|
For many people, the concept of ‘offender reintegration’ conjures up images of social workers counselling prisoners and former prisoners in an attempt to change their unsatisfactory situation. Others may see offender reintegration as being ‘soft on crime’, or as ‘being nice to criminals’. Many initiatives have been called offender reintegration, but few can truly claim success in reintegrating offenders. Whatever the perception, it remains a fact that the majority of released prisoners soon find themselves back in prison at great cost to the community and the taxpayer.
Any understanding of offender reintegration starts with prisons, probably the most popular sentencing option of the past two centuries. Prisons remove ‘unwanted’ or offending people from mainstream society and place them in institutions where they are seemingly unable to offend society any further. Prisons, as they are known today, came into being approximately 200 years ago in Europe with great enthusiasm as a sentencing option for criminals. Their failure as a crime reduction technique, however, was soon evident.
A number of reports written between 1823 and 1842 in France concluded the following on the effects of imprisonment:1
- Freed inmates are subjected to conditions that necessarily condemn them to recidivism: they are under surveillance by the police; they are assigned to a particular residence, or forbidden others; they leave prison with a ‘passport’ that they must show wherever they go with details of the sentence they have served (1823).2
- Prison produces delinquents. It does so by the very existence it imposes upon its inmates — whether they are isolated in cells or whether they are given useless skills for which they will find no employment (1836).3
- Prison often indirectly produces delinquents by causing destitution among the inmate’s family. The same authority that sends the head of the family to prison reduces the mother to destitution, the children to abandonment, the whole family to homelessness and begging. It is in this way that crime takes root (1836).4
- Detention causes recidivism; those leaving prison have an increased chance of returning (1837).5
- Prison enables, even encourages, the organisation of a milieu of delinquents, loyal to one another, with a particular hierarchy, ready to aid and abet any future criminal act (1839).6
- Prisons do not diminish the crime rate; whether they are extended, their numbers multiplied or institutionally transformed, the quantity of crime and criminals remains stable or, even worse, increases (1842).7
Even though the above excerpts are from reports dating back more than 150 years ago, when prisons were still relatively new, these conclusions have remained largely true until today. The non-achievement of prison as an institution is well-known, but they nonetheless remain in use and are in fact expanding. This is one of the great paradoxes of modern society.
Facilitating the reintegration of offenders into society as constructive citizens is crucial if a substantial reduction in crime is to be achieved in the foreseeable future. Offender reintegration, if conducted properly, is not a way of being ‘soft on crime’ as public opinion often holds. It is a challenging process that holds offenders accountable for their actions in a constructive and restorative manner. The successful reintegration of offenders is ultimately in the interests of the community, because those who are not accepted back into the community will in all likelihood turn to crime again. It is estimated that, in South Africa, between 85% and 94% of released offenders will reoffend.8 If this is indeed the case, imprisonment appears to be a rather futile exercise, especially if little is done to facilitate the reintegration of offenders back into society where they can fulfil a constructive rather than a destructive role.
At least 95% of all prisoners will be released back into the community to continue with their lives. Through some miracle, they are expected to fit in as if nothing has happened and to continue with their lives as constructive citizens contributing to the common good. They are expected not to commit a crime again, to find employment, to be good mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and children again. They are expected to have ‘learned their lessons’ through punishment and pain. Their liberty was taken away and they were isolated from valued qualities of life — their individuality, the opportunity to take control and to make decisions. It is often asserted that people are imprisoned for their wrongdoings because they deserve it and that this will make them better people. The question that has to be raised, however, is whether people are imprisoned merely to get them off the streets, to incapacitate them, or to hide them away from society.
The effects of imprisonment are numerous and research increasingly indicates that imprisonment causes psychological damage. Some argue that prisoners receive what they deserve, that the suffering and pain are proportionate to what they have caused. While this is a popular argument among those bent on retribution, the fact is that prisoners, once released, return to society where they find it extremely difficult to be accepted and to cope with the demands of leading an ordinary balanced life. Offenders mostly return from prison as a bigger problem for society. Offenders are excluded from society at enormous cost to the taxpayer, but there is a great reluctance to invest in their development to enable them to become part of society once more.
Imprisonment thus creates people with emotional and psychological problems whom society has to deal with after their release. As has been noted:
"The problem of time is crucial. Nothing makes the distinction possible between one hour and the next. Once gone, the hours vanish in the void; the present minute can be dilated to eternity. But time does not exist! Is this a mad way of thinking? Perhaps. I know there is a profound truth in all this. I also know that prisoners, after the first hour of incarceration, are mentally disturbed."9
Therefore, the goal of ensuring that most offenders will not reoffend and will become constructive citizens, is arguably undermined at the start of the process. Human rights abuses against prisoners are rife across the world. Some feel that prisoners should have no rights and that imprisonment should be as harsh as possible, for as long as possible. Once such prisoners are released, they are repeatedly punished through social and economic exclusion.
In South Africa, as well as throughout the world, there are interesting, successful and creative programmes to assist offenders in becoming part of society again. It is ultimately in society’s interest to invest in them, even when this is morally a difficult choice to make. There is an increasing body of research that shows that there is not one ultimate solution, but that different people require different approaches in different situations. The question remains whether reintegration programmes attempt to change individuals or whether they actually try to undo the effects of imprisonment.
The willingness to invest in prisoners and former prisoners is often seen as a ‘welfare approach’ that is out of touch with the hard reality of crime and victimisation. The position advocated here is that an investment in offender reintegration is not a soft approach or option, but provides an investment in the interest of society. Successful offender reintegration programmes make financial sense if they are compared with the cost of imprisonment.
Very little recent research is available in South Africa and elsewhere on offender reintegration. Sound analytical research is scarce and a discussion of available programmes, especially in South Africa, is clearly lacking.
This monograph therefore provides a brief background on the socio-political context within which imprisonment occurs in South Africa, as well as in the rest of the world. The scope and extent of imprisonment are illustrated and the need for offender reintegration services is identified. This is followed by a review of changes in recent South African policy and legislation, as well as local and international viewpoints on offender reintegration. Descriptions of a number of international and local offender reintegration initiatives are provided. The purpose is not only to identify the strengths of these initiatives, but also to point towards the shortcomings in an attempt to develop a framework for appropriate and effective programmes. For the purposes of this monograph, the emphasis is placed on reintegration services rendered by non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Services offered by NGOs provide interesting case studies as they are developed organically and often initiated by former prisoners. The list of programmes discussed here is not in any way exhaustive and the choice does not reflect any form of value judgement about other programmes. The choice of programmes is based on their illustrative value for particular issues under discussion.
|
|
|