1 / 22

MOTIVATION FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ACT, 111 OF 1998

MOTIVATION FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ACT, 111 OF 1998 (CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL, 2007) DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (DCS). INTRODUCTION. 2005: Adoption of the White Paper on Corrections – emphasis on correction and rehabilitation

kailey
Download Presentation

MOTIVATION FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ACT, 111 OF 1998

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MOTIVATION FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ACT, 111 OF 1998 (CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL, 2007) DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (DCS)

  2. INTRODUCTION • 2005: Adoption of the White Paper on Corrections – emphasis on correction and rehabilitation • Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 – premise of the White Paper on Corrections, 2005 • Constitution provides for a detention system that is based on the Bill of Rights • Bill of Rights defines a human rights environment within which the DCS must operate • White Paper on Corrections brings the alignment to the constitutional imperatives provided by the Constitution • Also provided policy framework for departmental legislation and guidance for subordinate policy development

  3. WHY ARE WEAMENDING THE CURRENT ACT • To change specific concepts, definitions and references in order to align the Act to the White Paper on Corrections of South Africa, 2005; • To enact specific practices in respect of administration of Correctional Centres to promote humane treatment of inmates contravening / transgressing matters of security, management of correctional centres, discipline, etc. • To enable public participation in rehabilitation and re-integration of offenders into community. • To legislate a framework in determination of parole in respect of certain categories of offenders. • To introduce compulsory participation in certain programmes for offenders.

  4. WHAT IS COVERED IN THE PRESENTATION - Substantive amendments focusing on the following: • Community participation in rehabilitation and social re-integration of offenders • Incarcerated mothers with children in custody • Introduction of the elements of the offender rehabilitation path • Humane treatment of inmates • Improved administration of parole and Correctional Supervision and Parole Board (CSPB) 6. Streamlining the functions of Judicial Inspectorate (To enhance the monitoring of humane treatment of inmates in correctional centres)

  5. 1. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN REHABILITATION AND SOCIAL RE-INTEGRATION OF OFFENDERS • Chapter 3 of the White Paper provides that correction is a societal responsibility. • Chapter 13 promotes relationship between the DCS and community-based organisations as inherent for successful rehabilitation. • The current Act limits community involvement to communication to visits by spouse, partners and relatives. • The Bill proposes in clause 13 (section 13) that the Commissioner may allow community organisations, non-governmental organisations and religious organisations to interact with inmates in order to facilitate the rehabilitation and re-integration into the community. • Clauses 45 (section 50) and 53 (section 68) also extend the objective and participation of volunteers in community corrections, respectively.

  6. 2. INCARCERATED MOTHERS WITH CHILDREN • Before 1998 the DCS policy stipulated that mothers may have children with them until the age of two years. • The Act changed it to five years due to lack of resources to place such children. • Theories based on research show critical period for development is between the ages of six months and two to three years. • International practice – # UK : 9 – 18 months; # USA : 12 – 18 months; # Sweden : 1 year; # Malta : 1 year • Viewpoint of the Department of Education is that critical period for bonding and stimulation with mother is ideal up to two years.

  7. 2. INCARCERATED MOTHERS WITH CHILDREN • Therefore if children are kept with their mothers in custody for longer periods they will have difficulty relating to other people, e.g. siblings, male figures and other children. • The Bill now provides for the age of two years (clause 20 – section 20).

  8. 3. INTRODUCTION OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENDER REHABILITATION PATH • In order to conceptualize the White Paper, the offender rehabilitation path was developed to spell out the interventions that should take place from admission until the release of an offender in order to ensure his or her rehabilitation. • The intention with rehabilitation is to curb re-offending and to contribute to the safety and security of the community. • The current Act does not clearly provide for the rehabilitation path needed for the development of the offender whilst incarcerated. • The Bill introduces the following concepts in order to close the gap in the current Act – 3.1 Unit management; 3.2 Correctional sentence plan; and 3.3 Personal development of the offender.

  9. 3. INTRODUCTION OF THE ELEMENTS / PRINCIPLES OF OFFENDER REHABILIATION…continued 3.1 Unit Management • Chapter 5 of the White Paper provides for application of elements, principles and objectives of unit management in the correctional centre. • Unit management is identified as one of the best practices of managing correctional centres and inmates in the world. • The current Act does not provide for elements / principles of unit management • Clause 35 (b) (section 37) introduces as per the requirement of the White Paper elements / principles of unit management into the Act.

  10. 3. INTRODUCTION OF THE ELEMENTS OF OFFENDER REHABILIATION…continued 3.2 Sentence Plan • Chapter 9 of the White Paper provides for the needs-based correctional sentence plan. • The current Act is vague about the sentence plan. • The Bill seeks to clarify this and specify the elements to be covered in the correctional sentence plan. • Clause 36 (b) (section 38 (1A)) compels the Case Management Committee to compile a correctional sentence plan in relation to the offender’s future in the correctional centre. • It further provides that the offender’s correctional sentence plan must address each of the matters and needs as identified in the risk assessment. • The intention is to correct offending behaviour and rehabilitate the offender in preparation for release back into the community.

  11. 3. INTRODUCTION OF THE ELEMENTS OF OFFENDER REHABILIATION…continued 3.3 Personal Development • Chapter 9 of the White Paper provides for development which focuses on the life skills of offenders is aimed at realizing offender’s full potential in every aspect of his or her development. • The current Act does not clearly provide the purpose of skills development by offenders, and is also vague about development and care programmes. • In this regard the Bill provides for market-related skills in order for offenders to be gainfully employed in society upon their release. • Clause 38 (section 40(b)) covers this. • The Bill further provides for needs-based programmes (clause 39 – section 41(1)). • In clause 24 (section 24(8)) the Bill provides that a penalty for serious or repeated infringements may be segregation – in order to subject the inmate to undergo programmes aimed at correcting behaviour. Also clause 30 (section 30(1)(g)) NB: This section also covers unsentenced inmates.

  12. 4. MONITORING HUMANE TREATMENT OF INMATES • Constitution - section 35(2)(e) & (f) everyone detained, including every sentenced prisoner, has the right to conditions of detention that are consistent with humane dignity. • Chapter 10 of the White Paper states that special attention should be paid to the nature of the disciplinary procedures and punishment meted out. The scope for abuse of authority in the correctional institution must be countered. • The current Act provides that solitary confinement may be meted out as penalty to discipline offending behaviour by inmates (section 24(5)(d)). • The penalty in terms of section 24(5)(d) is now complemented by the provisions of clause 24 – section 24(8) which introduces programmes aiming at correcting behaviour whilst in segregation (clause 30 – section 30(1)(g) . • Furthermore, the current Act provides for the Head of Correctional Centre to report the application of mechanical restraints in single detention to the Area Commissioner and the Inspecting Judge (section 31(4)).

  13. 4. MONITORING HUMANE TREATMENT OF INMATES…continued • In order to enhance the monitoring and avoid possible abuse, the Bill provides for the Head of the Correctional Centre to report the application of mechanical restraints in single cells to the National Commissioner and the Inspecting Judge (clause 31 – section 31(3)(d). • In further enhancing the monitoring of humane treatment of inmates, the Bill removes the reporting duty of the Inspecting Judge on corrupt and dishonest practices (clause 74 – section 90(1)). • The removal enhances the focus of the Inspecting Judge on matters related to human right issues.

  14. 5. IMPROVING ADMINISTRATION OF PAROLE SYSTEM…. • New concepts covered in the Bill on this matter relates to the following – 5.1 Allowance for inmate to make oral representation 5.2 Conditions of community corrections 5.3 Incarceration framework

  15. 5. IMPROVING ADMINISTRATION OF PAROLE SYSTEM…. …continued 5.1 Allowance for inmate to make oral representation • Chapter 5 of the White Paper introduced principles of restorative justice in correctional management • In line with the White Paper the current Act provides in section 75(4) that the complainant / relative of the complainant may make written or oral representations to the CSPB. • The Bill now provides for the offender also to make oral representations to the CSPB (clause 59(d) – section 75(4A). This also in line with the requirements of the Constitution (section 33) and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000.

  16. 5. IMPROVING ADMINISTRATION OF PAROLE SYSTEM…. …continued 5.2 Conditions of community corrections • The White Paper provides for corrections as a societal responsibility. • Clause 47 - section 52(1)(b)(f) & (r) seeks to empower the CSPB to put conditions aimed at compelling the offender to participate in correction, development and care programmes in the society. • Clause 47 – section 52(1)( (r) of the Bill also makes provision for such conditions as to suit the needs of the offender in order to facilitate his or her re-integration into the community. • The current Act provides in section 52(1)(a) that one of the conditions of community corrections may be placement under house detention. • The Bill seeks to introduce a similar provision which is clearly a duplication since further conditions for house detention may be imposed by the CSPB.

  17. 5. IMPROVING ADMINISTRATION OF PAROLE SYSTEM…. …continued 5.2 Conditions of community corrections • Therefore the DCS recommends that the Portfolio Committee omits this from the Bill. • Section 52(1)(k) of the current Act provides as one of the conditions the prohibition to use or abuse alcohol or drugs whilst under community corrections. • The Bill has provided for the deletion of section 57(5) since this is already covered in section 52(1)(k). • The Act was contradictory in that whilst it allowed for the use of alcohol or drugs in section 57(5), in section 52(1)(k) there was absolute prohibition. • To consolidate the two sections the Bill prohibits the abuse thereof, which ensures that the process of supervision is not impaired.

  18. 5. IMPROVING ADMINISTRATION OF PAROLE SYSTEM…. …continued 5.3 Incarceration Framework • Traditionally and historically the executive had the power to regulate parole. • Currently the judiciary can influence the administration of parole by introducing non-parole periods. • This position is also being criticized by our courts. • Botha v State Case: # “The function of a sentencing court is to determine the term of imprisonment that a person, who has been convicted of an offence should serve. # A court has no control over the minimum period of the sentence that ought to be served by such a person. A recommendation of the kind encountered here is an undesirable incursion into the domain of another arm of state, which is bound to cause tension between the judiciary and the executive.”

  19. 5. IMPROVING ADMINISTRATION OF PAROLE SYSTEM…. …continued 5.3 Incarceration Framework • In S v Nkosi the Judge decided that the court has no control over the minimum period of sentence to be served by an offender as well as the release. # A court has no control over the minimum period of the sentence that ought to be served by such a person. A recommendation of the kind encountered here is an undesirable incursion into the domain of another arm of state, which is bound to cause tension between the judiciary and the executive.” # Furthermore, Courts are not entitled to prescribe to the executive branch of government how long a convicted person should be detained, thereby usurping the function of the executive. • The period served by an inmate should be consistent with the established sentencing framework and the rehabilitation objectives.

  20. 5. IMPROVING ADMINISTRATION OF PAROLE SYSTEM…. …continued 5.3 Incarceration Framework • In order to improve the administration of parole the Bill introduces ‘the incarceration framework’ which replaces all the minimum consideration periods in terms of the current Act. • The incarceration framework allows the Minister, as an executive authority, in consultation with the National Council on Correctional Services (NCCS) to determine these periods by notice in the Gazette (clause 57 – section 73A). • This determination is subject to the following must – # Take cognizance of the seriousness of the offence; # Be of general application to all offenders; # Be consistently applied; and # Provide for flexibility taking into account successful achievements in terms of the correctional sentence plan.

  21. STREAMLINE THE FUNCTIONS OF THE JUDICIAL INSPECTORATE • The DCS does not intend to proceed with the amendments as indicated in clauses 68 – 76 (sections 85-93) except for those mentioned hereunder. • The current Act stipulates that the Inspecting Judge in person is responsible for all administrative and staff management functions. • South African Association of Personal Injury Lawyers v Heath and Others 2001 (1) BCL 77 CC (the Heath decision) • In accordance with this decision the Judge should perform judiciary functions and not executive duties. • The Bill provides for the Chief Executive Officer to perform administrative and staff management functions (clause 73 – section 89) • The Bill further provides for the removal of the duty to report fraud and corruption from the Inspecting Judge.

  22. Thank you “An age of hope, a national effort for corrections, rehabilitation and social integration”

More Related