1. Introduction

The Parliamentary Liaison Office of the Southern African Catholic Bishops' Conference was set up in 1997 to foster communication and dialogue between Parliament and government on the one hand, and the Church on the other. The office does this by analysing policy and legislative developments, making submissions to portfolio committees and other relevant bodies, and briefing Church leadership on these topics.

We welcome the opportunity to comment on the Draft White Paper on Corrections in South Africa. To a large extent, the very existence of a prison system is a sign of failure: the failure of particular individuals to respect and adhere to the norms and standards required by society; and the failure of society - through its moral, religious, educational, economic and governance institutions - to create a climate in which crime is not regarded as an acceptable or necessary option. In a country such as ours, with a very high incarceration rate by international standards, and with an excessive rate of recidivism, the extent of the failure is abundantly clear.

In this context it is most encouraging that the Draft White Paper has adopted a holistic, practical and insightful stance in facing up to what it rightly views as 'major challenges'. It would have been all too easy to put forward a reactionary response: build more prisons, toughen up punishments, try to frighten people away from committing crime. That approach has been dominant up to now and it is clearly inadequate. Instead, the Draft White Paper proposes a number of far more pro-active and constructive alternatives.

Before commenting specifically on some of these, however, we wish to identify ourselves very strongly with what seems to be the underlying philosophy of the Paper, as set out in paragraph 14 of the executive summary:

1. all South Africans can make a contribution to a just, peaceful and safe South Africa;
2. correction (of self and others) is inherent in good citizenship;
3. corrections is a societal responsibility to which all institutions of society should contribute.

We certainly hope that churches and other members of the faith community will lead by example in living up to this vitally important societal responsibility.

1. Points Specifically Supported

1. We welcome the emphasis on restorative justice, the restoration of the relationship between the offender and the victim (section 5A). The Catholic Church has long held that one of the main purposes of punishment must be 'redressing the disorder introduced by the offence'. If nothing is done to heal the damaged relationship then it is questionable what will be achieved by imprisonment, other than simple vengeance.
2. Linked closely to this, we also support any plan to extend community service (5A.2.7). Such projects can offer an opportunity to offenders to make a real contribution, either to the community at large or to the victims themselves. And of course, societal institutions are in a position to assist the Department in such initiatives.
3. The provision of opportunities for productive work is of the utmost importance (4.4.8 and 10B.3). There can be no doubt that the boredom and monotony which so many offenders experience contributes to violence, gangsterism and other dehumanising tendencies. At the same time, valuable opportunities for the acquisition of skills and the development of self-esteem, are lost. There is potentially a positive role here for the private sector: rather than seeing prison workshops, farms and other productive facilities as a unfair competition, private companies could enter into mutually beneficial partnerships, possibly extending to the employment of offenders upon their release. In any event, it should be clear that anything that can reduce the rate of recidivism and improve the nation's skills base will be good for the economy as a whole, and will be of direct benefit to the private sector.
4. For the same broad reasons we also support the idea of providing education to offenders, as set out in section 10B.2.
5. Very considerable thought has obviously been given to the best way of dealing with special categories of offenders (Chapter 12). We strongly support the notion that children, youth and first offenders should be incarcerated separately from older and repeat offenders. Apart from the fact that it is to society's benefit to prevent young people from being influenced by hardened criminals, it is also a matter of their own dignity and safety. Likewise, we agree that appropriate steps need to be instituted to deal with women offenders and those with physical and mental disabilities.
6. The Catholic Church, in common with the rest of the faith community, is keenly aware of its responsibilities towards those in prison; ministering to the spiritual, pastoral and personal needs of offenders is not an 'optional-extra' but a central duty for the Church. Therefore we are more than willing to enter into the type of partnership with the Department of Correctional Services envisaged in Chapter 14. We would further support the general notion of partnerships between the Department and civil society generally.

 

2. Areas of Concern

1. Most, if not all, of the innovations proposed in the Draft White Paper have budgetary implications. Whether it is a case of providing more facilities, or recruiting more and better qualified-staff, or enhancing the education and skills-training capacity of the Department, the costs are likely to be significant; yet, the Paper offers little indication of how these costs will be met. We are concerned, therefore, to know to what extent a commitment has been made by government to provide the necessary funding.
2. With certain exceptions, the Department has to implement the sentences imposed by the courts. Thus, if the courts are reluctant to order community service in appropriate cases, or if they continue to set bail amounts that are unaffordable for significant numbers of accused, many of the problems - notably overcrowding - identified in the Paper will persist. To this one may add the view recently expressed by the Inspecting Judge of Prisons that the courts are too inclined to impose very long sentences. All of this raises the question of how the Department intends to ensure that the courts share its vision, without, of course, attempting to interfere in the latter's independence.
3. A similar concern arises as far as awaiting-trial offenders are concerned. Unless ways can be found to speed up dramatically the processing of alleged offenders - from time of arrest to imposition of sentence - serious overcrowding will continue to plague the system (not to mention the serious violation of the alleged offender's rights that this represents). In this respect the co-operation of the Departments of Justice and of Safety and Security will be vital and, although this is alluded to in section 6.2, there is no indication that these departments have committed themselves to Correctional Services' vision.
4. As the Draft White Paper points out, 'gangs have been a feature of the South African correctional system over the past century.' While, on the one hand, it is encouraging that this pernicious reality is being more readily acknowledged by the Department, it is far from clear what it intends to do about the problem, other that the statement in section 11B.2.2 that an 'anti-prison gang strategy' is to be adopted by management of the Department. We would suggest that, unless the power and influence of the prison gangs is effectively combated, as a matter of priority, many of the reforms and initiatives mooted in the Paper will not get off the ground.
5. The overall tenor of the Draft White Paper is of a far more developmental, rights-based and humane approach to the treatment of offenders than was previously the case. It is, therefore, difficult to reconcile this with the apparent policy of building more facilities of the 'C-Max' type. Our understanding is that the conditions of incarceration in these facilities are far from humane, and in fact amount to the dehumanisation of offenders. Even though these prisons supposedly contain the most dangerous offenders, we question whether the type of incarceration experienced there can be reconciled with the Department's 'conviction that every human being is capable of change and transformation if offered the opportunity and resources.' (executive summary, paragraph 17).

 

3. Conclusion

As we have already noted, the Draft White Paper provides an excellent example of pro-active and constructive policy development. We welcome the way in which challenges are identified and analysed, and in which well though-out solutions are proposed to meet these challenges. Of course, as the Paper itself points out, what it proposes will take many years to carry out; nevertheless, the Department can be congratulated on having made a positive start. We reiterate our willingness as part of civil society and the faith community to co-operate with Correctional Services, and we look forward to the successful implementation of these policies in the years to come.

______________________________________________________________________________