DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES’ RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS MADE TO THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON THE CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL, 2007

CLAUSES / SECTIONS OF THE ACT & NAME OF ORGANISATION	SUBMISSION	ANSWERS AND COMMENTS
Clause 1 – Section 1	Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI) represented by Mr. Lucas Muntingh 1. Definition of ‘care’ 2. Definition of ‘correctional centre’; 3. Definitions of ‘inmate, offender and unsentenced offender’. 4. Definitions to be amended to reflect the following categories of prisoners: awaiting trial detainees being unconvicted; convicted but not sentenced; sentenced prisoners; probationers; and parolees. 5. Clarification of ‘basic needs’ in view of the definition of ‘care’ including “persons under the authority of the Department”. 6. Translation into other ten official languages. Centre for the Study of Violence Reconciliation (CSVR) represented by Ms Amanda Dissel Change of terminology – ‘prisoner’ to ‘offender’ not supported. Offender is stigmatizing. Professor Dirk van Zyl Smit 1. Definitions of ‘care’; ‘needs-based programmes; ‘remand supervision’; ‘correction’ and ‘development’ to be provided. 2. Substitution of ‘inmate’ for ‘prisoner’, ‘‘correctional centre’, for ‘prison’ ‘incarceration’ for ‘imprisonment’, ‘offender’ for ‘sentenced prisoner’, and correctional medical officer’ not supported– for different reasons provided (illusion that prisons are not places where liberty is taken away and people in fact “imprisoned’; offender harsher than prisoner, etc). The Centre for Conflict Resolution represented by Ms Razaan Bailey Supports formalization of new terminology. No submissions from other organizations.	The Department accepts submissions regarding definitions and is busy working on same with the Office of the State Law Advisor (CSLA). These will be covered in the revised Bill to be presented to the Committee on Tuesday. The Department retains the following categories to replace the terminology ‘prisoner’: ‘inmate’, ‘sentenced offender’ and ‘unsentenced offender’. Translation of the Bill will be referred to the experts in these fields - new terminology will be addressed therein. Terminology is in line with the White Paper. See comments to CSPRI. See comments to CSVR. Noted.
Clause 7 – Section 7	Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI) represented by Mr. Lucas Muntingh 1. Inclusion of Regulation 3 (h) into the principal Act – under Section 7. 2. The Bill should describe conditions of awaiting trial sections in which children should be detained, or that the Minister be mandated to develop Regulations that would set the minimum standards for the detention conditions of children. No submissions from other organizations.	The Act already provides for separation of children from adults. According to the Constitution children are those under the age of 18 years. It is not necessary to have this in the Act as it is in the Regulation and is for internal management. Such are addressed in the Departmental policy document.
Clause 13 – Section 13	Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI) represented by Mr. Lucas Muntingh In order to cater for organisations fearing to report human rights violations and dishonest and corrupt activities – 3. the Bill to provide for the development of regulatory framework that would protect civil society organisations from unreasonable, arbitrary or unfounded denial of access to prisons, whilst at the same time providing for the development of a framework by the DCS regulating access to prisons by civil society organisations. 4. Appeal / review for denial of access to organisations by the Commissioner to be made to the Inspecting Judge whose decision shall be final. No submissions from other organizations.	The Department has already agreed that the Bill will provide for registration of organizations / denominations and for screening of members of their members for security purposes. This submission is rejected as this will not fall within the mandate or objective of this Office. After having exhausted internal remedies complaint may be lodged with any institution having the mandate to deal with such like the Office of the Public Protector.
Clause 16 – Section 16	Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI) represented by Mr. Lucas Muntingh 5. ‘Corrections’ and ‘development’ programmes and services to be defined. The Centre for Conflict Resolution represented by Ms Razaan Bailey 2. Support clause as it entrenches the commitment of the DCS towards the rehabilitation of offenders.	See comments under clause 1. Noted.
Clause 20 – Section 20	Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI) represented by Mr. Lucas Muntingh 1. Categorical cut-off point in the Act and in the Bill does not enable the state to serve the best interest of the child but rather provides bureaucratic security. Best interest of the child will be better served in such instances if these are dealt with on a case-by-case basis and in accordance with the objectives of the Children’s Act (38 of 2005). In all cases mother and baby be detained together and the Children’s Court to determine when such child to be removed from its mother and arrangements to be made in respect of alternative care. Centre for the Study of Violence Reconciliation (CSVR) represented by Ms Amanda Dissel Support the amendment. (However, Measures be implemented to improve quality and amount of contact that children are able to have with their incarcerated mothers). Non-custodial sentences should be first option for care-giving mothers. DCS and Social Development to make adequate visitation arrangements for children of imprisoned mothers and increased time for mother-child visitation. South African Human Rights Commission represented by Ms Judy Cohen 1. Best interest of the child to be a determining factor and determination to be done on a case-by-case basis. NICRO represented by Celia Dawson Support the reduction in the upper limit of five years and recommend that Children’s Court proceedings be opened immediately a mother is convicted and admitted to prison with a child… The child receives opportunity to live in the ordinary world. No submissions from other organizations.	Submission accepted. The Department has requested the CSLA to formulate a revised amendment - which will provide for the best interest of the child to be taken into account; and further that upon admission of such a female inmate the Department must immediately, in conjunction with the Department of Social Development, facilitate the process for proper placement of the child so admitted with the mother. The intention is not to get rid of the child immediately he or she turns the age of two years without taking into consideration other factors. The revised Bill will ensure that such considerations are covered. See comments to CSPRI. See comments to CSPRI. See comments to CSPRI.
Clauses 24 – Sections 24	Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI) represented by Mr. Lucas Muntingh 6. Clarification for the deletion of section 24(3)(b) of the Act. No submissions from other organizations.	After deliberations the Department advised the Committee that the subsection will be substituted. The revised Bill to be submitted to the Committee on Tuesday will reflect that in the case of repeated or serious offences an inmate may be segregated in order to be subjected to programmes and that this will be coupled with a loss of amenities and gratuity.
Clause 25 – Section 25	Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI) represented by Mr. Lucas Muntingh 7. Deletion of a penalty of ‘solitary confinement’ and replacement with ‘detained in a single cell’. Definition of ‘solitary confinement’ still retained under definitions. Reporting and obtaining approval from the Inspecting Judge before detention in single cell is impractical and unnecessary. Clause 25 be omitted from the Bill and section 25 be retained unchanged. 8. Alternative approach – deletion of section 25 and definition of ‘solitary confinement’, but amending section 30 to provide for ‘punishment of segregation in a single cell’ Aids Law Project & TAC represented by Mr. Jonathan Berger Amendment relating to solitary confinement substituted with detention in a single cell provides for segregation to correct offensive behaviour and seem not to protect other inmates. Provision regarding segregation seem to suggest broad powers of disciplinary officials in relation to detention in single a cell. Professor Dirk van Zyl Smit 1. Amendment of section 25 would muddy the distinction between ‘solitary confinement’ and ‘segregation’ i.t.o. section 30 and detention in single cell i.t.o. 7(2)(e). Only when detention in a single cell is combined with other restrictions, such as lack of association, does it become ‘solitary confinement’. The term solitary confinement be maintained. 1. Proposed new section 24(8) also complicates matters. Amendment not to be introduced.	Accept the proposal. Provision will be made in the Bill for the deletion of the definition of ‘solitary confinement’. The Department has already advised the Committee about the revised amendments of sections 24, 25 and 30. Submission will accordingly be crafted by the CSLA into the revised Bill. See comments to CSPRI. See comments to CSPRI.
Clause 30 – Section 30	See clause 25 re submissions from CSPRI. No submissions from other organizations.
Clause 31 – Section 31(2)	Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI) represented by Mr. Lucas Muntingh Amendment supported. No submissions from other organizations.	Noted.
Clause 35 – Section 37	No submissions.
Clause 36 – Section 38	The Centre for Conflict Resolution represented by Ms Razaan Bailey Amendments welcomed as it highlights the focus of the DCS on rehabilitation of offenders. Need for DCS to ensure that correctional officers are skilled in conducting needs assessment and analyzing data to be in a position to deliver needs-driven programmes. Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI) represented by Mr. Lucas Muntingh Exclusion of prisoners serving a sentence of less than 24 months from having a sentence plan. South African Human Rights Commission represented by Ms Judy Cohen Does not support the amendment that excludes prisoners sentenced to less than 24 months from benefiting from the sentence plan. White Paper on Corrections stipulates that services must be rendered to all offenders.	Noted. This amendment is necessary as sentences of less than 24 months are seen more as a deterrence factor and such sentenced offenders will most probably be released after 12 months. However, such sentenced offenders nevertheless participate in other programmes without formalizing it in a correctional sentence plan. See comments to CSPRI.
Clause 38 – Section 40	Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI) represented by Mr. Lucas Muntingh Provision of market-related skills in order to be gainfully employed upon release is a detailed description in the legislation and it will also expose the Department to liabilities if it is not done to provide work that develops market-related skills. S.A.P.O.H.R. represented by Mr. Miles Bhudu Submission for formation of prisoners’ union to ensure access to decent working conditions, living wages, labour and human rights protection. Also call for industrialization of the Correctional Services. No submissions from other organizations.	Submission accepted. Revised Bill proposes the deletion of ‘market-related’ and retains ‘skills’ only. Submission rejected. There is no employer-employee relationship between the Department and inmates. The objective of the Correctional Services is clear in the Act.
Clause 39 – Section 41	Aids Law Project & TAC represented by Mr. Jonathan Berger Bill silent on continuity of care after release – such as the case when an inmate is accessing ARV treatment within a correctional centre and is released into a community with limited to no access. Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI) represented by Mr. Lucas Muntingh Reference to needs-based programmes be omitted in the Bill or DCS to clarify needs-based programmes. No submissions from other organizations.	This is not the responsibility of the DCS but of the Department of Health. However, the Department manages releases in such a way that it strives to minimize an interruption of treatment of released offenders. The Department is attending to this and will appear in the revised Bill. See comments under clause 1 above.
Clause 40 – Section 42	Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI) represented by Mr. Lucas Muntingh Clarification for submission of report by Case Management Committee (CMC) to the National Commissioner and not the Area Commissioner – as this will place heavy administrative duty on the office of the National Commissioner. The Centre for Conflict Resolution represented by Ms Razaan Bailey Support the amendment of section 42 in terms of which interviews are held at regular intervals. Issue of overcrowding highlighted as hampering service delivery.	This is to bring consistency in the Act in that the National Commissioner will delegate it to an appropriate level whereas it is currently fixed to the Area Commissioner. Noted.
Clause 43 – Section 45	Aids Law Project & TAC represented by Mr. Jonathan Berger Correctional medical officers not provided with any guidance as to how the health status examination should take place before release, and reference to the Health Act, 1977 is incorrect as the Act was repealed. No submissions from other organizations.	The Department does not agree as such examination is part and parcel of the medical practitioner training. Incorrect referencing will be corrected.
Clause 45 – Section 50 Clause 45(1)(a)(iv)	Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI) represented by Mr. Lucas Muntingh If the definition of inmate refers to convicted or not sentenced or not and detained in a Prison, therefore it will not be possible for unconvicted and unsentenced persons to serve their sentences in a non-custodial manner. Submit that clause 45 (i) a (iii) be omitted from the Bill as it is already covered in Section 50 (i). Request clarity on “completion of sentence and still pose a threat to society, or alternatively not pose a threat to society but have completed his/her sentence”. No submissions from other organizations.	The definitions are revised as per previous comments. In section the broad principle are addressed whilst in this clause all elements are indicated. This particular clause has been revised and the relevant part has been deleted.
Clause 47 – Section 52 Clause 47(c) Clause 47 – section 52(1)(d) Clause 47(e)	Aids Law Project & TAC represented by Mr. Jonathan Berger The Bill proposes that courts no longer have the power to order community corrections. Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI) represented by Mr. Lucas Muntingh Proposes that the purpose of house arrest to reduce the possibility of committing another sentence to be omitted from the Bill. No submissions from other organizations. On the issue of facilitating restoration of the relationship between the person concerned and the community the case of consensual crime (such as possession of drugs) may not apply. Therefore the amendment to be omitted from the Bill. No submissions from other organizations. Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI) represented by Mr. Lucas Muntingh “Where possible” based on the high unemployment rate which makes it difficult for ex-prisoners to find employment? “Where possible” to be omitted from the Bill. No submissions from other organizations. Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI) represented by Mr. Lucas Muntingh Corrections and Care programmes to be defined. Definition of care to be re-looked as it