure 17). With the implementation of the Minimum Sentencing Bill endorsed by Parliament at the end of 1997, changing sentencing trends are likely to have serious consequences for the Department of Correctional Services. There will probably be an increase in the number of criminals receiving sentences of twenty years or more for aggressive crimes. Similarly, those who have committed sexual crimes, particularly rape of a girl under sixteen years old, will also receive much harsher sentences than is currently the case. The suggested penalties for first-time offenders of aggressive, economic and narcotic crimes is fifteen years, with twenty years for a second offence and 25 for a third offence. These are likely to increase the numbers of offenders sentenced for longer terms dramatically. At present, the majority receive sentences of ten years or less. The question remains whether this change will realistically help to curb crime.

Figure 17: Percentage of sentenced prisoners in custody per category of sentence, 1997

The Department of Correctional Services will have to respond effectively to deal with the serious overcrowding of prisons, which is currently the result of blockages within the justice system, and which will be further compounded by the enforcement of harsher penalties.

The prison environment

"Prisons, even the most reformed ones, produce damage and disease, in varied forms and intensity, they produce damaged and ill people."33 This suggests that harm is inevitably the result of imprisonment and too extreme for an imprisoned individual to deal with. Although many may argue that it is what offenders deserve, the risk of psychological and physical harm to an inmate must be acknowledged, as well as the fact that such ‘damaged’ individuals will one day have to return to society.34 On the other hand, it is simply too convenient to demand the abolition of such institutions, as some critics tend to argue.35 Such institutions are not the ideal means of dealing with criminals, but alternative forms of punishment are seldom seen as a priority by many governments.

The South African prison population consists mostly of male inmates (±97,5 per cent), the majority of whom are African and over the age of 25 (see Figure 18).36 Female prisoners are a small minority of ±2,5 per cent of the total population (see Figure 19). Statistics show that most prisoners are being punished for crimes of an aggressive nature (see Figure 20). Within South African prisons, conditions vary markedly. The prisons where prisoners serve their sentences, determine the extent of inflicted harm. The main factor which determines where a prisoner is incarcerated, is the availability of accommodation. Other criteria may play a role, such as where their families live, where the crime was committed (people who commit crime in Johannesburg are likely to end up in a prison in the area), and the nature of the crime. Criminals who commit murder will start off in a maximum security facility and then graduate as a result of good behaviour to less stringently controlled prisons. Overcrowding is the major problem facing the Department of Correctional Services, as discussed earlier. It invariably has one consequence: attrition and steady destruction of prison buildings, a phenomenon which is particularly evident in older prisons like Pollsmoor, Pretoria Central and Johannesburg Central prisons. Correctional Services relies on the Department of Public Works to repair and replace dilapidated or damaged property, but there are always long delays. Pollsmoor consists of a complex of prisons. The worst of them is the admissions centre where awaiting trial prisoners are held. One enters a ‘Dickensian world’ when walking into the complex, the passages are long and dark with a minimal amount of daylight.37 All areas are lit with artificial light. The cells are in darkness as lights are routinely destroyed by inmates. Many of the single cells, designed for one inmate, measure eight feet by six feet and are occupied by three inmates. Three bunk beds with a minimal amount of space between them hang on the walls. The communal cells which are built for nine prisoners are overflowing with fifteen. Similarly, in Pretoria Central Prison, cells designed for between 28 and thirty inmates hold between fifty and 55.38 Blankets are hung along the width of the walls to serve as additional dividers. Such a situation makes supervision of prisoners hard for wardens, who are limited in number.

Figure 18: Male prison population, 1997

Figure 19: Total male and female prison population, 1984-1997

Figure 20: Crime categories until 1997

Prisoners spend most of their time in these conditions. Their cells are opened at 05h00 and locked up at 15h00, due to the small number of correctional officials who cannot supervise inmates properly. Exercise is rationed to an hour a day. Many prisoners, particularly the youth, do not use this exercise time as they are often intimidated by older prisoners.39 Thus, the boredom experienced by many awaiting trial prisoners is hard to imagine. It seems that much of their time is spent playing board and card games and smoking marijuana which is readily available. Idleness leads to further problems: frustration, fights and attempts to escape. Some prisoners stay in such an environment for months, perhaps even years, waiting to appear in court, because of the overloaded system of justice.40

Russia has similar problems with overcrowding in awaiting trial prisons. In November 1992, Butyrka, a pre-trial prison in Central Moscow, held 5 200 prisoners although it was built for 3 500, of whom 4 500 were awaiting trial.41 The cells, designed for forty prisoners, held seventy or more. Prisoners could not lie down at the same time, and there were not enough bunks to go around, so prisoners took turns to sleep. According to Vivian Stern, these conditions have not improved.42

In South Africa, there are many youths housed in similarly devastating conditions while awaiting trial. On 9 March 1998, 225 youths under the age of seventeen were being kept in the admission centre at Pollsmoor.43 Many child prisoners are raped, kept with hardened adult criminals and, particularly in the Western Cape, drafted into gangs.44 Correctional Services figures show that the number of sentenced and unsentenced children between the ages of seven and eighteen held in prison tripled to 2 500 between December 1995 to December 1997. This disregards vital aspects of Section 29 of the Correctional Services Act which provides for children to be held in prison only under special circumstances. These include when the presiding officer has reason to believe that their detention is necessary in the interest of justice and the safety of the public, and if there is not a secure place of safety within a reasonable distance from the court.45 This legislation was due to be revoked on 10 May 1998. However, as stated by the Minister of Justice, Dullah Omar, it was "‘absolutely essential’ for section 29 to be re-enacted as there were no secure facilities for holding dangerous child offenders such as murderers, rapists, arsonists and carhijackers and they could not be let loose on the streets."46 Brian Sokutu, spokesperson for the Department of Welfare, said the Department, in collaboration with the Department of Correctional Services, would ensure "special and separate treatment" for children in prisons until alternative facilities were available.47

The Ministry of Welfare and Population Development took over the responsibility for awaiting trial prisoners from Correctional Services in May 1998. But, its attempts to transfer children into secure facilities have been hampered, largely due to the provinces’ failure to provide these. The Western Cape Welfare Department has so far moved fifty out of the 225 awaiting trial youths in Pollsmoor to established places of safety. New facilities with accommodation for another eighty youths will only be complete by the end of 1998.48

Johannesburg Central Prison, which currently houses approximately 400 sentenced youths between the ages of fifteen and eighteen, has made the most of its situation by transforming an old prison built to ‘store’ people, into a place where the youth have access to a library, computer room, education centre and a gym. Through sponsorship by the private sector and the willingness of correctional officers, a better environment has been created and is being maintained for the youth.49

The problem of idleness is certainly a feature of the Medium A and B complexes which house sentenced prisoners in Pollsmoor. Although these prisoners work in the kitchens and the workshops, there are a minimal number of positions available. Time is spent watching television and hanging around the various cells. Those prisoners in Medium A have the most privileges. Some are accommodated in single cells. Most prisoners take pride in keeping their cells clean and tidy. This prison is not pervaded with the air of degradation. Lockup is at 22h00, allowing the prisoners access to the television room and video games. There are no sportsfields at Pollsmoor where prisoners could at least find release from their anger and anxiety. Medium B continues to have problems with overcrowding. There is accommodation for 534 and, in March 1998, there were 662 inmates.

The women’s section which houses both sentenced and unsentenced inmates is 21,24 per cent over capacity, even though women make up a small percentage of the prison population with the number gradually declining over the last 10 years (see Figure 19). The majority of female prisoners are African and over the age of 25, and the minority are Asian and under the age of twenty (see Figure 21). There has been a slight increase in female prisoners between 1996 and 1997 (see Figure 19). This increase follows the enormous growth in the general prison population during the same period and thus is the result of the many variables discussed earlier. A fair number of women have their children with them, who are allowed to stay with their mothers until they are two years old. There are books and toys available, as well as the necessary food and clothing. Although the environment is friendly and colourful, most of the children do not know life outside of prison.

Figure 21: Female prison population, 1997*

Prisoners are only served two meals a day. Their ration for supper is provided at the same time when lunch is served. There is a separate ration scale for female prisoners. Many of the caterers are underqualified and poorly trained, as well as incorrectly allocated and utilised. Most prison kitchens across the country are old, poorly designed and unhygienic. The largest problem is the growing prison population which has an impact on the budget allocated for the nutrition of prisoners. Recently, the nutritional services of the Department suggested to the parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services that the way forward is the privatisation of the prison kitchens, which is already a common practice in the United States and the United Kingdom. Further suggestions include the appointment of nine provincial head caterers, the training of caterers, as well as the upgrading of kitchens. Such action steps are urgently required to improve the nutritional services in South African prisons. Therefore, the lack of modern facilities and staff, together with the problem of overcrowding, throughout Pollsmoor and other prisons in South Africa, create further problems as prisoners try to cope with life in such institutions.

Prison Escapes

In 1997, 937 suspected or convicted criminals escaped from prison. The government has sought to downplay concerns over these figures by pointing to a decline in the number of escapes between 1996 and 1997 (see Figure 22). The Commissioner of Prisons, Khlekani Sithole, has suggested that increased transparency has exaggerated the severity of the situation. He cites statistics which, with increasing prison populations, show twenty per cent fewer escapes from prisons in 1997 than in 1996 (1 069 versus 1 345 — see Figure 23), which are the lowest figures in twenty years (the estimated number of prison escapes in 1976 was 2 339).

Figure 22: Total escaped from prison, 1 July 1972 - 31 December 1997



Figure 23: Percentage of escaped prisoners per total prison population, 1984-1997

Statistics for prison escapes show approximately hundred escapes per month from all prisons in South Africa. The conditions which allow these escapes to occur, are numerous. Overcrowding in cells and in prisons contributes greatly to escapes. Poor buildings and insufficient security, such as fencing and lighting, decrease the ability of the police and wardens to detain prisoners and prevent escapes. Inadequate training and understaffing compound the problem.

In response to the perceived worsening of the situation, the government has budgeted R58 million to upgrade security measures at 21 prisons in 1998. However, the government has realised that physical security measures will not be enough to solve the problem. The upgrading of personnel training, stricter disciplinary action against negligent personnel, heightening prisoner awareness of the consequences of attempting escape and providing incentives to prisoners to help foil escapes, have all been emphasised by the government. Yet, the implementation of such measures remains vague.

The number of people escaping from detention, whether a new or simply newly recognised problem among the general public, demands an effective and just response from those involved in the prevention of crime. Additional steps are still necessary. For instance, greater attention to the categorisation and allocation of prisoners is needed. Increasing police intelligence gathering and the effective use of the collected information will also assist in deterring escapes.

Prisoners’ insecurity and the culture of prisons

Insecurity, as part of the psychology of the prisoner, is both created by and the consequence of his/her prison environment. While an inmate’s insecurity may be caused or exacerbated by the prison environment, it is this insecurity which contributes to such an environment. This vicious circle is a fundamental aspect of the harmfulness of prisons. Restriction of liberty and removal from society may cause vulnerability, depression and/or an inability to communicate. Rejected by society, prisoners are no longer civil beings, but unwanted individuals. The uncertain length of incarceration furthers the effect of stress and nervousness. Time is torture in prison. In Serges’ words: "the problem of time is crucial ... Once gone, the hours vanish in a void; the recent minute can be dilated to eternity."50

The masculine culture of prison officers, sustained by the prison environment, adds to the harmful effect of prison life. This is particularly evident in South Africa, where the demilitarisation of the prison regime has been slowly implemented since 1994. The masculinity of prison officers often manifests itself as physical violence, psychological intimidation and constant bullying. This is just one of the many contributors to the prisoners’ loss of autonomy and self-value. The prisoner thus finds it necessary to boost self-esteem through other means. A clearly defined ‘pecking order’ or hierarchy is created as prisoners consciously or unconsciously use ‘coping strategies’ to adapt to the prison regime.51 Fear, intimidation and fighting are the survival tactics that exist, particularly in male prisons. The prisoners who epitomise masculinity stand at the apex of the prison community, gathering networks of support, while the antithesis, the child sex murderer, flounders at the bottom, a victim of violence and bullying.52 Thus, prisoners do not always unite, but constantly fight to establish their own self-esteem. This is evident in South African prisons where gangsterism is rife.

Gangsterism in South African prisons is usually dominated by the number gangs. Of these, the ‘28 gang’ is the strongest. The ‘26 gang’ is the second most powerful and often vies for ascendancy with the 28. The once powerful ‘27 gang’ has become weak. According to members of the number gangs, only they are allowed to survive in the prison environment. Other gangs have no right of existence in prison. They are a privileged category and their victimisation of other prisoners is legitimate. The aims of the number gangs differ. The 26 is involved with money (obtaining goods through various means), the 27 with blood (assault), and the 28 with poison, who find wyfies (catamites) who become victims of sodomy.53 In 1997, there were seventeen deaths and 71 assaults committed by gang members in prison. Until the end of March 1998, there have been seventeen known assaults on prisoners.54

Every gang has its own structure. And all the gangs have a code which, if violated, results in certain forms of punishment being inflicted on the individual. All the gangs have a common function of recruiting and training their members. Newcomers with fighting ability and pluck may be welcomed by all the gangs. Men who do not fit into this category become the victims of theft, violence, sodomy and intimidation. Prison wardens are often intimidated by these gangs inside as well as outside the institution, since many of the gang members inside prison are members of gangs outside the walls. Prison officials and their families have been intimidated by gang members who know where they live, particularly in the Western Cape where gangsterism is a well-known problem.55

Sexual and racial discrimination within the prison regime is a well-documented phenomenon. Homosexual activity readily occurs in prisons. Perhaps one of the causes is explained by Stanko who states that inmate power and control can be gained by treating other inmates ‘like women’. By turning some men into ‘women’, these inmates use sexuality to dehumanise and degrade fellow inmates.56 Homosexual activity and drug abuse, a widespread phenomenon in prisons across the world, cause great problems with HIV infection.57 In England and Wales, eighty prisoners were known to be HIV positive or to have AIDS in May 1996. In the state and federal prisons in the US, 2,3 per cent of the total prison population were infected with HIV or had AIDS in 1995, a total of about 24 200 people. In 1995, over 1 000 people died of AIDS in US state prisons.58 In South Africa, 175 prisoners died of AIDS since 1995 and there are approximately 400 prisoners with known HIV status in prison. It is estimated that the figure is closer to 10 000. Achmat and Heywood write: "HIV infection thrives in environments of poverty, rapid urbanisation, violence and destabilisation, and prisons are melting pots for people from such circumstances."59 However, until 1998, the response of the prison authorities in South Africa has been to segregate those who were known to be HIV positive, and to centralise HIV positive prisoners in some cases in one prison.60

Throughout 1995, the Minister of Correctional Services and prison authorities refused to make condoms available in prison. The authorities negated and played down the fact that sexual activity occurs in prison, despite Lawyers for Human Rights’ estimates that 65 per cent of convicted prisoners engaged in sexual activity.61 A review of the Department’s health policy during 1996 finally led to changes. It has undertaken to distribute condoms only through medical personnel and make brochures and educational material available to prisoners on admission. In addition, prisoners may only be issued with condoms if they first attend counselling sessions with the medical personnel.62 Although this is an attempt by the Department to address the issue, it does not help the prisoner who is not willing to go for counselling because of the possible intimidation and violence by other inmates. Recently, the government has considered mandatory blood tests for prisoners to help reduce the high rate of HIV infection in prison. Already, 27 cases were reported in the first two months of 1998. However, it will cost the government approximately R7,5 million to implement such a policy.63 When asking the official responsible for internal security in Goodwood Prison in the Western Cape about the free distribution of condoms, he replied emphatically that he hoped this would never happen as it would encourage sexual activity in prisons.64

The issue of great concern is that many of those prisoners who have been infected with HIV in prison will return to the community. It was due to this fact that the Minister of Correctional Services in New South Wales in Australia announced that male prisoners will have free and anonymous access to condoms while in prison.65 The availability of condoms will have an effect on reducing the further spread of the virus. Countries like the United States, which have refused to take this step, have turned their prisons into one of the worst breeding grounds of HIV, and have condemned thousands of prisoners and their families to death.66

In South Africa, the parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services has recently provided an action plan to help alleviate the spread of AIDS in prison. The plan includes establishing an HIV/AIDS office at the Department’s head office, providing a specific budget for HIV/AIDS and setting up an HIV/AIDS database. It is questionable whether such strategies will have an impact on the ground.

Racism is prevalent in most prisons across the world. Research in the United Kingdom showed that more than 99 per cent of prison officers are white and many consider Afro-Caribbean prisoners to be "arrogant, lazy and anti-authority."67 Considering the history of prisons in South Africa, where African and white prisoners were separated and whites received better treatment than Africans, the transformation of the Department cannot eradicate the racist culture that was prevalent for many years overnight. Frequent use of racist and other demeaning forms of humour encourages antagonism between inmates and staff. Either the inmate challenges this and is punished or s/he accepts it. Both options result in humiliation. Discrimination also exists among prison gangs. Thus, the individual prisoner finds him/herself discriminated against by staff and fellow inmates alike. Consequent feelings of vulnerability and a lack of self-value are common. Some ‘survive’, others sink lower, sometimes to their own physical destruction — suicide.

There have been 78 recorded suicides in South African prisons from 1995 until February 1998. The reliability of this figure is debatable, considering that sixty prisoners took their lives in England and Wales in 1995 alone, almost the same number as in 1994. Recent research in the United Kingdom suggests that vulnerability and ‘poor coping’ skills are the primary causes of prison suicide. The research showed that the behaviour of a suicide victim differs from that of other inmates. They often feel more disadvantaged, report having more difficulties with other prisoners and unable to occupy their time with a job. Liebling notes that those who attempted suicide had "suffered more severe disadvantage, violence and family problems in their histories and ... more frequent contact with social services and the criminal justice agencies."68 Thus, incarceration may act as a catalyst for some suicides, but not all.

Taking the physical and mental environment that an inmate has to cope with into consideration, the lack of reformation and reintegration opportunities offered by the Department of Correctional Services, and the fact that prisons are ‘schools for crime’, it is not surprising that the rate of recidivism is high in South Africa. More than half of all sentenced prisoners have been to prison before.69 However, when reviewing the problems faced by the Department regarding prison officials, it is easier to understand why so many prisons in South Africa are badly run and do not send reformed offenders back into the community.

The life of correctional officials

Numerous studies have confirmed that the psycho-social working climate in custodial institutions is highly stressful and can be traumatic. Much of the stress that prison officials experience, is related to different aspects of the job. A correctional officer is locked up with offenders day in and day out. The threat of assault and other potential dangers are always present, as well as the risk of being harmed by unstable and/or mentally ill inmates who can become violent at any moment. The relationship between inmates and staff is always problematic and usually one of mutual distrust. More often than not, the correctional officers’ describe themselves as ‘buffers’ caught between ‘management’ and ‘offenders’ with conflicting demands facing them.70

Correctional officers are often victimised, bribed and intimidated by inmates if they do not adhere to their wishes, which often include the delivery of drugs and helping with escapes. Often the intimidation includes the family of prison officials. The poor salaries which correctional officials receive — approximately R2 000 a month — makes them vulnerable to bribes by inmates. All this culminates in the corruption of correctional officers. The high number of prison escapes are evidence of this.

Corruption, work overload (doing many jobs simultaneously), or work underload (understimulation caused, for example, by standing inactive and isolated on landings for long periods of time) lead to low staff morale and negative attitudes. In addition, the overcrowding of correctional facilities increases the problem of staff:prisoner ratio. South Africa’s inmate to correctional officer ratio is almost 5:1, compared with Germany and Australia’s 1,5:1.71 Nationwide, the Department is short of 7 440 personnel, of which 6 228 are correctional officers.72 In 1997, 31 000 correctional officers were employed by the Department in total. This figure is decreasing as a number of officials have taken retrenchment packages. A contributing factor to members leaving, is the present transformation of the Department which many, particularly older members, do not agree with.

The Department has a severe problem with absenteeism. On average, absenteeism amounts to about ten per cent. Approximately 2 424 members were said to be absent from work daily during the period between May 1996 and April 1997. The root causes of the absenteeism rate are stress-induced illnesses and a lack of self-discipline, precipitated by the working environment, which results in members playing truant. Although it seems that managers of the Department do not understand the causes of stress, Nexus (Correctional Services’ magazine) has at least highlighted the problem by publishing several articles on stress and trauma among correctional officials and how to address these.73 The present transformation of the Department also adds to the feelings of distress among personnel. The affirmative action process, the uncertainty of retaining their employment in the Department, and promotion limitations are issues which have a negative impact on the performance of personnel.

Limitations of the transformation process

Although there are many structural obstacles to the transformation of the Department, it is the institutional culture which will constitute a major obstruction. The culture of correctional officials is rooted in the history of apartheid. "The conservatism, the cynicism, the suspicion, the machismo and the racial prejudice are as much part of the South African [correctional official’s] make-up as they are of the police. Their mission as defenders of [their people] is seen as ‘assisting the fallen’, since Christianity is an important part of their culture."74 The fundamentalism of the Dutch Reformed church was not so much a civil religion, as an Afrikaner ideology which justified apartheid. The church and the state were closely linked through the National Party and through a belief that sanctified the separation of the races. Yet, despite formal demilitarisation, the military culture is still evident in the Department. Prison officials do their work behind closed doors both literally and figuratively. Currently, there is distrust among personnel, "Black and White, Black and Black, males and females."75 Although the recent process of transformation enforces equality, transparency and democracy, it will take many years to dissipate such a deeply entrenched culture.

Many diverse factors therefore contribute to the crisis in South African prisons. Although many may blame the Department of Correctional Services for the severe overcrowding in prisons, it is evident that this is a problem that emanates from the criminal justice system as a whole. The Department needs to provide a better environment for prisoners, particularly recreational facilities and must improve its methods of reintegrating prisoners into the community.

Endnotes

Interview, Department of Correctional Services, Head Office, Pretoria March 1998.



Interview, Department of Correctional Services, Pollsmoor, Western Cape, April 1998.



R Allen, Trends in Imprisonment, Criminal Justice Matters, 30, Winter 1997/98, p. 8.



The Times (London), 4 April 1996.



S Shaw, Jack Straw’s Prison Record, Criminal Justice Matters, 30, Winter 1997/98, p. 6.



P White & I Powat, Revised Projections of Long Term Trends in the Prison Population to 2005, Home Office Statistical Bulletin, 29 January 1998, p. 4.



The New York Times, 28 September 1997, section 4, p. 7; NCPA Expert to Testify on Prison Industries, PRNewswire, 24 June 1998, <www.ncpa.org>



Allen, op. cit.



International Prison Watch, 1997 report on 1996 (PLEASE COMPLETE??)



Civil Liberties Organization (CLO), Special Report Human Rights Update on Nigeria, <www.dejanews.com>



R King, Prisons in Eastern Europe, Criminal Justice Matters, 27, Spring 1997, p. 7.



Ibid.



V Stern, A Sin Against the Future, Penguin Books, London, 1998.



D Downes, Contrasts in Tolerance: Post-war Policy and The Netherlands and England and Wales, Clarendon Paperbacks, London, 1997.



Ibid., p. 4.



M Shaw, Crime in Transition, ISS Papers, 17, March 1997; The Nedcor /ISS Crime Index Criminal Justice Review, 1997-1998, Nedcor/ISS Crime Index, Vol 1, 1997, pp. E21-E37.



Department of Correctional Services, unpublished daily statistics for 9 March 1998.



Prison vastly Overcrowded, Rights Commission Finds, Business Day, 15 May 1998.



M Schonteich, Good Law, Its Bad Application, and the Ugly Results, Spotlight, 1/97, South African Institute for Race Relations, July 1997, p. 19.



Ibid.



R Paschke, Pollsmoor Awaiting Trial Population Profile and a Study of First Appearance Decisions in Mitchell’s Plain Magistrates Court: Preliminary Results and the Role of the Pretrial Service Demonstration, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Cape Town, November 1997.



The majority of Pollsmoor prisoners are from Mitchell’s Plain and their cases are dealt with by the Mitchell’s Plain Magistrate’s Court.



The term ‘cleared’ can be defined as cases which have gone to court with the accused either being convicted or found not guilty.



South African Police Service, Press release: Minister of Safety and Security, Pretoria, 9 September 1997.



R Hidalgo & C Lewis, Report of the Mission to the Republic of South Africa on the Collection, Processing and Publication of Crime Statistics, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in South Africa, 26 May-12 June 1997.



Mr Van Wyk, Interview, Chief Prosecutor, Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court, 2 October 1997.



Ibid.



Ibid.



Ibid.



Schonteich, op. cit., p. 27.



Ibid., p. 28.



Ibid.



V Ruggiro, The Disrespect of Prisons, Prison Reform Trust, London, 1991.



W Hay & R Sparks, Vulnerable Prisoners: Risk in Long-term Prisons, paper presented at the British Criminology Conference, University of York, 25 July 1991.



Ibid.; V Ruggiro & C Sumner, The Sociology of Deviance: An Obituary, Open University Press, Buckingham, 1994.



Department of Correctional Services, unpublished daily statistics, March 1998.



P Laurence, The Vilest Deeds Like Prison Weeds, Bloom Well in Prison Air, Frontiers of Freedom, South African Institute for Race Relations, Second Quarter 1997, p. 24.



Business Day, 15 May 1998.



Warden (anonymous), Interview, Pollsmoor, April 1998.



Ibid.; Laurence, op. cit.



Stern. op. cit.



Ibid.



Department of Correctional Services Pollsmoor, unpublished daily statistics for 9 March 1998.



Weekly Mail & Guardian, 5-12 June 1998.



Republic of South Africa, Correctional Services Amendment Act, No 14 of 1996, Government Printers, Pretoria, 1996, Section 29(5).



Frantic Bid to End Jailing of Children, Sunday Independent, 22 March 1998.



The Star, 6 April 1998.



Weekly Mail & Guardian, op. cit.



Johannesburg Central Prison, Visit to the juvenile section, 9 June 1998.



V Serge, Les hommes dans la Prison, Editions de Minuit, Paris, 1980.



G Sykes, The Society of Captives, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1958.



Ibid.



W Schurink, The World of the Wetslaners: An Analysis of Some Organisational Features in South African Prisons, Acta Criminologica, 2(2), 1989.



The Star, 3 April 1998.



Area manager, Interview, Goodwood Prison, Western Cape, 10 March 1998.



E Stanko, Everyday Violence: How Women and Men Experience Sexual and Physical Danger, Pandora, London, 1990.



P Thomas & M Moering, AIDS in Prison, Dartmouth Publishing Company, Dartmouth, 1994.



Stern, op. cit., p. 126.



A Achmat & C Heywood, The Weakest Amongst Us: Managing HIV in South African Prisons, Imbizo, 2, 1996, p. 12.



The Weekend Argus, 8-9 July 1995.



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. 36.



Ibid., p. 37.



HIV, AIDS Tests in Jails Costly, Sowetan, 23 April 1998.



Prison official, Interview, Goodwood Prison, Western Cape, 10 March 1998.



HIV/AIDS Legal Links, 7(4), American Federation of AIDS Organisations, December 1996, p. 8.



Ibid.



M Cavandino & J Dignan, The Penal System: An Introduction, Sage, London, 1992.



A Liebling, Vulnerability and Prison Suicide, British Journal of Criminology, 35(2), 1996, pp. 173-187.



Hansard, 16 October 1996, cols. 2471-2472.



High Level of Absenteeism – Concern for the Department of Correctional Services, Nexus, October 1997, p. 16.



Schonteich, Op. cit., p. 30.



Ibid.



Nexus, op. cit.



Giffard, op. cit., p. 46.



Nexus, op. cit.