Chapter 6

CONCLUSION

---

Successful offender reintegration as a crime reduction strategy should be the overall purpose of the criminal justice system. If this is not accepted, the entire philosophy and theory underpinning what is understood to be criminal justice would have to be re-examined. The criminal justice system has been developed over centuries to achieve one goal — to reduce crime in society. If the criminal justice system has lost sight of this goal and has become a self-serving and repetitive institution, a deep moral dilemma presents itself to society. Can a justice system justly punish people if it has no transcendent purpose, but merely aims to punish people and impose sanctions that serve no other purpose but to cause suffering? In a liberal democracy, the answer would clearly be no.

A criminal justice system has to serve a broader purpose and should be both proactive and reactive. Such a system has to accept (partial) responsibility for assisting offenders to return to society as improved citizens and to facilitate their return. The approach to offender reintegration hinges upon the acceptance of this viewpoint. If the perception continues to hold that law enforcement has nothing to do with crime prevention, that the sentencing judge has no responsibility towards offender reintegration, or that the prison warder is only responsible for preventing escapes, society will indeed find itself in a difficult situation. Every aspect of the criminal justice system should be aimed towards successful reintegration and therefore making a contribution to crime reduction. Every former prisoner or other offender who does not reoffend represents success for the system. But if the majority of offenders passing through the system reoffend within a relatively short space of time, it also has to be acknowledged that the system is failing structurally and functionally.

In this monograph, offender reintegration was discussed in terms of a number of key themes and their impact on reintegration:

human rights;

prisons and imprisonment;

legislation, government policy and theoretical approaches;

punishment and sentencing; and

programmes and services.

A number of conclusions can be made with regard to some of these issues and how they should be approached in order to strengthen attempts at offender reintegration. Offender reintegration is not and cannot be the cure for all of South Africa’s crime woes and it does not claim to do so. Critics will be quick to point out that effective law enforcement is necessary to curb recidivism. While this may be true, it is equally true that most offenders who are arrested, tried and convicted will eventually be released. There is as yet no effective strategy to deal with released prisoners that would successfully prevent them from committing further offences. Law enforcement is a reactive measure, whereas reintegration is sustainable, and rooted in the values and norms acceptable to the society of good citizens.

Human rights

In terms of the South African Constitution, prisoners enjoy a number of special rights such as protection from torture, or cruel and inhumane punishment. As citizens, South African prisoners are even allowed to exercise their right to vote. Imprisonment as such does not take away any other rights than those absolutely necessary to imprison someone — freedom of movement and association. In terms of the approach to offender reintegration, this is important as it firmly establishes the position of the offender and prisoner in society: he or she is a member of society with human rights, but specific rights are temporarily curtailed. Offenders do not lose all their rights permanently, nor do such rights become privileges because they have been punished for committing a crime. Offenders and prisoners, in particular, remain part of society enjoying all their rights apart from those mentioned. They do not become second-class citizens who may be left to the mercies of public opinion and individual discretion.

Successful reintegration has to be based on the acknowledgement that prisoners and those who have offended are citizens with rights. Any attempt to deviate from this position will lead to the slippery slope of dehumanising certain categories or groups in society. The first consequence of the human rights-based approach to offender reintegration is the acknowledgement that people who have offended in the past are allowed to and indeed should be welcomed to take their place in society as part of the community of good citizens. In reality, former prisoners continue to suffer from social and economic exclusion as part of society’s expression of the belief that once people have transgressed and been imprisoned, they can never be part of ‘us’ again.

The second consequence of the human rights-based approach is that rights imply responsibilities, and that those who have offended, as well as those who have not, have a responsibility to assist in crime reduction. The prisoner or former prisoner has a responsibility to make use of available opportunities and refrain from committing crime. Society has a responsibility not to discriminate against former offenders, but rather to treat them as any other citizen. A member of society who refuses to give employment to former prisoners cannot claim to be fulfilling his or her responsibilities as a member of the community of good citizens.

Thirdly, the human rights-based approach permeates every aspect of the criminal justice process and beyond. This means that those who have offended or are alleged to have offended, have to be treated in terms of their rights as enshrined in the Constitution. The criminal justice process lends itself to human rights abuses due to the intrinsically unequal power relationship between enforcer and recipient. It cannot be realistically expected of a person who has suffered abuse at the hands of law enforcement officials or prison warders over a period of months or years, to return to society as a balanced person who is able to take up his or her position and lead a constructive life.

Prisons and imprisonment

In terms of offender reintegration, prison is an utter failure and is in all likelihood the most inappropriate response to crime, especially on the scale and manner it is currently applied. Unfortunately, even though it is known that imprisonment is ineffective in reducing crime or reintegrating offenders, there is no clarity about what will work. Prisons have been relegated to the class of institutions people prefer not to think about or spend too much resources on. Since punishment has become a hidden event in society, it is preferably ignored and the less that is known about it, the better. This attitude, however, has a boomerang effect because those who have been in prison and have suffered there return to society where they again become society’s burden as offenders.

Despite international conventions on the treatment of prisoners and South Africa’s Constitution, prisoners continue to suffer cruel and inhumane treatment, and even death. The entire history and development of prisons point to one central theme, that in prison, the prisoner shall have no power and his or her life shall be regulated by a code of discipline to which he or she has to adhere. Failure to do so shall result in further punishment. How such an approach can contribute to prepare someone for life in a free society where people have to make their own decisions and take responsibility for themselves is not clear. Prison is, in short, a deeply disempowering process, exactly the opposite of what is required of people to function in society.

Apart from the theoretical criticism against imprisonment, prisons have become a practical and infrastructural nightmare. Overcrowding, violence, riots, gangs, rape, corruption, drugs and insufficient resources are characteristic of most prisons across the world and South Africa is no exception. Holding 40 people in a communal cell that was built for 20 people cannot be considered as acceptable, especially if the only toilet in the cell is not working. If prisoners are required to sleep in shifts because there is not sufficient floor space for everyone to lie down, there are indeed problems. Most prisons in South Africa are fairly old and apart from the few new prisons being built, many prisons now operate on crisis management principles. South African prisons as a whole were built to accommodate a total of approximately 90 000 prisoners. By December 1999, there were 156 000 prisoners, an overpopulation of 173%. The number of prisoners is such that it is nearly impossible to create an environment that will be conducive to preparations for life outside prison. The detrimental effects of the physical environment that prisoners have to endure year after year cannot be underestimated. The strain placed on resources is enormous and ‘good citizens’ cannot be expected to emerge from this environment. The Department of Correctional Services does not have the capacity to deal effectively with the number of prisoners entrusted to its care at this stage, and it does not appear as if the situation will improve in the foreseeable future.

If former prisoners are to be reintegrated successfully, the first priority would be to reduce the number of people in prison to manageable numbers that are in line with the resources at the disposal of the Department. In order to achieve this, the number of awaiting trial prisoners, who now constitute approximately 30% of the total prison population, has to be brought down to an acceptable level of less than 10%. Secondly, sentencing policies and practices should be reviewed urgently in order to limit the number of people serving sentences of less than six months. This will be discussed in more detail under the next heading below.

In terms of how prisons are managed, the Danish example described earlier provides important insights. The manner in which most prisons are operated in South Africa and the culture prevalent in these prisons can largely be described as counterproductive to the ultimate goal of offender reintegration and crime reduction. The entire approach to imprisonment requires an overhaul so that custodial sentences imposed by the courts will truly contribute to prepare offenders for constructive lives.

Punishment and sentencing

The reintegrative approach to punishment was put forward above as an alternative to the current approach which can be described broadly as retributive. It was also argued that the other approaches to punishment have failed in terms of curbing recidivism and contributing to offender reintegration. Empirical evidence shows that the courts have become fairly uncreative in sentencing and that imprisonment and prison-related sentences have become the standard type of sentence imposed on most offenders.60 Despite the fact that non-custodial sentencing options are available and that magistrates do have wide discretionary powers to be creative in sentencing offenders, this does not happen.

A further important trend is the number of offenders who are sentenced to prison terms of less than six months. Given the situation in South African prisons, the usefulness of such sentences is questionable. A few months in prison are long enough to expose an individual to the rigours of imprisonment and specifically to the influence of prison gangs. Non-custodial sentences such as community service orders and correctional supervision could in fact be used for the majority of offenders. It was also noted from the data that prison terms are becoming longer with the result that more people will stay in prison for longer. If this trend continues, a situation may arise in the not too distant future where substantial proportions of subsections of the population are in prison.

To address these trends, there should be a much stronger emphasis on using non-custodial sentences and on compelling sentencing officers first to investigate and rather use these sentences than prison sentences. What is not in place now is a sentencing policy that will contribute to an overall crime reduction strategy. Recent changes to sentencing policies (the introduction of minimum sentences) have been knee-jerk reactions by the government to satisfy public opinion. How these will contribute to make society safer through offender reintegration remains to be seen.

The notion that punishment and sentencing should be integral parts of the offender reintegration process and are in fact crucial to the process, appears to be absent from current sentencing policies and practice. With few exceptions, the emphasis is on imprisonment which does not contribute to offender reintegration, but achieves the opposite. The reckless use of imprisonment as a sentencing option has created a segment of the population who are caught in a repetitive cycle of crime and imprisonment from which it is extremely difficult to escape.

However, the reintegrative approach to punishment does provide potential solutions. The theory states, in short, that punishment should be perceived as just, with a clear connection between the crime and the punishment. Punishment should be inflicted with respect, it should restore the breach in the community, and should be an invitation back into the community. Underpinning this approach is the basic realisation that it is ultimately in the interest of the community for the offender to become part of it once more and to refrain from victimising or exploiting the community of good citizens.

If these principles of punishment are applied, imprisonment truly becomes a last resort with many other punishment options available prior to its use. Most sentencing options currently do not facilitate a process of holding the offender responsible as an individual for his or her actions. A burglar can serve 10 years in prison without being held accountable and responsible for what he or she did. In no instance is it required of the burglar to account for what he or she did and to apologise to the victim or the community for his or her actions. For the burglar, the victim is a dehumanised object just as the burglar has become dehumanised in society. The burglar will in all likelihood have no idea of the emotional and psychological damage he or she has caused. He or she will be unaware of the fact that the victim will probably never feel safe in his or her own home again, or what the impact has been on the individual well-being of the victim.

Diversion programmes such as victim offender mediation and family group conferencing have succeeded to a large extent in making offenders accountable and, at the same time, extending the invitation to become part of the community (again). However, these principles clearly do not operate in sentencing. There is no reason why they cannot be part of sentencing. Imposing a sentence that has absolutely no value for the victim is in fact ignoring the most important person in the crime.

Current sentences also make little connection between crime and punishment. Sentences are generalised and trade in commodities that are applicable to all people, namely time, freedom and money, and have thus developed to the level of the lowest common denominator. Punishment should seek out those characteristics that are individual and that are in the interests of the community and the victim. If punishment is to contribute to offender reintegration, then those imposing the punishment are forsaking their duties and avoiding responsibility if the punishment does not specifically consider the reintegration process and how the offender can become part of the community again. The over-used short prison term trivialises the offence and the offender, not to speak of the victim, and gives the message: You are a nuisance to society and we will remove you from it for a number of months. You are also not worthy of anything more that will assist you to become a better citizen.

There is, in short, no way to deny that the sentencing official has a responsibility and an obligation to formulate a punishment that will facilitate reintegration. To argue that this function resides in other structures is to argue that people exist in neat bureaucratic compartments, similar to the criminal justice system.

Programmes and services

Offender reintegration programmes are not enforceable. Experience has shown that programmes are most successful when participants choose to participate and where a degree of self-selection exists. Programmes that are imposed on people because ‘they need it’, lack legitimacy and support and are soon regarded in a negative light. A high impact, high intensity and personalised programme cannot afford to have participants who do not want to be there and who would ultimately become destructive.

Participant selection is not only about who is on the programme, but also about who does not participate. Participants should understand this within the context of reintegration. They are there because they are willing to change, willing to take responsibility and be accountable, and they are taking up the challenge to break the cycle of crime. Other criteria may come into play, but these are essential.

A number of international and local offender reintegration programmes were described above in an attempt to focus on their strengths and weaknesses to enhance the insight into essential characteristics of successfully interventions. A framework for offender reintegration programmes, as developed by Fine, was described and this will be applied to draw some conclusions on existing programmes, as well as some general lessons learned. What is undoubtedly clear is that a successful and valuable offender reintegration programme is not a once-off singular intervention, but rather a continuous multileveled co-operative venture that has empowerment as the central methodology.

Programmes should be multilayered and created by people who invest their vision, morality and values in them. Most of the programmes reviewed above conformed to this standard, in some examples more than in others. It was especially those programmes that placed great emphasis on the quality of their staff, such as the Delaware programme, Ringe Prison and the Safer Foundation, that expressed this principle.

All the programmes had transformation as a goal, but this was again more pronounced in some. In some programmes, individual goals are formulated by the programme participants, whereas in others, issues related to transformation are dealt with but transformation, although expected, is not expressed as a central issue. It is particularly the South African programmes that do not explicitly explore transformation and how it could be to achieved.

Sustaining transformation, or what Fine calls ‘taking participants on a journey’ that breaks the repetitive cycle of crime and punishment, is a major challenge in offender reintegration. The lifeguard system used by the Safer Foundation is an innovative and apparently effective method in this regard. The follow-through from formulating goals to achieving them in reality is the essence of offender reintegration and many of the programmes are weak in this regard. The boot camps described earlier showed a severe lack in this regard as did some of the South African programmes.

Offender reintegration is probably 80% process and 20% information; it is about learning new process-based skills to deal with life’s challenges. It follows then that successful programmes are firstly not once-off, as emphasised above, and secondly, that they require detailed planning to ensure that participants feel they are truly part of a transformational process. In order to achieve successful transformation, it is essential that the process is built on strengths and not on pathologies, and that the programme builds on its achievements. On a practical level, this means that there has to be continuity and the participants have to remain as an intact group, a problem identified with the COMPRA programme in Mpumalanga.

According to Fine, successful offender reintegration programmes should be multipurposed and address four key issues: developing abilities through skills programming, changing behaviour by addressing relationships, developing potential through creativity, and demonstrating achievements through actions. Of all the programmes reviewed, there is not one that covers all four issues sufficiently, with programmes placing the emphasis only on one or two issues. It is fair to say that there is a temptation in offender reintegration to emphasise the development of marketable skills through training, while at the same time neglecting relationships. A number of the programmes ignored relationships entirely, for example, the NICRO Working for Water project, Project RIO and Khulisa. Project RIO and the Working for Water project, on the other hand, place great emphasis on the development of hard skills. The Gauteng Rehabilitation Trust places the emphasis on relationships through its counselling service, apparently without any explicit focus on skills development. Seeking a balance between these four issues should start in the programme design process and thus be an integral part of the programme.

Offender reintegration programmes need to be multifocused and cannot ignore the fact that people are complex and that programmes therefore have to deal with a variety of issues. This specifically relates to the creation of an opportunity for participants to deal with the past, present and future. The Delaware programme apparently deals with these questions effectively by engaging participants in discussions around their past, present and future, but more importantly, in formulating change strategies for the future. In most of the programmes, there appear to be too narrow a focus and some important issues are not dealt with sufficiently.

For a variety of reasons, the programmes reviewed focus on particular dimensions, as described by Fine.61 The mistake often made is to design programmes around resources and not around needs. Organisations involved in offender reintegration programmes also have their own traditions and objectives, for example, religious organisations will focus on the spiritual dimension and educational organisations on the intellectual. Whereas it is not necessarily wrong to have a particular focus, it is problematic to ignore important dimensions of human existence in offender reintegration.

It was clear from the American programmes, in general, and particularly Project RIO, that a multiresourced programme has much greater potential for success. The South African programmes mainly seem to be resourced by a single funder and, although other roleplayers are involved, it does not appear as if there is a collective commitment. The South African programmes are run by NGOs in prisons, or adjacent to the prison system. The Department of Correctional Services does not significantly support NGOs or CBOs financially to render services to prisoners or former prisoners, and they are therefore dependent on other sources of funding for their programmes.

Adopting the notion of an holistic approach has become popular in programme development, but in practical terms seems to be rather evasive. The degree to which a programme is or can be holistic will be determined by the extent to which it is able to address the needs of programme participants and the extent to which they are able to internalise and practice the skills and knowledge acquired through the programme. Holistic in this sense means the ability of participants to translate programme content into all aspects of life. The ‘holism’ of a programme is therefore not only determined by what is covered in the programme, but also by the methods and processes used to transfer knowledge and insight to the daily life of the former offender. It could be argued that if a programme is multipurposed, multifocused and multidimensional, the potential for being holistic is greater.

Many offender reintegration programmes suffer from passivity which seriously undermines the impact of the programme. It can be a challenging design problem to formulate a reintegration programme in prison as an active experience. However, Ringe Prison in Denmark is exactly that — an active experience that is aimed at preparing the prisoner for life outside prison. Mention was made earlier of the fact that separating programme participants from the rest of the prison population adds great value to the programme. This is part of making the programme an active experience so that prisoners can start practising what they are learning in an environment that is supportive and not undermining. In South African prisons, this remain one of the key issues in prison-based reintegration programmes.

Areas for further research and analysis

It was noted that, not only in South Africa, but across the world, there is a shortage of research on offender reintegration. Some past research has given offender reintegration a bad name, which has caused immeasurable damage to the field, although there were ultimately some positive consequences in terms of improving evaluation standards. In South Africa, substantive research is required on the following:

former prisoners and recidivism rates;

reintegration problems faced by former offenders

reintegration programme design and development;

quantitative information on prisoners and former prisoners;

employer attitudes to and practices with regard to former prisoners;

human rights and prisoners;

the effects of current sentencing policies and practices on crime;

the effects of imprisonment on the families of prisoners; and

the needs of and resources available to families of prisoners.

The current lack of research has resulted in political decision makers who are poorly informed on requirements in this field in terms of reducing crime in the long term. A body of knowledge and expertise needs to be developed in order to raise offender reintegration to a level where it is acknowledged as a legitimate crime reduction strategy.

Offender reintegration will only achieve success if an integrated approach is followed where the state, civil society and the private sector pool resources and knowledge to restore the breach in the community. Some of the examples of programmes discussed above have shown how this approach can be successful not only in terms of curbing recidivism, but also financially. It is ultimately the community of good citizens who benefit from successful offender reintegration, as it is also the community of good citizens who pay the price when offenders reoffend.