Note to editors: The following speech was delivered in Parliament today by the DA’s Shadow Minister of Correctional Services, James Selfe MP, during the Budget Vote on Correctional Services.
Just about every year, we come to Parliament during this vote and say more or less the same things: the prisons are overcrowded; the gangs are too powerful; there is too much corruption; the staff fear for their safety; the re-offending rate is too high, and so I could go on.
The object of any penal system must be to rehabilitate offenders, thereby lowering the crime rate. Under current circumstances, very few offenders are rehabilitated, and depressingly large numbers of them re-offend. That is chiefly because the prisons are so overcrowded that, with the best will in the world, meaningful rehabilitation programmes are difficult to roll out, and key categories of staff, such as psychologists and educators, are in short supply. Overcrowding also allows the gangs to flourish.
Overcrowding is driven by two major factors: first, it is a result of longer sentences, and particularly minimum sentences; and secondly, it is caused by large numbers of remand detainees, who can often not be released because they cannot pay relatively low amounts of bail, or because they have no fixed addresses.
It follows that if we want to improve the chances of successful rehabilitation, we must lower the rates of overcrowding, but obviously in a responsible manner. Moreover, if we want to improve the chances of successful reintegration, we must ensure that offenders are ready to be released and that they will be accepted into their families and communities.
As I said, we have been banging on about these things for years, but this year, for the first time, there are glimmers of hope that someone in the Department is listening.
When the Deputy Minister briefed the Portfolio Committee, he alluded to a number of positive features that could “down-manage” overcrowding. The first was the finalisation of a position paper on parole, and the drafting of a Parole Bill. Reforming the parole system and making it more flexible will allow more offenders to be released before the end of their sentences.
Secondly, he mentioned that a draft policy framework was being developed for the inter-state transfer of offenders to serve their sentences in their country of citizenship. I have been advocating for this since 1996. It makes no sense to have a foreign national serve a sentence (which has to be in full, since no parole is possible), and then simply deport him or her. There are many more foreign nationals in our prisons than there are South Africans serving sentences in foreign jails.
Thirdly, if one looks at the Budget, for the first time one can discern that there is a small but significant reallocation of resources away from incarceration and administration to rehabilitation and reintegration. If a new parole system is to be introduced, it is essential that the community corrections branch is properly staffed and equipped to be able to monitor parolees and probationers.
In this respect, it is pleasing to note that in the 2015/16 financial year, only 1,22% of parolees violated their parole conditions. It is less pleasing to note that the roll out of the electronic monitoring system is still on hold, we assume until the trial of the former Minister Sbu Ndebele starts.
Fourthly, the number of offenders who participated in restorative justice programmes and victim-offender dialogue has increased rapidly over the last three years. Victim offender dialogue is not easy, both emotionally and practically, but it does improve the prospects of more successful reintegration when offenders are released.
Fifthly, it was pleasing to note that the negotiations on the Occupational Specific Dispensation have finally been concluded. This has gone on about as long as we have been trying to have the charges against Jacob Zuma reinstated. This ought to make it easier to recruit and retain the scarce skills that are so necessary for successful rehabilitation. However, the downside is that, to remain within the envelope of available resources for the remuneration of employees in the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) as a whole, the number of employees at the coalface – in the centres – is likely to reduce.
What was missing and disappointing in the Budget and the briefings?
First, we would have wanted to see a greater commitment to alternative sentencing. Not every offender belongs in prison, and a more effective and satisfactory sentence may very well be community service. This has three advantages: first, offenders literally contribute back to the society they have harmed in a visible and tangible form. Secondly, such offenders are not exposed to criminal elements, as they would be in overcrowded facilities, and thirdly, this is much cheaper. However, these sort of sentences will only be handed down by judges and magistrates when they are confident that the offenders can be properly monitored by community corrections.
Secondly, we are concerned at the large amounts of money for agency and outsourced services that has increased by 135% this year to R1,5 billion. We all know that outsourced services come at a premium and that they are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. We are equally concerned at the 9% increase in expenditure on communications to R88.5 million, and the R29 million allocated to a feasibility study for a new headquarters for the Department. These are “nice-to-haves”, and do not address the core business of correcting offending behaviour and rehabilitating offenders.
But, seen as a whole, the budget is starting to be aligned better to the ideals of the White Paper. We will continue to keep the Department under close observation, but I think it can now be moved out of intensive care.