Incarceration of Women in South Africa

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Chapter 2 Literature review

The current chapter provides a historical context of rehabilitation by providing philosophies that originally influenced incarceration, which provides an understanding of how correctional centres were originally designed with a view to punish. A history of correctional centres is also provided with emphasis on how punishment and rehabilitation was implemented during the pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial era in the African continent. The impact of incarceration on human beings is also reviewed with a focus to indicate the negative impact of a punitive philosophy. The latter part of the literature focuses on research and theories regarding the incarceration of women with significant emphasis on highlighting the intersection of various locations of inequality that influence women criminality, available policy guidelines and the classification of women. Gender-sensitive programmes are also discussed as well as the role of civil society in rehabilitation.

Philosophy on Incarceration

There are two philosophical approaches to incarceration, namely the conservative view and the liberal view. The conservative view is based on the notion that people are rational in their thinking and actions and therefore deserve logical outcomes. Consequently, incarceration with deterrent and incapacitation is seen as a logical follow-up from deserving outcomes. The liberal view is however, based on the assumption that human behaviour is influenced by upbringing, poverty, education and life experiences in general. Hence, rehabilitation is advocated mostly in this view. The liberal view thus advocates for positive prevention that fosters awareness of the law amongst offenders, stabilises norms of behaviour and preserves the general population’s trust of the justice system (Orth, 2003).
Historically, correctional centres were meant to specifically punish those who had wronged society, through inflicting physical pain on the body. However, the purpose of corrections has recently been expanded to include more than punishment which has seen correctional centres incorporating deterrence and rehabilitation in dealing with offenders. The aim, therefore, was to start working with the body and mind of the offender so that they leave the correctional system transformed and, hopefully, rehabilitated. However, according to Tomar (2013), the psychological welfare and freedom of an individual offender does not only depend on how much education, counselling and recreation received whilst incarcerated, but also depends on the relationships and encounters they have in the correctional system.

Retributive approach

The retributive approach is based on balancing wrong through punishment. Punishment is the infliction of pain and is seen as a just response to the offender’s crime, ways of educating the offender, protecting society and a way to deter other potential offenders (Orth, 2003). This approach implies that society has the right to punish whilst the offender has the right to be punished. The retribution philosophy is based on the presumption that all society members are subject to a social contract of ensuring safety for everyone by not violating the security of others. This approach has been criticised for dehumanising and almost denying human beings of the right to be equal, as offenders are therefore not treated equally in comparison to people outside correctional centres.
It has however been established that using punishment in attempts to correct offending behaviour has not always yielded positive change (Snyman, 1989). One can argue that the retributive approach is based on the premise that human behaviour is logical and therefore criminal offences should also be viewed as a rational act or choice made by human behaviours that deserve punishment. On the other hand, this premise fails to see the fact that in some instances, human beings are not in complete control of their behaviours and in other instances, out of their own choices they have learned behaviours, attitudes and thinking that makes them vulnerable to criminal behaviours (Tomar, 2013). Consequently, this approach is responsible for the punitive stance in how correctional centres are managed which basically make rehabilitation services to be very challenging to implement. One can also argue that this approach also individualises crime and ignores the role of social factors in offending behaviours.
As part of enforcing the retributive approach in corrections, women officers were not allowed employment in the custodial function for men due to a fear of them being easily manipulated, less aggressive and more likely to be pro-rehabilitation and helping inmates with their emotions, thereby causing unrest. As a result, women were placed as custodial officers for other women as well as juveniles, with the hope that they will mother those (Hussemann & Page, 2011). This highlights the fact that the correctional system in itself was gendered, as reflected by the employment of women in what was thought to be fitting the stereotypical gender roles. Such stereotypes still possibly exist in the system, as Hussemann and Page (2011) state that the employees, as well as the offenders, import socially constructed gender roles from society into the correctional services system. The implication is that women are seen as more pro-rehabilitation and less pro-justice (punishment, custodial) in their understanding of the purpose of incarceration in comparison to men.
Hussemann and Page (2011) further state that with time, the attitudes of correctional officers get shaped by the correctional culture which emphasises risk management (prevention of escape and violence) in correctional centres. As a result, all officers, whether male or female, are eventually socialised formally or informally into becoming rule enforcers in terms of ensuring emotional detachment and deprivation of offenders which produces the pains of incarceration. Simultaneously correctional officers also face disrespect of their authority and threats to their own safety. As a result, they also adopt a work personality that is characterised by viewing offenders as dangerous villains which then causes suspicion, hypervigilance, isolation and cynicism on the part of correctional officers, which fuels pessimism and loss of hope in rehabilitation. Such factors are deeply embedded in the correctional culture and contribute to the challenges in implementing rehabilitation, especially gender-based rehabilitation in correctional centres.

 The Utilitarian approach

This approach views punishment as evil but beneficial for the offender as well as society at large in order to prevent the same offence from happening again. Therefore, punishment is seen as good if it is for the benefit of the majority. The utilitarian approach sees punishment as a means to an end, the end being deterrence, incapacitation and/or rehabilitation. Incapacitation involves taking away the capacity the criminal has to commit the crime, while rehabilitation is defined as an internal change that results in the cessation of the targeted behaviour (Orth, 2003).
The theory of deterrence advocates that certain punishment, if harsh enough, can deter future crimes (Mays & Winfree, 2005, p. 5). Deterrence focuses on future results rather than past misdeeds. With general deterrence, the idea is that the punishment that an individual offender receives should deter the community from committing such an act. An example of this may be the death penalty. The purposes thereof are to give the highest punishment there is for the type of crime committed but at the same time, it is to deter people from committing such an act. In South African courts, for example, heavier sentences are imposed on offenders, more than have been usually imposed and this is done to warn the rest of the community not to commit such crimes. However, the high rates of recidivism place uncertainty in this theory. Snyman (1989, p. 21) highlights that deterring a person from committing a crime by imposing punishment upon others can in all probability certainly not be proven.
Cavadino (1997, p. 34) indicated that “catching and punishing offenders stigmatises them as criminals”. This label is often a source of stigma in the community which potentially serves a deterrent role in preventing crime due to the connotations attached to such labelling. However, within the correctional system, such labelling can provide an opportunity for offenders to view the corrections environment as a place where one can learn more about crime, especially for offenders serving lengthy sentences. Dissel (1996) also confirmed that maximum security offenders indicated that instead of being rehabilitated in correctional centres, they actually end up learning more about crime. This was seen as one of the consequences of lack of meaningful rehabilitation programmes for this group of offenders.

Chapter 1  Introduction
1.1 Statement of the Research Problem
1.2 Rationale for the study
1.3 Aims of the study
1.4 Definition of terms
1.5 Situating the Study
Chapter 2 Literature review
2.1 Philosophy on Incarceration
2.2 History of Correctional Centres in the African Context
2.3 The Impact of Incarceration
2.4 Incarceration of Women in South Africa
2.5 The role of Civil Society in Rehabilitation
Chapter 3  Methodology
3.1. Research Design
3.2 Sample
3.3 Data Collection
3.4 Data Analysis
Chapter 4  Results
4.1 Socio-Cultural Context: Pathways to crime for women classified as maximum offenders
4.2 Rehabilitation Experiences
4.2.1 Lack of rehabilitation
4.3 Rehabilitation and recidivism
4.4 Impact of Physical and Mental Health on Rehabilitation
4.5 Conclusion
Chapter 5  Discussion
5.1 Gendered pathways to crime
5.2 Negotiating the different identities
5.3 System not yet conducive to rehabilitating women offenders
5.4 Need for gender sensitive classification models
5.5 The paradox of the choice narrative for rehabilitation in a penal system
5.6 Blame the offender and exonerate society narrative
5.7 De-colonising correctional centres
Chapter 6 Conclusion
6.1 Rehabilitation as a responsibility rather than a choice for offenders
6.2 Correctional centre environment replicates Gender Based Violence dynamics
6.3 Rethinking and reimagining rehabilitation for women: The need for social justice and action in rehabilitation: A Need for Relevance
6.4 Evaluating the research
References
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT