CHAPTER ONE GENERAL INTRODUCTION
Given the pervasive nature of social deviance, research have shown that society cannot be devoid of crime. The fact that laws have been made to prevent crime and yet people always break them, presupposes that there is something in human nature that demands attention other than punishment. What should matter, therefore, is how to assist people who fall foul to the law at one time or the other to learn from their mistakes and re-adjust. This Chapter of research conducted on Prisoner Reintegration in Ghana through Christian Social Support and Restorative Justice covers background of the study, statement of the research problem, research objectives, research questions, relevance of the study, scope of the study, theoretical framework, review of relevant literature, methodology, organisation of the study and operational definition of terms.
Background of the Study
The idea of using prison sentencing to correct criminal behaviour has existed for a long time now. Through rehabilitation programmes, prison inmates learn to become law- abiding citizens. Imprisonment, therefore, is a means of punishing wrong-doers and of protecting citizens from them. However, the underlying principle of the prison system is that of ‘improving’ the individual to play a fit and proper part in society.1
Generally, the purposes for which people convicted of crime are incarcerated are retribution, deterrence, reformation and protection of society. These factors are emphasised differently in various countries. For instance, while some countries or societies are mostly
1 Anthony Giddens, Sociology, 2nd Ed. (Polity Press: Cambridge, 1996) p. 138
inclined to enforcing the retributive effect of punishment, others predominantly pursue the reformation of the offender and proceed to provide various programmes to achieve that purpose. Yet, some other countries weigh the various offences and prescribe effects in accordance with the merit of the offence.
Research has shown that though retribution is the most fundamental element in the penal action while deterrence, for practical reasons, the most indispensable, the reformative element is considered the most valuable in the effects which it produces, and that which alone confers upon the others the full quality of justice.2 However, the ultimate goal of imprisonment does not limit itself to the reformation and rehabilitation of the prisoner. It is to ensure that the prisoner is able to reintegrate into society after release from prison. In other words, imprisonment would seek to correct what went wrong in the life of the prisoner, and provide the necessary treatment, educational, moral and vocational training with a view to enabling them reintegrate into society when on release.3 Reintegration means the process of restoring prisoners to society after release from prison, to the extent that they do not re-offend.
For any proper social reintegration of the prisoner to take place, modern philosophy of the penal system requires conducive prison environments such that prison conditions are not too different from those of society. Prisoners are no longer to be physically maltreated as was once the common practice. Imprisonment in itself is punishment, and not for punishment. Prisoners are to be provided for so they would be able to participate in all the reformation and rehabilitation programmes in the prison to ensure their smooth re-entry.
2 M. D. Jenkins, Prison and Prison Reform, in D. J. Atkinson and D. H. Fields, Eds, New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology (Inter Varsity Press: Nottingham, UK, 1995), p. 668
3 R. Adeniran, Prisoners caught in vicious cycle. In Africawatch, 2012, pp. 52-54
Unfortunately, however, unlike developed nations, many countries are not able to make their prison conditions meet the required standard to support proper prisoner rehabilitation. For instance, prisoners in most developing nations live in overcrowded conditions, and have to accept strict disciplinary procedures and the regimentation of their daily lives. Thus, living in these conditions tends to drive a wedge between the prison inmates and the outside society, rather than adjusting their behaviour to the norms of that society.4
Subsequently, prisoners have to come to terms with an environment quite distinct from ‘the outside’ and the habits and attitudes they learn in prison are quite exactly the opposite of those they are supposed to acquire. For instance, they may develop a grudge against the ordinary citizenry, learn to accept violence as normal, gain contacts with seasoned criminals which they maintain when freed, and acquire criminal skills about which they previously knew little. It is, therefore, not surprising that rates of recidivism – repeat offending by those who have been in prison before – are disturbingly high.5 As a result, Anthony Giddens reports that over 60 per cent of all men set free after serving prison sentences are rearrested within four years of their original crimes. He maintains that the actual rate of reoffending might be presumably higher than this as some of those returning to criminal activities are not caught.
Comprehensive social reintegration strategies, therefore, ought to treat the contributing factors that lead to the large number of crimes that are committed by persons who have served a term of imprisonment and failed, upon their release, to successfully integrate into the community as law-abiding citizens.6 For the safety of the community, it is mandatory that governments and communities work out appropriate interventions for the assistance of ex-
4 Anthony Giddens, Sociology, 2nd Ed. (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996), p. 138 5 Anthony Giddens, Sociology, 2nd Ed. (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996), p. 138 6 curtgriffiths.com
offenders to aid their reintegration in such a way that they do not reoffend. Consequently, policy makers and policy implementers now put much premium on identifying programmes and strategies that would help prison inmates successfully reintegrate into their communities when they are released from prison.
Ghana is not different from countries which use prisons to reform or rehabilitate prisoners for their eventual reintegration. For instance, Section 1 (1) of the Prisons Service Act, 1972, NRCD 46 states the functions of the Ghana Prisons Service (GPS) thus: “it shall be the duty of the Prisons Service to ensure the safe custody and welfare of prisoners and whenever practicable to undertake the reformation and rehabilitation of prisoners”.
However, the efforts of the Ghana Prisons Service in reforming prison inmates through various programmes to prepare them for reintegration have not yielded much result. The Service has not been able to carry out the function of reformation and rehabilitation effectively. Adeniran quotes Assistant Superintendent of Prisons (ASP), C. Atsem, the Chief Public Relations Officer of the GPS at the time as saying that “to some extent, our reformation and rehabilitation programmes are not enough to get the people, or some of them fully reformed…”7
Ampiaw reports Hinchliffe who indicates in a research conducted in Ghana by Amnesty International that prisoners are facing conditions which do not meet international standards and therefore need reforms. In that report, he makes reference to J. Welsh, a researcher on health and detention with Amnesty International, London branch, as saying that
7 R. Adeniran, Prisoners caught in vicious cycle, In Africawatch, 2012, p. 53
“there are training schemes within the prison system in Ghana, but these are undercut by the poor conditions, limited range of activities for prisoners and the shortages of resources”.8
Adeniran also indicates that in Ghana, a combination of strict sentencing guidelines, budget shortfalls and punitive philosophy of corrections have made contemporary prisons much less likely to rehabilitate their inmates. The result is an explosive growth in the prison population and at most, a modest effect on crime rates.
Lamenting the frustrations of the Ghana Prisons Service in its reformation attempts towards prisoners’ reintegration, W. K. Asiedu, the then Director-General of the Service, states in a speech thus:
It is worth noting that the prison system is the only enterprise that succeeds by its own failures. Our prison populations grow larger and larger. Often, some people come out of prison worse than they went in. Some get released, reoffend, return to prison, get released again, commit more crimes, get sentenced again and get stuck in the cycle of recidivism – the revolving door of crime, prison and release. This situation, at times, compels society to suggest that prisoners should never be allowed to come back to society and that government should put up more prisons.9
As a result of the inability of the Prisons Service to fully reform and rehabilitate prisoners, a Deputy Director of Prisons (DDP) and the Eastern Regional Commander of the Ghana Prisons Service/ Officer-in-Charge of the Nsawam Medium Security Prison, Mr. S.K.B Rabbles, in 2014, posits as follows:
The successes of the prisons in Ghana are measured in relation to the number of remand and convicted prisoners in custody, the number of deaths, injuries or escapes as well as the activities in which inmates are involved. This should not be the case! Successes of the prisons should be measured in terms of their efficacy in reducing criminal behaviour and the extent to which they succeed in developing and educating prisoners to enable them reintegrate into society as law-abiding citizens.10
8 Charles K. Ampiaw, Contributions of Christian Outreach Ministries in Transforming Prison Inmates in Ghana, (Unpublished Mphil Thesis), 2013, p. 2
9 In his speech delivered in 2008 at the Prison Ministry of Ghana Retreat held at the Presbyterian Women’s Training Centre, Abokobi.
10 In his address delivered to members of the Pentecost Prison Ministry at the Pentecost Convention Centre, Gommoa Fetteh.
The situation is worsened as the Department of Social Welfare (DSW) which is supposed to collaborate with the Prisons Service in the work towards prisoner reintegration is faced with challenges that over the years render it ineffective. Although the Department is supposed to take up from the prisons and link the ex-offender to pro-settlement programmes being run by government within the community, “it has not been able to deliver on its mandate due to lack of logistics, limited budgetary allocation and inadequate staff”.11
