© 2018 University of South Africa

All rights reserved

Printed and published by the

University of South Africa
Muckleneuk, Pretoria

PEN1502/1/2019–2021

70458189

Shutterstock.com images used

InDesign

MNB_Style
CONTENTS

Page
FOREWORD v
STUDY UNIT 1: HISTORICAL ORIGIN OF PRISONS 1
STUDY UNIT 2: THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRISONS 8
STUDY UNIT 3: THE CORRECTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND PROCESSES 16
STUDY UNIT 4: INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL SECURITY 32
GLOSSARY 37
BIBLIOGRAPHY 38

(iii) PEN1502/1/2019–2021
(iv)
FOREWORD

1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
It is a privilege to welcome you to the study of Penology, specifically to the module
“Introduction to Corrections Science”. We hope that you will find the experience stimulating,
informative and rewarding.

Individuals working in a correctional facility will find this study guide useful and relevant
to their work. Those outside correctional facilities will have a clear understanding of how
offenders are treated. We believe that a thorough understanding of the correctional
system will improve the way correctional officials work in the correctional facility.

2 SCOPE OF THE STUDY GUIDE

The study guide consists of four units. Study unit 1 examines the origins of prisons, and
gives a general overview of correctional facilities in Europe and Africa. The development
of correctional facilities will be discussed in study unit 2. Here the evolution of corrections
is explored. The corrections framework and processes are discussed in study unit 3
and enable students to see corrections in perspective. Finally, study unit 4 deals with
external and internal security. This is the prime function of every correctional official,
to keep offenders in custody in order to be subjected to other programmes within the
correctional facility.

NB: For the sake of new terminology in the White Paper on Corrections in South Africa,
we are doing away with terms such as “prison and prisoner” and substituting them
accordingly to suit the current situation. “Prison” is referred to as a correctional centre
or a correctional facility and prisoner is known as an offender or inmate. However,
take note that “offender” may refer to unsentenced or sentenced prisoners.

3 KEY TO ICONS
The following icons are used throughout the study guide to indicate specific functions:

Learning outcomes. The learning outcomes indicate what aspects of

the particular topic or learning unit you have to understand. You should
be able to demonstrate your understanding after having studied such
a learning unit.

(v) PEN1502/1
Activity. This icon refers to activities that you must do to develop a
deeper understanding of the learning unit.

Example. Examples are given for further clarification and are indicated
by this icon.

Assessment. When you see this icon, you will be required to test your
knowledge, understanding and application of the text you have just
studied.

(vi)
STUDY UNIT 1
HISTORICAL ORIGIN OF PRISONS

LEARNING OUTCOMES

After completing this study unit, you should

• understand the origins of prisons in Europe
• understand the origins of prisons in Africa
• be able to compare different aspects of the history of prisons in Europe and Africa.

1.1 INTRODUCTION
The aim of this study unit is to demonstrate how prisons originated around the globe
and in Africa in particular. It will give you insight into prisons and corrections. This study
unit introduces you to correctional facilities of the past as well as the present. As far as
possible, information will be sourced from African authors.

1.2 ORIGINS OF PRISONS FROM A BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE

In his dissertation Offender classification as a rehabilitation tool, Labane maintains that it
is difficult to trace the exact date that correctional centres originated. He maintains that,
correctional facilities already existed 2000 years BC. He cites the Book of Genesis, chapter
39: 20 to 22, where Joseph was put in a correctional facility. Correctional facilities, argues
Labane, existed during the time of the ancient Greeks, Romans and Egyptians. In the Book
of Acts 12:4 to 5, in the New Testament, Peter was put in a “correctional facility”. Labane
further cites that other religious books refer to confinement in rooms and facilities like
old cellar prisons and prison dens that were not originally constructed for punishing
offenders. During this period, offenders were housed together in one big bungalow and
no single cells existed.

ACTIVITY

Do some research on prison dens and cellars and then answer the following questions:
(1) What is the difference between a den and a cellar?
(2) Compare a den, a cellar and a correctional facility.

1 PEN1502/1
1.3 ORIGINS OF CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IN THE
MEDIEVAL PERIOD
The Medieval Period lasted from the 5th to the 15th century. It began with the fall of
the Western Roman Empire and merged into the Renaissance and the Age of Discovery.
During this period, “correctional facilities” housed debtors, offenders awaiting trial and
political offenders. Labane maintains that Roman Law during the time of Justinian in 5 BC,
“correctional facilities” were used not as means of punishment, but as a way of ensuring
safe custody of those awaiting trial and debtors.

In the early Mediaeval Period, places of detention were practically cages. Originally,
correctional centres were built near or under the main sewerage system. For example,
the Mamertine correctional facility was built and constructed in a simple, old and dark
underground building near or under the main sewer system. The Roman Catholic Church
locked offenders into a gate of an abbey during the Middle Ages as a means of humane
detention in lieu of death penalty (Labane 2012:33).

Pope Pius V erected corrections for inquisition – a system whereby offenders were
subjected to prolonged intensive questioning. During this time, Protestantism was
suppressed and heresy punishable. Heresy is an opinion or doctrine at variance with or
opposing the established religious beliefs, specifically dissenting or denial of dogma by a
believer, for example, a church member opposing his/her own church teaching (Labane
2012:34).

1.4 ORIGINS OF PRISONS IN THE UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA
Labane (2012:35) maintains that early prisons in the United States of America were
modelled on the British systems. The approach or intention of the British was to induce
self-introspection or expiation in offenders. This meant that offenders were to be separated.
The separation was accompanied by extremely severe punishment for criminal offences.
Instruments such as branding irons, stocks and pillories were used to torture and mutilate
offenders.

1.4.1 The Pennsylvania System

As indicated in paragraph 1.4, the early North Americans followed the British system.
William Penn made provision for imprisonment with hard labour in 1682. Pennsylvania
took the lead in prison reform. It is worth noting, however, that after Penn’s death there
was a return to the old severity that prevailed until the late 18th century (Singh: 2004:28).

1.4.2 Walnut Street Jail

Singh (2004:29) is of opinion that the true origin of the American prison system is the
Walnut Street Jail. The prison building on Walnut Street was changed and offenders were
no longer required to work outside the correctional facility. Solitary confinement as a

2
method of combating crime was implemented and the system attracted visitors from
other countries.

The Walnut Street Jail system was exclusively introduced for the correction of convicted
felons (felony is a crime of serious nature). The Walnut Street Jail was therefore regarded
as the “birthplace of the prison system, not only in the United States but throughout the
world” (Singh 2004). Even though Walnut Street Jail was a model for the world, it failed
mainly because of overcrowding, political interference, finances and lack of personnel.

Singh (2004:30) believes that the Walnut Street Jail of the 18th century compares favourably
with the present situation in South Africa.

1.4.3 Cherry Hill

The Walnut Street Jail failed due to reasons mentioned in paragraph 1.4.2. The Cherry Hill
system came about in 1829 with its main aim being to completely isolate offenders from
one another. Everything possible was done to ensure complete solitary confinement to
prevent offenders from talking to one another (Singh: 2004:31). The offenders were not
allowed visits from families and friends. The only visitors allowed were from organisations
that were concerned with the reform of offenders (Singh 2004:31).

The Cherry Hill system was destined for failure because it violated the standard minimum
rules for the treatment of offenders which stipulate that:

• prisoners should be allowed contact with family and friends.

• prisoners should be permitted to receive correspondence and personal visits.
• the public is entitled to information not only about corrections, but also about access
to facilities.
• the public must also participate in the functioning of corrections and community
corrections.
The Cherry Hill system failed mainly due to overcrowding. The available space for offenders
was surpassed by the inmate population. Singh (2004:33) argues that in some instances
the overcrowding was so severe that a single cell accommodated up to five inmates, a
gross violation of human rights.

1.4.4 The Auburn System

According to Labane (2012:36), the Auburn System was introduced in 1816. The system
implemented harsh programmes, and offenders were isolated at night. During the
day they were to work as a team, but complete silence was maintained. The military
environment, that entailed marching offenders from cells to mess hall and factory, was
perceived to be a desired approach throughout the USA. The system was successful in
that it prevented offenders from talking to one another and hampered the planning
and execution of corrupt activities between officials and offenders. This approach was
followed to the letter in South Africa, when offenders were to march in twos or fours to
and from work. Silence was to be maintained (author’s practical experience). According
to Labane (2012:37), income was generated in the Auburn System by the offenders who

3 PEN1502/1
worked in groups, and this reduced the financial burden of corrections’ expenses, such
as food. The author maintains that correctional centres involved in farming should be
able to maintain themselves in terms of food items such as mealies and eggs.

1.5 ORIGINS OF PRISONS IN EUROPE

According to Singh (2004:37), a French delegation visited the USA in 1831 to explore the
Pennsylvania and Auburn systems. Hereafter, various European countries followed suit
and by 1850, solitary confinement was introduced in Belgium, England, Netherlands,
Norway and Sweden. In principle, the Pennsylvania and Auburn systems were adopted
with slight modification.

1.6 ORIGINS OF PRISONS IN AFRICA

1.6.1 Introduction
Although we explore the incarceration and treatment of inmates in Africa, it is doubtful
whether this system of treating offenders really existed. Stephen Peté in his article “A brief
history of human rights in the prisons of Africa” argues that researchers make unfounded
generalisations about Africa. He maintains that incarceration of offenders was a European
notion, and that, prior to the invasion of Africa by the Western masters, incarceration
of offenders was unknown. Criminals, slaves and those defeated in war were detained.
However, it appears that there were no physical structures that could be called correctional
facilities (www.hsrcpress.ac.za).

1.6.2 The precolonial period

Penal incarceration was unknown before Africa was colonised. Detention of criminals,
prisoners of war, slaves and others did take place, but was not regarded as imprisonment
per se. African societies detained offenders by chaining them together in public. Centralised
states of Africa did possess permanent facilities that were used for detaining political
offenders or accused persons awaiting trial and punishment by other means. “Other means”
refer to any other form employed or used to torture inmates. As already mentioned above,
incarceration was not regarded as a suitable punishment for ordinary offenders during the
precolonial era. Physical restraint was rarely used in East Africa during precolonial times.
Detaining offenders did not amount to punishment. In some instances, offenders would
be held for purposes of attending trial or awaiting the imposition of some other form
of punishment. In the kingdom of Ankole, offenders were detained in a form of stocks,
usually pending execution, and the system of stocks was also applied in Buganda. In the
kingdom of Dahomey and the empire of Samori Touré, which were in existence during
the 19th century, there was no evidence of the existence of a systematically organised
correctional system in any of the mentioned states.

Standardised state incarceration appears to have been practised by centralised states

such as the Mandara kingdom, which reached its peak during the 19th century. The

4
Mandara system of official titles proves that the kingdom used a classical correctional
system accompanied by torture and squads of guards. The Fulani emirate of northern
Cameroon, founded in the wake of Usman dan Fodio’s jihad established in 1804, had a
judiciary system with punishments that varied from fines to long correctional sentences
and included forced hard labour. Each political unit of command had a correctional facility
perceived by locals as a place of terror. In the command of Mindif, the Bongo, who was
a convert and did not belong to the Fulani ethnic group, acted as chief of police and
prison guard. Physical cruelty and starvation were frequent occurrences. Recalcitrant
offenders were tortured by being shut up in a stifling hut and exposed to hot peppers
thrown onto a fire.

The African approach to a penal system is to secure compensation for the victim as opposed
to punishment of the offender. Compensation for the victim for some common injuries
was probably fixed in communities such as Kikuyu. The Kikuyu law made provision for
nine sheep or goats to be paid for adultery or rape, and one hundred sheep or ten cows
for homicide. The rate of compensation did not change with wealth or age of the victim
and was also not affected by the intention or motive of the perpetrator. The purpose of
the compensation was to restore the equilibrium of society. It is worth noting that the
family of the offender could be held collectively liable to pay compensation to the victim.
The focus of the colonial authorities on punishment of the offender as well as lack of
concern for arranging compensation for the victim led to great dissatisfaction among
East Africans, who felt that justice was not served if compensation was not paid. Death
or exile was commonly used in response to crime such as witchcraft, which threatened
the safety of the community, especially in the case of habitual offenders.

Corporal punishment and the death penalty were rarely used in the traditional societies
of East Africa. The death penalty was regarded as an exceptional punishment of last
resort, to be used only to protect the community against dangerous offenders. In some
instances, habitual thief might be regarded as a danger to the community as a whole
and be subject to execution. Isolated instances of theft would generally be addressed
by demanding payment or some form of compensation. Kikuyu law draws a distinction
between different kinds of homicide. To cause death would be a matter requiring some
form of compensation, especially if death is caused through witchcraft or poisoning.
Such behaviour would be regarded as crime against the whole community and attract
punishment of death by burning.

In certain parts of Africa, prisoners of war would be executed or sold into slavery. In West
African societies during the 19th century, the end of the military campaign was celebrated
by the distribution of war booty, which could see prisoners executed, ransomed, exchanged
or enslaved.

Another form of precolonial punishment is ostracising of offenders. The society of such

precolonial period would agree that the offender be isolated within the community itself
or a more severe form of total banishment by means of a formal ritual. Spiritual sanctions
were also common during the precolonial period. Disturbance of ancestral spirits would
require “offenders” to amend their actions through the intervention of ancestral spirits
and create a platform to make amends for the actions of the guilty parties. Religious
rites denouncing crime were also used as a form of punishment. The elders of the Nandi

5 PEN1502/1
tribe of Kenya would deal with serious crimes by uttering curses which, unless formally
removed, would prove fatal, spreading also through the offender’s family and descendants.
This practice is echoed by a Catholic priest, citing an incident during 2004 where people
died mysteriously because of the curses. Finally, the Muslim Sharia law, that was applied
in many areas of Africa during precolonial times, continues to regulate many parts of
the continent to this day. One of the early British administrators had the following to say
about the law applied in Zanzibar: “According to strict Mahommedan law, murder may
be atoned for, and in cases of mutilation the application of the lex talionis, which needed
scarcely say now no longer obtains in practice, may be avoided by the payment of “diya”
or blood-money with the consent of the victim, or, if he has been killed, of his legal heirs”
(www.hrscpress.ac.za).

1.6.3 The Atlantic slave trade

The discussion of human rights and imprisonment in Africa would be incomplete without
reference to the Atlantic slave trade that involved the capture and detention of millions of
Africans. Although enslavement did not amount to imprisonment in the strictly modern
sense, the sheer scale of this trade in human beings, which began around 1440 and lasted
for over four hundred years until coming to an end in 1870, demands attention. The forts
and slave castles which were built as a result of slave trade were to become important
centres of detention even after the abolition of slavery.

There are many examples of slave castles and fortresses along the west coast of Africa.
For example, Ghana is home to the slave castles of Elmina and Cape Coast. Elmina was
built in 1482 by the Portuguese and is the oldest European structure in tropical Africa,
while Cape Coast was built in 1650 by the Swedes. Another well-known slave castle was
built by the French at Goree Island off the coast of Senegal, where an important port for
the transshipment of slaves was situated. Angola hosts three fortresses, known as Sao
Miguel, Penedo and Sao Pedro, which were built in 1576. It is worth noting that although
the fortresses contained dungeons, they were reserved for white inmates or high-profile
African political inmates. An example of a high-profile African political leader was the
prince of Congo, Alexis, who was incarcerated at Penedo in 1836. Ordinary slaves were
confined in facilities that were more rustic than a castle or fort. Slave transportation from
inland to coast was the order of the day, where slaves of between 30 and 100 were chained
together and subjected to harsh and inhumane conditions on ships.

The year 1652 marks the time when slave trade started in South Africa. The Dutch East
India Company or VOC decided to establish a fresh vegetable garden at the Cape. Shortage
of labour necessitated acquisition of slaves from various inland areas, with different
backgrounds and origin. Slave masters could sell slaves at will, which resulted in families
being separated. After the abolition of the slave trade in 1838, people went to look for
their family members, While some succeeded, many did not. It is worth noting that some
slaves came from as far as Asia, hence the Malay influence at the Cape (www.turlesa.com).

6
1.6.4 Conclusion
The origin of correctional facilities is Europe. The concept of facilities or corrections is foreign
to African people. The African people rely heavily on compensation and reconciliation
of parties affected by crime, whilst the Western approach is divisiveness coupled with
hostility. Currently, Africans tend to emulate the Western way of living. How can we as
Africans apply rehabilitation programmes that are not African orientated? English is the
language of the colonial master. How do we get rid of it? Is this possible? The cultural
diversity of Africa, specifically South Africa, make this achievement impossible – our dream
of real Africanism appears to be remote. How do we address the challenge of language
usage? The author believes that before we can transform anything, the core, in this
instance academics, needs to transform. We look down upon our own fellow man. Let
us blend our way of doing things to accommodate the marginalised and those in rural
areas. Africans living in the city look down upon fellow Africans in rural areas. We need
inter and intra-transformation which is a pilgrimage for all, academics and non-academics.

Activity

Google or do some research on a correctional facility in your own country.

(1) Write about the historical development of that correctional facility.
(2) Share the results of your research with fellow students.

7 PEN1502/1
STUDY UNIT 2
THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRISONS

LEARNING OUTCOMES

After completing this study unit, you should

• understand the development of prisons in Europe
• understand the development of prisons in Africa
• be able to analyse the challenges within the development of prisons in Europe
and Africa

2.1 INTRODUCTION
In study unit 1, the origins of prisons around the globe were explored. In study unit 2, we
explore how prisons developed in Africa. Students should take note that some African
countries use terms such as “prisons, prisoners, warden/warder”, while in South Africa
more commonly used terms are “correctional facilities, offenders/inmates and correctional
officers/officials”. In some instances, these terms are used interchangeably. It is worth
noting that correctional facilities used to be a foreign concept on the African continent.
African countries did not have structures referred to as correctional facilities to house
persons who had committed a crime. Offenders were kept in a place for a specific reason,
either for imposition of sanction or otherwise. Read the following quotation carefully.

The Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services will continue to investigate violence,
torture, food, health care, children and women; and overcrowding which may be at the
root of many of the evils in our facilities. One of the greatest challenges for the JICS is the
public view that “criminals have too many rights”, “crime victims are being neglected”
and that “prisons are not luxury hotels”. It has been said though that a nation’s level of
civilisation can be judged by looking at conditions in its prisons. Prisons are indeed not
luxury hotels. (Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services 2015/2016 Annual Report
2016:14)

Activity

Carefully read the above quotation and answer the following questions:
(1) Visit one correctional facility in your vicinity during service of breakfast. Do you
think offenders are being humanely treated?

8
 (2) Do you think that the correctional facility that you have visited is a luxury hotel?
Give reasons why you agree or disagree.
(3) Do you think offenders have more rights than law-abiding citizens?

2.2 THE COLONIAL PERIOD

2.2.1 The rapid development of incarceration

Correctional facilities existed on the African continent for centuries. However, punishment
by incarceration became widespread in most of sub-Saharan Africa, with the exception
of Southern Africa, only towards the end of the 19th century. The colonial powers
extended control across the African continent and established correctional facilities in
their garrisons and administrative outposts. The main aim was to consolidate colonial
authority throughout the African continent.

Correctional facilities spread in sub-Sahara Africa in a massive and systematic way. The
territories under British authority introduced laws and policies of the country that had
colonised them. This is a straight imposition of foreign mentality on Africans. The same
applied to French territories, where white administrators were allowed to sentence Africans
to 15 days’ imprisonment without trial. It goes without saying that the imposition of the
sentences was done arbitrarily. The author is of the opinion that more harm was done
because of language gap.

In the British colony of Uganda, correctional facilities were established during the late
19th and early 20th centuries. Uganda had two correctional systems: one was the native
government of Buganda and the other one was controlled by the colonial authorities.
Correctional facilities were also established in Mombasa, where vagrants, lunatics and
paupers were held. Around 1911, Kenya had a total of 30 correctional facilities and 16
years later, that is in 1927, there were 22 detention camps which supervised hard labour
for offenders in the territory. Correctional camps were built for holding inmates for the
purposes of agricultural and public works.

The first correctional facilities in Ghana were mainly custodial institutions, and by 1850
a maximum of 129 inmates could be accommodated in cells located in four different
forts. In the 1860s, the punishment by incarceration became increasingly harsh, and
included severe corporal punishment by the cat-o’-nine-tails which was accompanied
by diminished diets only sufficient to keep offenders alive. A three-storey building was
erected in Freetown, a British colony, which was never altered for more than 100 years.
Nigeria saw the emergence of the Blood Street correctional facility in Lagos, which
opened in 1872 and had accommodation capacity of 300 inmates. In Northern Rhodesia,
currently Zambia, correctional facilities were established and by 1935, six central and 29
local correctional facilities were in existence.

9 PEN1502/1
2.3 THE SOUTH AFRICAN CORRECTIONAL HISTORY
Modern correctional facilities were more established in Southern Africa than the rest of
Africa. The Cape, Natal, Orange Free State and Transvaal will be briefly explored. Students
should take note that each administration had its own way of dealing with offenders.

2.3.1 The Cape

Punishment
The Cape was established by Europeans in 1652. History shows that criminal administration
and punishment will be exactly the same as that of the occupiers. Van Zyl Smit (1992:7)
maintains that punishment in the Cape Colony entailed the direct infliction of physical pain
on the body of the accused. However, he maintains that the cruelties were not perpetrated
randomly. “It was even possible for slave owners to be successfully persecuted by their
slaves for crimes committed against them.”

Detainees
According to Van Zyl Smit (1992:7), detainees were held in a fort, of which Cape Town
“castle” was the most prominent.

The European approach of keeping detainees in single cells was continued, as Van Zyl
Smit states:

The purpose, however, was usually to detain them pending their trial. Pre-trial
detention was governed by the notorious Ordinance on Criminal procedure which
had been proclaimed by Phillip II of Spain in his capacity as ruler of the Netherlands
in 1570. Section 15 and 16 of the Ordinance provided that prisoners awaiting trial
should be held in single cells and that no one should be allowed to speak to them
without the permission of the judge who was responsible for their interrogation.

Abolition of torture on offenders

During 1795, the colonial masters thought it proper to discontinue cruelty to offenders.
This was also in response to the work of reformists such as Beccaria and Howard, who
opposed cruel punishment, and led to the following instructions: Lord Macartney, English
governor, decreed:

Whereas it has been represented to Us, That the practice of proceeding by Torture
against persons suspected of Crimes, and of punishment after Conviction in many
Capital Cases, by breaking upon the wheel and other barbarous modes of Execution,
prevails in the said Settlement, It is Our Will and Pleasure that you should wholly
abolish these forms of Trial and Punishment, and provide other more lenient and
equitable proceedings, which it is left to your Judgement and Discretion to establish
and enforce in the said Settlement (Van Zyl Smit 1992:8).

Various administrators at the Cape advocated for humane treatment of offenders. Captain
Maconochie, John Montagu and Sir George Napier are regarded as proponents of modern
treatment of offenders. Classification privileges and other humane approaches, reduction

10
of sentence for good behavior, gratuity, etc were introduced. The governor of the Cape
had the following to say regarding positive approach to offender treatments:

I feel satisfied that the affect that it [the penal system proposed by Montagu] will ere very
long produce in checking crime, in improving the minds, the morals and habits of the
convicts, and the class of persons they belong to, and of opening up the resources of the
country, can scarcely be duly appreciated at present (Van Zyl Smit 1992:11).

Utilisation of prison labour

Other benefits followed as a result of the improved system advocated by Montagu.
Roads to inland were built and offenders were to a certain degree protected against ill-
treatment by the bureaucratic regulations that limited powers of punishment. However,
the positive approach was hampered by the sanctions of physical punishment in the
guise of penalties for disciplinary infringement in the correctional facility. Montagu,
though a reformist, favoured facilities in which offenders would be isolated from society,
controlled by a system of rewards and privileges and forced to labour for long periods
(Van Zyl Smit 1992:13).

The use of offender labour shifted from road building to mining. This is evidenced by the
government proclamation of the Kimberly correctional centre in 1882. It is important to
note that this correctional facility was the first facility in the Cape to be legally segregated
along racial lines (Van Zyl Smit 1992:15). The De Beers Diamond Mining Company was the
first non-state corporate to employ offenders on a regular basis. The system of offenders’
employment impressed the mine authorities to such an extent that they reported this
in the commission of enquiry in 1888: “Indeed, so satisfied are the De Beers Mining
Company with the convicts, that they have agreed to take 300 completely off the hands
of the Government and pay in addition 2d per man per day for them. Thus (continued the
report exultantly) the country will make an actual profit of over 700 pounds per annum
from the labour of these 300 convicts.”

Twenty years after 1885, the employment of offenders on the diamond fields increased.
Similar mining companies also used inmates from the local Kimberley correctional facility.
De Beers, which was dominating the diamond fields, went one step further and built a
correctional facility. The staff housed the offenders, provided nutrition and controlled
the correctional facility. The number of labour increased from 300 per day to 600 in 1888.
By 1903, most blacks from surrounding areas were being transferred to the De Beers
holding centre. More blacks were recruited from Tembu and Griqualands East solely for
the benefit of De Beers. The usage of offender labour received the following response
during a parliamentary questioning session in 1903:

This was admitted to be part of a scheme by which government undertook to supply to

De Beers native labour up to a daily average of 11, 000 when practicable (Van Zyl Smit
1992:15).

Van Zyl Smit (1992:15) argues that another institution which paralleled the development
of company correctional facilities was the compound in which unskilled black workers
who entered into contract with a mining company were housed for a fixed period.
During the fixed period, workers were not allowed any contact with the outside world.

11 PEN1502/1
The mining company thought the system to be such a success that in 1886 the mining
authorities reported thus: “In these convict barracks or branch goals, the perfection of
the compound system may be said to have been reached. The only important difference
being that between compulsory and voluntary service.”

The usage of offender labour in the mine disrupted other sectors. The practice enabled
other sectors, municipalities and private sectors, for example, as well as farmers to hire
out offender labour. The hirer would supply implements and guards who were sworn in as
special constables. The utilisation of offender labour, coupled with injustices committed,
necessitated a commission of inquiry led by a judge who concluded as follows:

Moreover, the association of the native with the European, (in prison) not only crushes
out of the European what little moral feeling there may be left in him, by the sense
of degradation, but lowers the whole race in the eyes of the native, destroying that
respect for us without which we can never hope to succeed either as their rulers
or as their preceptors, leading them by counsel and example into the higher life of
civilization (Van Zyl Smit 1992:17).

This was the start of segregation of whites and blacks. Blacks were seen, irrespective of
status and age, to be inferior to whites.

2.3.2 Natal
According to Van Zyl Smit (1992:17), in Natal the first correctional facilities, a wattle-
and-daub structure, were built by the Voortrekkers. Another structure was that of a
low cottage erected without prescribed specifications. Van Zyl Smit further argues that
there was ideological conflict between Britain and Natal. The conflict was the result of
ideological differences regarding the introduction of the Pennsylvania system in Natal.
As already indicated, this system required strict penal labour and separate correctional
accommodation. Although local circumstances dictated that a separate system be
introduced in Natal, this was never the case. The colonial masters did not financially
support the implementation of the system. The non-implementation of a separate system
resulted in no major reforms taking place in Natal.

2.3.3 The Orange Free State and the Transvaal

It was only during the short period of British annexation from 1877 to 1881 that a major
piece of correctional legislation was introduced in the Transvaal. It did not differ from
the laws applicable in other British colonies in Southern Africa. During 1894, the system
of internal discipline was introduced, whereby a local magistrate could impose corporal
punishment of up to 25 lashes, with or without hard labour. The magistrate could also
impose imprisonment of up to 12 months or solitary confinement, with or without reduced
food rations, of up to seven days for infringement committed within the correctional
facility. Van Zyl Smit (1992:19) maintains that no meaningful research had been undertaken
in the Orange Free State and the Transvaal. Consequently, low priority was given to the
development of correctional facilities.

12
In the middle of 1900, the Orange Free State and Transvaal territories saw a major
reorganisation of the penal system. In the Transvaal, correctional facilities were overcrowded
and the supply of offender labour to mines and other private entities became disorganised
(Van Zyl Smit, 1992:19). The introduction of pass laws further increased the offender
population. To minimise the problem, the East Rand Property Mines (ERPM) built a
correctional facility to house 800 black inmates. The company would pay one shilling per
offender per day while using offender labour. At that time, a commission of inquiry was
established to probe conditions in correctional facilities. The Johannesburg correctional
facility (Fort) was found to be inadequate and in need of a complete overhaul. Lastly,
correctional facility reform in the two territories gave birth to the introduction of the
sentence of indeterminate detention which required intervention by a Board of Visitors
(Van Zyl Smit 1992:21).

2.3.4 The state of correctional facilities in Africa

Peté (www.hsrcpress) believes that, since the inception of the punishment of incarceration
in the African context, it has been characterised by overcrowding. The colonial masters
imposed sentences arbitrarily. Peté maintains that the purpose of administrative
incarceration was to act as an economic incentive to enforce tax collection and provide
cheap labour to colonial companies.

Correctional facilities in the British colonies were dilapidated and chronically overcrowded.
By 1919, the Owerri correctional facility in south-eastern Nigeria had an offender population
that was nine times larger than its approved capacity. Conditions were unsanitary and
reduced rations were given to offenders, which resulted in many inmates dying (www.
hsrcpress).

The same trend was experienced in Ghana, where overcrowding was a challenge from
the outset, with the result that the secretary of the state advised the administrator of
the Gold Coast that additional inmate space might be avoided by the introduction of
shorter sentences and whipping. There was no separation of offenders in terms of their
crimes: debtors, political offenders and those awaiting trial were all crammed together
into one room like sheep. Overcrowding levels in Ghana reached unacceptable levels
during World War II.

The situation in Southern Africa was also not that good. During a visit in 1938 to Northern
Rhodesia by the Director of Prisons for Southern Rhodesia, it was found that there were
inadequate facilities for classification and segregation, which resulted in juveniles, certified
mental patients, male and female offenders being housed together. The Livingstone
correctional facility was found to be “antiquated and thoroughly unsatisfactory from
every point of view” and the Kasana correctional facility was “condemned as being in
a dangerous state of repair” (www.hrscpress.ac.za). The challenge of overcrowding was
also experienced in South Africa. In Natal, it was established that only 176 cubic feet per
offender was available in the Durban correctional facility. By then, the approved space
for each offender was 900 cubic feet. Overcrowding went to unbearable levels during
the Anglo-Zulu War in 1879 and resulted in serious health problems. For example, the
district surgeon pointed out some serious forms of dysentery and diarrhoea that occurred

13 PEN1502/1
frequently in the Pietermaritzburg correctional facility, which was exacerbated by the fact
that offenders were offered limited space of only 200 cubic feet per offender.

In October 1892, the Durban Gaol was so overcrowded that 50 short-sentenced prisoners
were forced to sleep in the corridors at night. In December 1893, the superintendent of
the Durban Gaol informed the government that as a result of overcrowding, 73 prisoners
were forced to sleep in corridors at night. The chronic overcrowding persisted after the
turn of the century. In his report for 1903, the Chief Commissioner of Police noted that
even though a new block had been completed at the Durban Gaol, the accommodation
was still insufficient and the goal was overcrowded (Peté 2008).

2.3.5 The postcolonial period

After the decolonisation of Africa, conditions in African correctional facilities did not
improve. Crumbling infrastructure and chronic overcrowding, political oppression and
economic collapse, the continued use of corporal and capital punishment, long delays
in awaiting trials, lack of separate facilities for juveniles, the activities of prison gangs, the
ravages of HIV/AIDS and rampant corruption have all exacted a terrible toll on human
rights of prisoners in postcolonial Africa. It is worth mentioning that at least the African
countries are trying their level best to address the challenges of overcrowding. This is
evidenced in the deliberations that produced the Kampala Declaration on prison conditions
in Africa. The declaration resulted in the appointment of a special Rapporteur on Prisons
and conditions of Detention in Africa. Another attempt to address correctional conditions
in Africa was the Pan African Conference on Penal and Prison Reform in Africa that was
held in Burkina Faso in 2002. The overcrowding was also experienced in Ghana. Seidman
outlines the experience of the average Ghanaian prisoner as follows: “The impact upon
the convict admitted to the prisons must be the same as it was in 1876. He sees the
same fortress-like structures. He meets conditions of almost animal overcrowding. The
Regulations are read to him, on their face imposing a severe, degrading, dehumanizing
regime” (hsrcpress.ac.za). The endemic overcrowding more than any other single factor
has frustrated the humanely motivated and strenuous efforts of the staff. As for the South
African correctional facilities, the trend of overcrowding has been in existence from long
time ago, throughout the apartheid era and currently (www.hsrcpress.ac.za).

The problem of overcrowding has reached such unacceptable proportions that it was
reported as follows during the Pan African Conference on Penal and Prison Reforms:

The Kampala Declaration uses particularly strong language about the level of
overcrowding in African prison systems, and it is clear from the responses received
that this is one of the two or three most important problems of all that are faced
by the prison administrations. Overcrowding, which reaches tragic proportions in
some cases, has consequences on many other aspects of prison life: hygiene, health,
exercise is, among others affected (www.hsrcpress.ac.za).

Furthermore, it was commented as follows:

A review of the literature on prisons in Africa suggests that these prisons are
characterized by severe overcrowding. In most cases the prison capacity is very limited

14
 and has not been expanded over time. Although the inmate to population ratios may
be small, the impact of overcrowding on inmates is nevertheless severe. Coupled with
this, many of the facilities are rudimentary in nature and there are shortages of food,
bedding, medical suppliers and treatment, and absence of recreational facilities. Ill-
treatment or torture of inmates was also reported for many of the countries (www.
hsrcpress.ac.za).

2.3.6 HIV/AIDS
Towards the end of the 20th century, the prevalence of HIV/AIDS within African correctional
facilities coupled with lack of funding and political will to provide effective treatment
started having a serious impact on the human rights of offenders. The number of deaths
of prisoners due to natural causes in South African correctional facilities rose to alarming
levels, from 186 in 1995 to 1 087 in 2000, with many of the deaths believed to have been
AIDS-related. HIV-related diseases were believed to be caused by some of the following
(www.hsrcpress.ac.za):

• Sodomy, whether coercive or consensual

• Gang violence
• Using and sharing tattooing needles
• Lack of sufficient offender space. It is evident that the reality of the AIDS epidemic in
many African facilities poses a serious and escalating threat to the human rights of
offenders in Africa.

2.3.7 Conclusion
The introduction by colonial masters of correctional facilities in their various modes never
helped to ease overcrowding. From the discussion above, it is clear that the imposition of
correctional systems in Africa was doomed to fail because the colonial masters disregarded
the African way of doing things. Africa is community inclined, that is, social challenges
affect every citizen and therefore they need to be addressed as such. Colonial masters
see the way Africa deals with criminals as mob justice. Students should make an effort
to visit correctional facilities near them to get practical experience, wherever they find
themselves. If such facilities are not found in your area, you should visit community
corrections offices in your area.

The recent announcement of the one pill for every HIV/AIDS patient by the Minister
of Health will undoubtedly lead to fewer deaths related to HIV/AIDS. Find sites where
information on the current status of HIV/AIDS in African correctional facilities can be
obtained.

15 PEN1502/1
STUDY UNIT 3
THE CORRECTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND PROCESSES

LEARNING OUTCOMES

After you have completed this study unit, you should be able to:
• demonstrate an understanding of the correctional framework
• identify the different correctional processes

3.1 INTRODUCTION
There are several myths about corrections and what they entail. For most citizens, the
term “corrections” conjures up images of grim, fenced buildings surrounded by guard
towers. The confusion about corrections may be ascribed to the fact that corrections in
South Africa were kept out of the public eye for many years. The laws of the apartheid
era (1948 to 1994) even prohibited the media from reporting on corrections.

In an attempt to address the confusion about corrections, what they entail and the
activities that are regarded as correcting, corrections will be defined in this study unit.
The aim is to enable the student to identify the different forms and levels of corrections
and the conglomerate of institutions involved in providing corrections within the society.
The different processes in corrections will be addressed only briefly as they are discussed
in detail in other modules of the study field. This module focuses on the final level of
corrections in society and looks at the constitutional origin of corrections as well as the
statutory frameworks, policies and procedures that are applicable to corrections in the
South African context.

3.2 CORRECTIONS FRAMEWORK

3.2.1 Defining the concept of corrections

There are always different views on the actual definition of any field of study. Therefore,
there are also many different definitions of the term “corrections”. To explain this dilemma,
three different authors’ definitions of corrections appear below. Note that these definitions
have a lot in common.

Champion (1998:3) states that “corrections are the vast number of persons, agencies and
organisations that manage accused, convicted, or adjudicated criminal offenders and
juveniles”.

16
According to Fox and Stinchcomb (1994:13), “corrections are the combination of public
and private services with legal authority to provide care, custody, and control of those
accused or convicted of criminal ... offences”.

The White Paper on Corrections in South Africa (WPCSA) provides a different view. It does
not define corrections per se, but gives an overall description of what correction in the
South African context entails. In South Africa, the Department of Correctional Services is
one of several important role players in creating and maintaining a correcting environment
for South African citizens. It believes that the family unit is the primary level at which
correction should take place.

The secondary level at which correction should take place is schools, churches and
organisations that focus on instilling values and norms in society. The overall facilitator
and driver of corrections is the government, which has different departments that make
the laws of the country. Within the government, the Department of Correctional Services
renders the final level of correction. Corrections are therefore not only the sole duty of
a particular government department, but the responsibility of all social institutions and
individuals. It is only when all other social mechanisms in a society have failed that the
criminal justice system and the Department of Correctional Services become involved
(White Paper on Corrections in South Africa 2005:65–67).

The biggest differences between the definitions provided are the following: Champion
(1998), and Fox and Stinchcomb (1994) state that corrections only comprise the criminal
justice system of government. The White Paper, on the contrary, includes society in its
definition of corrections. As this module focuses on the correctional framework in South
Africa, the definition that is used in the White Paper is adopted. The South African version
can be summarised as follows: “(C)orrections do not only mean one thing. It is a vast array
of different programs, government departments and non-government organizations
reaching from the community into the most secure institutions” (Mays & Winfree 1998:27).

ACTIVITY

After you have read the above section, compile from the information provided your
own definition of corrections relevant to your own country. Ensure that your definition
contains all the relevant components mentioned by Champion, Fox and Stinchcomb,
the White Paper and any applicable source in your own country.
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................

17 PEN1502/1
The definitions make it clear that corrections encompass a wide range and framework,
and therefore comprise a conglomerate of institutions, each with its unique contribution
to society as a whole.

3.3 CORRECTIONAL CONGLOMERATE

In private enterprise, a massive business corporation with far-flung markets, numerous
customers and a vast array of products and services would be called a conglomerate.
Any government enterprise that is made up of many different departments with many
employees, clients and diverse activities relating to corrections can also be considered a
conglomerate. The biggest difference between a business and corrections is that people
have a personal stake in a business, whilst in corrections they are working with taxpayers’
money (Fox & Stinchcomb 1994:5). The conglomerate itself consists of and is administered
by the Department of Correctional Services, the Department of Social Development or
the Department of Education.

The following few scenarios describe the activities that occur daily in our country and
involve the correctional framework:

• A number of women were killed. A suspect has been apprehended

and is currently in police custody, waiting to appear before the court.
• Members of the 26 gang and 28 gang were involved in a gang fight.
The suspects are awaiting trial in a correctional centre as they have
previously been sentenced to imprisonment.
• A person was apprehended for housebreaking and theft. He received
bail from the court, but could not afford the bail money. He is currently
awaiting trial in a correctional centre.
• A person has been charged with murder. He has been denied bail by
the court and is currently awaiting trial in a correctional centre.
• A women’s cellphone was snatched from her while she was walking
down the street. The offender is on probation for 12 months.
• A young teenager is found in possession of drugs. He is found guilty
and sent to a reformatory owing to his age.
• A serial killer is serving a life sentence in a correctional centre.
• A person found guilty of armed robbery has served a significant time
of his sentence and is currently being considered for parole.
• A person found guilty of culpable homicide has served one year of his
sentence, which is currently under review for conversion to community
corrections.
• A young teenager is found guilty on robbery charges for the third time.
He is currently serving an eight-year sentence in a juvenile correctional
centre.
In all the given scenarios, the offender is a correctional client. All the correctional institutions,
programmes developed and all services involved are part of the corrections conglomerate:

18
 ACTIVITY

Identify and list the different institutions that form part of the corrections conglom-
erate in your own country.
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................

The conglomerate of corrections in South Africa is an extremely large operation involving

massive amounts of fiscal and human resources. The following gives a bird’s eye view of
the costs and people (employees and clients) involved in the system:

• The cost of corrections:

Visit the webpage of the corrections institution in your own country and determine the
expenditure on corrections during the last two financial years. What is the current cost
per capita? (How much is government spending to keep each offender per day?)

• Number of employees and cost per employee in corrections:

You are advised to google or research the post establishment of corrections in your own
country and determine how many posts are filled and vacant. What is the current average
expenditure per employee?

• The clientele of corrections:

What was the total number of all convicted offenders as at the end of the financial year
in your own country?

ACTIVITY

You are required to obtain the latest annual reports on corrections in your own country.
Determine how much your government is spending on officials and offenders. Use
the last three years’ data.

19 PEN1502/1
 ACTIVITY

After you have completed the above task, make a note of matters that have changed
and may need attention from the government or the Department of Correctional
Services.
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................

It must be noted that these figures should only indicate the statistics of the Department of
Correctional Services and not include persons in youth care centres, which are administered
by the Department of Social Development or any other institution nor the figures of children
in reformatories or industrial schools administered by the Department of Education.

It is clear that the clientele in the corrections framework is large and comprises many
different categories of people in one or another form of corrections in the country. In order
to make sense of all this, we first distinguish between different correctional processes,
such as the pretrial and sentencing stage, and then we look at custodial institutions and
noncustodial alternatives.

ACTIVITY

Identify and list the different role players in the corrections framework.
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................

3.4 THE CORRECTIONAL PROCESS

The correctional process is not static. An offender enters at the pretrial stage, but can
leave the system at different stages. This section introduces the student to the different
subprocesses in the correctional process.

20
3.4.1 The pretrial process
If a person is arrested by the police because they suspect that he or she has committed
a crime, two conflicting goals come into play. These are the goal (expectation/interest)
of the community and the goal (expectation/interest) of the suspect. The goal of the
community is to bring the offender to trial. The suspect relies on the notion that a person
is innocent until proven guilty and prepares for the trial. To ensure that the interests of
both the community and the suspect are served, section 33(1) of the Constitution of the
Republic of South Africa, 1996, stipulates how the administration of justice should be
performed. It also stipulates that a citizen of the country “has the right to administrative
action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair”. Section 35 of the Constitution of
the Republic of South Africa, 1996, specifies the rights of arrested, detained and accused
persons. The following two parts of section 35 are important in this regard:

According to section 35(1)(e) “everyone who is arrested for allegedly committing an

offence has the right … at the first court appearance after being arrested, to be charged
or to be informed of the reason for the detention to continue, or to be released”. Section
35(1)(f) goes on to say that everyone has the right “to be released from detention if the
interests of justice permit, subject to reasonable conditions”.

To ensure that adherence is given to the Constitution, the Criminal Procedure Second
Amendment Act 75 of 1995, provides the courts with the following authority:

• to regulate the detention of arrested persons

• to provide for accused persons to be entitled to be released on bail in certain
circumstances
• to give a court a discretion to postpone bail proceedings in certain circumstances
• to empower a court, in respect of certain serious offences, to order the accused to satisfy
the court that the interests of justice do not require his or her detention in custody
• to set out the factors which should be taken into account in considering bail

ACTIVITY

Identify the conflict of interest between the community and the suspect, and indicate
how the Constitution of South Africa, 1996, and the Criminal Procedure Act 75 of 1995
contribute to resolve this conflict.
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................

21 PEN1502/1
Children and law in South Africa
Different provisions are made for children in terms of the Constitution of the Republic
of South Africa 108 of 1996. Section 28(1)(g) stipulates that a child has the right “not
to be detained except as a measure of last resort, in which case, in addition to the
rights a child enjoys under sections 12 and 35, the child may be detained only for
the shortest appropriate period of time, and has the right to be kept separately
from detained persons over the age of 18 years and treated in a manner, and kept
in conditions, that take account of the child’s age”.

Irrespective of the above provisions, and also because of lack of space in the children’s
section, children are also held in correctional centres during the pretrial stage. In the
case of petty offences, the police may release the children in the care of their parents or
guardian with the same authority as the courts.

Pretrial Acquittal or
release not guilty

Police Court
Courts
arrest trial

Pretrial Guilty =
sentenced

As is indicated in the above diagram, the courts have two options after due consideration
of the Criminal Procedure Act 75 of 1995, namely to release or to detain the suspect. The
courts may then choose one of several ways to realise the option taken.

3.4.2 Pretrial release

The court may decide that a person is to be released from custody for all or a part of the
time before prosecution. The release of accused persons is normally granted on condition
that they return to the court to stand trial on a given date. Sometimes the defendants simply
undertake to appear before court, but at other times a financial obligation is imposed
on the defendants. The required guarantee could therefore be either a verbal promise
or a financial obligation, and both these are called bail (Reichel 1997:9). If defendants are
released on a promise, they may leave the court immediately and are released. If financial
bail is set, accused persons should pay the amount before they are released. If the accused
persons do not pay the amount or cannot afford to pay the amount set by the court, they
are taken for pretrial detention. Note that a large number of accused persons who receive

22
financial bail cannot afford to pay it. These accused persons are not released; they remain
in detention until their cases are heard and verdicts given by the courts.

ACTIVITY

Read the above section and identify the different options that exist for the pretrial
release of a suspect. Visit your nearest correctional facility and determine the number
of unsentenced juvenile offenders admitted over the past two years.
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................

3.4.3 Pretrial detention

In South Africa, the common name for centres where pretrial detention is administered,
is awaiting-trial centres. As has been mentioned above, defendants incarcerated in these
centres have not been afforded noncustodial alternatives or pretrial release. As these
defendants form a large part of the corrections framework, it is necessary to describe
where they are detained and how they are accommodated in the criminal justice system.

3.4.3.1 Awaiting-trial centres

In South Africa it is the responsibility of the Department of Correctional Services to
take care of offenders awaiting trial. This differs from international practices, where the
police or the courts are generally responsible for offenders awaiting trial. The situation
in South Africa arose during the early 1950s when corrections (then called prisons) were
administered by the Department of Justice. As the burden of awaiting-trial offenders
increased, it was decided to transfer the responsibility for the housing of awaiting-trial
offenders from the Department of Justice to the Department of Correctional Services.
Since the early 1950s, prisons (as they were called) went through different stages and were
housed by different ministries, but in 1981 an independent department charged with
corrections was created within the Department of Justice. Today, corrections have its own
independent department (the Department of Correctional Services), but the responsibility
to take care of offenders who are awaiting trial has not been transferred to the police
or Department of Justice where it actually belongs. In its White Paper, the Department
of Correctional Services (2005:89) questions this state of affairs, as it is “internationally
recognized that there must be a clear separation of the functions between the agencies
which are responsible for investigating crimes, and the administration which is responsible
for detaining accused persons”.

23 PEN1502/1
 ACTIVITY

Consult the internet and determine how three other African countries of your choice
deal with awaiting-trial offenders. Note that various terms are used in other countries,
such as remand offenders and unsentenced offenders. After you have determined
how systems in other countries work, compare them with the South African system.
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................

Offenders who are awaiting trial have a great impact on the correctional system, but we
do not discuss the legality of their detention in this study guide. However, note that these
offenders have a unique status and are protected by a set of rights and requirements
different from those of sentenced offenders. Their status and rights are enshrined in the
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. Constitutional provisions that have a
direct bearing on their detention in awaiting-trial centres are laid down in section 35(2)
of the Constitution, which stipulates:

Everyone who is detained, including every sentenced offender, has the right –

a. to be informed promptly of the reason for being detained;

b. to choose, and to consult with, a legal practitioner, and to be informed of this
right promptly;
c. to have a legal practitioner assigned to the detained person by the state and
at state expense, if substantial injustice would otherwise result, and to be in-
formed of this right promptly;
d. to challenge the lawfulness of the detention in person before a court and, if
the detention is unlawful, to be released;
e. to conditions of detention that are consistent with human dignity, including at
least exercise and the provision, at state expense, of adequate accommodation,
nutrition, reading material and medical treatment; and
f. to communicate with, and be visited by, that person’s -
i. spouse or partner;
ii. next of kin;
iii. chosen religious counsellor; and
iv. chosen medical practitioner.
In the light of their rights, awaiting-trial offenders cannot be subjected to compulsory
attendance of correctional programmes until they have been proven guilty. They may
also not be compelled to wear the clothes provided to sentenced inmates. If their clothes
are improper for whatever reason, the government must provide them with clothes,
but these clothes may not be the same as those of sentenced inmates (Department of
Correctional Services 2005:93).

24
Although the Constitution stipulates that the detention period of persons awaiting trial
must be as short as possible, these persons are often in detention for extended periods.

ACTIVITY

In South Africa, awaiting-trial prisoners/offenders are not to be subjected to correc-

tional programmes. Give your opinion on this statement and give reasons why you
agree or disagree.
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................

If a person stands trial, he or she has the right to receive a verdict. This is true for persons
on bail and those awaiting trial in detention centres. The verdict can be either guilty or not
guilty. If a person is found not guilty, or is cautioned or reprimanded, he or she is acquitted/
released from the system. The reasons for their acquittals are generally unknown, but it
can be assumed that charges had been dropped due to a lack of witnesses.

If the person is found guilty, he or she is removed from the pretrial detention phase and
sentenced.

3.4.4 Sentencing
If an offender is found guilty, the sentences that may be imposed by the courts according
to section 276(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, are the following:

• imprisonment, including imprisonment for life or for an indefinite period

• periodical imprisonment
• declaration as a habitual criminal
• committal to any institution established by law
• a fine
• correctional supervision
• imprisonment from which such a person may be placed under correctional supervision
in the discretion of the Commissioner or parole board.

This is not a complete list as it does not contain all the orders which the court may use
to finalise a criminal case. Other orders that should also be viewed as sentences are
the unconditional postponement of sentencing, a formal caution or reprimand (with a
discharge), and measures that may only be taken with respect to offenders under the
age of 21 (Terblanche 1999:5 & 375).

25 PEN1502/1
 ACTIVITY

List the different sentences that can be imposed on an offender when found guilty in
a South African court.
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................

From the above it is clear that there are two categories of sentences, namely noncustodial
measures and incarceration. Each of these categories is discussed below. Sentencing
is within the jurisdiction of the court that has found the accused person guilty and
the philosophy of the punishment imposed is that of the court. The philosophy of the
punishment can be any one of the following: deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation,
retribution or restoration. Each of these philosophies has a different goal and focus. These
philosophies are discussed in detail in Fundamental Penology.

3.4.5 Noncustodial measures

The following sentences are regarded to be noncustodial measures:

• committal to any institution established by law

• a fine
• correctional supervision
• unconditional postponement of sentence
• formal caution or reprimand (with a discharge)

Terblanche (1999:5) is of the opinion that the latter two sentences do not comprise
punishment, because unlike the other sentences they do not cause any discomfort for
the offender. The administration of these sentences is briefly discussed.

3.4.5.1 Committal to any institution established by law

Section 296 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 provides for committal to a treatment
centre. According to Terblanche (1999:399), the purpose of this sentence is “to give a full
go at the rehabilitation of the offender who commits crime, not so much because of the
criminal propensity but because of the dependence on drug or alcohol”. These treatment
centres are administered by the Department of Social Development.

3.4.5.2 Fines
Many different options exist in the case of fines imposed on offenders, including only a
fine; a fine and in default of payment imprisonment; or both a fine and imprisonment.

26
The administration of the collection of fines is the responsibility of the court. However,
if the offender is in default of payment, he or she is admitted to a correctional centre. If
payment takes place after admission to a correctional centre, the fine is administered by
the Department of Correctional Services.

3.4.5.3 Correctional supervision

Terblanche (1999:331) defines correctional supervision as a form of punishment which
the offender serves in the community and during which the offender is not incarcerated
in a facility at any time, subject to conditions such as the court may prescribe. The
conditions prescribed by the court invariably include house arrest and community service,
as well as submission to programmes aimed at the offender’s training, rehabilitation and
improvement.

An offender who is subjected to correctional supervision is referred to as a probationer. In

cases where the probationer is an adult, the supervision is administered by the Department
of Correctional Services. However, the administration of community service conditions is
generally administered by the Department of Social Development in collaboration with
the Department of Correctional Services.

If a probationer does not comply with the conditions that are set by the court, the sentence
can be converted to incarceration.

Correctional supervision comprises many different components and is regarded as a

study field in its own right; therefore the whole concept of correctional supervision is
addressed in detail in the module Community Corrections.

3.4.5.4 Special provisions for offenders under the age of 18

According to section 290 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, the following noncustodial
measures can be ordered when a person under the age of 18 years is convicted and not
sentenced to imprisonment:

• that he be placed under the supervision of a probation officer or a correctional official

• that he be placed in the custody of any suitable person designated in the order
• that he be dealt with in terms of both the above-mentioned noncustodial measures

These provisions in the Act create two supervision options, namely supervision under
a probation officer in the Department of Social Development or supervision under a
correctional officer of the Department of Correctional Services. It also allows for custody
by a suitable person, who may be any suitable person found fit for the responsibility by
the courts.

If the supervision is administered by the Department of Correctional Services, the same

provisions are applicable as for adults (see paragraph 3.4.5.3), but no child under the age
of 15 may be subjected to community service. If a child under the age 15 is placed under
the supervision of a probation officer, it is the task of the probation officer to work out

27 PEN1502/1
a treatment plan in collaboration with the offender, the parents and the school or the
employer (Terblanche 1999:388).

This is just a brief introduction to youth offenders. The whole field of study will be dealt
with in detail in a different module on youth corrections.

3.5 IMPRISONMENT
If convicted, an offender can be sentenced to

• imprisonment
• imprisonment for life
• periodical imprisonment
• declaration as a habitual criminal
• imprisonment from which such a person may be placed under correctional supervision
in the discretion of the Commissioner

Although the wording gives the impression that these sentences are separate entities,
they are essentially the same. The main difference is found in the duration of the sentence
and the procedures which are to be followed when the offender is released (Terblanche
1999:45). Incarceration is administered by the Department of Correctional Services in
correctional centres. If the person is a child under the age of 18 years and sentenced to
a reformatory, the sentence is administered by the Department of Education. However,
sentenced child offenders are first admitted to correctional centres where they await
transfer and placement in a reformatory.

3.5.1 Correctional centres

In South Africa there are 243 correctional centres. They include 133 facilities for men, 87
facilities for both men and women, nine facilities for women and 14 facilities for offenders
under the age of 18. The centres range from the largest (Kutama Sinthumule with 3024
beds) to small one Bergville with a space of for 31 inmates and distributed as follows:

• Northern Cape and Free State: 48

• Eastern Cape: 45
• Western Cape: 43
• KwaZulu-Natal: 42
• Limpopo, Mpumalanga and North West: 39
• Gauteng: 26

(Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services 2016:44)

3.5.2 Offender population and sentence categories

Offender population and sentence categories in this context refer to the number of
offenders kept in a correctional facility and the length of prison term they may serve. The
courts may, depending on the seriousness of the crime, impose any sentence ranging

28
from a few days to life imprisonment, including the death penalty. There are a few African
countries that still impose the death penalty. In South Africa, the death penalty has been
abolished.

ACTIVITY

Visit your local correctional facility and draw up a table showing sentence categories
and age of offenders serving:
0–23 months
2–5 years
6–20 years, including life imprisonment

3.5.3 Offender population and security levels

Correctional centres are classified according to their levels of security. In South Africa there
are maximum, medium and minimum security correctional centres for male, female and
juvenile offenders. Offenders classified as maximum security may, depending on their
behaviour, be reclassified as medium security, and vice versa.

3.6 REFORMATORIES
These institutions are the responsibility of the Department of Education. There are three
reformatories in South Africa, two for boys and one for both boys and girls. The latest
figures for these school populations are not available, but in 2002 the three reformatories
could house 520 children. Two of these reformatories are in the Western Cape and one
is in Mpumalanga. The seven other provinces have no institutions for the reception and
care of sentenced children. This situation leads to serious problems. For example, some
children sentenced to a reform school spend extended periods of time waiting in a facility
for space to become available (Situational Analysis of Reform Schools and Schools of
Industry in South Africa 2002 [website]).

3.7 RESPONSIBILITY OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL

SERVICES TOWARDS SENTENCED OFFENDERS
All sentenced offenders are the responsibility of the Department of Correctional Services.
The mandate or purpose of the correctional system, according to section 2 of the
Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998, is to “contribute to maintaining and protecting
a just, peaceful and safe society by enforcing sentences of the courts in the manner
prescribed by this Act and to detaining all offenders in safe custody whilst ensuring their
human dignity; and promoting the social responsibility and human development of all
offenders and persons subject to community corrections”. The responsibility for sentenced

29 PEN1502/1
offenders is therefore not limited to keeping individuals out of society or to enforcing the
punishment meted out by the courts. The Department of Correctional Services has an
extended mandate, as it has to promote social responsibility and the human development
of all offenders and persons subjected to community corrections. This latter part of the
mandate is fulfilled by facilitating rehabilitation to avoid recidivism.

Rehabilitation is achieved through the delivery of key services to offenders, including

both correction of the offending behaviour and the development of the human being
involved. Within the departmental environment, rehabilitation is facilitated through
a holistic sentence planning process that engages the offenders at all levels — social,
moral, spiritual, physical, work, educational, intellectual and mental (Department of
Correctional Services 2005:72). The rehabilitation of an offender is carefully planned by
the Case Management Committee. Note that rehabilitation comprises six distinct plans,
each with its own objectives. The six plans entail corrections, security, care, development,
facilities and aftercare (Department of Correctional Services 2005:133). These different
plans are discussed in detail in other modules.

3.8 RELEASE MECHANISMS

As all offenders who are sent to a facility will be released in the future, some earlier than
others, the aftercare plan focuses on the social reintegration of the individual into society.
Offenders who have served their sentences are released. In some cases, offenders become
eligible for parole after they have served a predetermined period of time (in terms of
sections 73–83 of the Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998). These offenders appear
before the parole board, which decides whether they can be released on parole or not,
and what the conditions of their release are. Parole means that a convicted offender
sentenced to a term of incarceration is allowed to serve the remaining portion of the
sentence outside a facility on condition that he or she (the parolee) abides by certain
predetermined rules. Parole is therefore a “conditional release” (Palmer 1997:144; Weiss
1991:17) and a bridge between incarceration and social reintegration into the community
(Department of Correctional Services 2005:83). During the remainder of the sentence that
is served outside the correctional facility, the parolee is under the supervision and care
of a community corrections officer. It is the duty of this officer to determine whether the
parolee observes the conditions of release (Weiss 1991:18; Nxumalo 1997:8).

3.9 CONCLUSION
Corrections comprise a vast array of different programmes and involve government
departments, nongovernmental organisations and various other role players. Corrections
involve a conglomerate of institutions, each with its unique role and contribution. These
institutions include the courts, the Department of Education and its reformatories, the
Department of Social Development and its youth detention centres, and the Department
of Correctional Services and its awaiting-trial and correctional centres. The sentence
imposed by the courts determines where in the framework the offender finds himself or
herself and when he or she will finally be released back into society.

30
3.10 SELF-ASSESSMENT

Complete the following table after you have read this study unit. Write down all the dif-
ferent correctional subprocesses.

Processes Subprocesses

The correctional Pretrial process (a)

process
(b)

Sentencing (a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Incarceration (a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Release (a)

31 PEN1502/1
STUDY UNIT 4
INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL SECURITY

LEARNING OUTCOMES

After completing this study unit, you should

• understand the basic roles of correctional officials within the correctional facility
• know internal security measures within the correctional facility
• know external security measures

4.1 INTRODUCTION
In study units one to three you were introduced to the origin, history and framework of
correctional facilities. In study unit 4, dealing with internal and external security aspects,
you are being introduced to the physical world of correctional facility. This study unit deals
with the daily activities of a correctional officer. For those who are within corrections, this
might sound boring and superfluous, but for those who have never been exposed to the
workings of a correctional facility, the experience might be thought provoking.

This study unit will be based on the author’s practical experience of 38 years, the Correctional
Services Act 111 of 1988, the White Paper on Corrections in South Africa and any relevant
literature. Students are encouraged to consult literature dealing with African corrections.

South African citizens tend to describe corrections as five-star hotels. This myth is
exacerbated by ex-offenders’ statements such as “it’s better that one goes back to jail.”
To be honest, correctional life, if it is life at all, is far from comfortable. The loss of freedom,
constant surveillance, timed movement and control offenders are subjected to show clearly
that a correctional facility can never be a five-star hotel. In this study unit the potential
correctional officer or any individual interested in corrections matters is taken on a journey
of somewhat boring, monotonous and routine work. One needs to be a creative thinker
to make the journey bearable. To work with offenders, correctional officials need to be
multiskilled – he or she should be a father, mother, teacher, social worker, psychologist
and priest – all rolled into one. Correctional officials strive to rectify where society has
failed for the past two decades. Remember an offender lands in a correctional facility
after attaining age 21. In reality, by the time offenders enter the correctional gates, they
are already hardened criminals.

32
4.2 INTERNAL SECURITY
The word “security” is not defined in the Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998. To define
security is not that easy: one could think of home security, company security, price
security, job security, and so forth. Security in the present instance refers to safety – the
safety of offenders, officials and visitors within the correctional environment. Van Zyl
Smit 1992:185 “It could be defined widely to include all aspects of the general duty of
the authorities to do everything required to preserve the physical and mental integrity of
prisoners in their charge.” Section 26(1) of Correctional Service Act defines safe custody as
“The right of every offender to personal integrity and privacy is subject to the limitations
reasonably necessary to ensure the security of the community, the safety of correctional
officials and the safe custody of all offenders.” The words “security” and “safety” are used
interchangeably.

4.2.1 Purpose of a correctional system

The purpose of a correctional system is to contribute to maintaining and protecting a
just, peaceful and safe society by:
a. enforcing sentences of the court in the manner prescribed by the Correctional
Service Act
b. detaining all offenders in safe custody while ensuring their human dignity
c. promoting the social responsibility and human development of all offenders
and persons subject to community corrections
To fulfil these tasks, correctional officials with certain characteristics are needed. The White
Paper on Corrections in South Africa dictates that before a correctional official can change
an offender, he/she should serve as an agent of change. Such correctional official should:
• have good personal qualities
• have experience
• have expertise
• practise professional ethics
• personally develop him/herself
• be multiskilled
It will be demanding too much from a correctional official to possess all the mentioned
traits from the outset. Some traits are needed right away, while others will develop over
time.

4.2.2 Daily work activities of a correctional official

As already alluded to, correctional officials’ daily routine work is streamlined and strenuous.
The list of the activities is not exhaustive. Students may add any relevant activity:
• Un-mastering of cells
• Unlocking of cells
• Counting and tallying of totals
• Serving of breakfast
• Attending to requests and complaints

33 PEN1502/1
• Taking out of work teams
• Searching of courtyards and cells
• Receipt of work teams
• Conducting roll calls

4.2.2.1 Un-mastering of cells

Depending on the size of the correctional facility, one or more officials sign for the
master key to un-master all cells. In the spirit of un-mastering, a check is established as to
whether all cells were properly mastered during the lock-up the previous day. If cells are
not properly mastered, serious consequences ensue because security is compromised. In
such a case, the qualities or elements of an ideal correctional office were not adhered to.

4.2.2.2 Unlocking of cells

The official who unlocks the cells, will command the offenders to be ready for counting.
During the process of unlocking, it is also established that no offender is still asleep due
to illness or otherwise.

4.2.2.3 Counting and tallying of totals

The totals of the previous evening should at all times tally with the current head count.
If not, a recount is usually done and the discrepancy investigated.

4.2.2.4 Serving of breakfast

Daily, offenders march to the kitchen to receive their breakfast. Simultaneously, those
who receive daily medical attention report to the medical staff to receive medication.
Those who feel sick are entitled to see the medical officer who determines whether the
ailment should be addressed immediately or referred to a medical doctor.

4.2.2.5 Attending to requests and complaints

This is the process whereby offenders are offered the opportunity to register their requests
and complaints. It is always proper to register the request in the register as this may serve
as proof of attendance should the need arise. It will also be improper to deny an offender
to register a request on the basis that is trivial. Normally, offenders with complaints of
a serious nature are not allowed to join work teams. Upon resolution of the request or
complaint, the offender signs for acknowledgement of feedback.

4.2.2.6 Control of work teams

Generally, offenders are allocated to work teams, and are not allowed to leave that
particular team without permission. The officer in charge of the work team must have
a team book where offenders are marked present. Offenders absent due to illness or

34
consultation are regarded as present. These are offenders who might be needed by social
workers or other officials.

4.2.2.7 Searching of courtyards and cells

Courtyards and cells must, depending on the security level of the facility, be searched for
contraband. The testing hammer should be used daily to test the stability of grills. The
officials must make sure that bars, frames, windows, walls, ceilings, floors, toilets, urinal
wall tiles, light fittings, wash basins and pipes are searched daily or sporadically, depending
on the classification of the correctional facility. Further, section 27 of the CSA stipulates:

1. The person of an offender may be searched by a manual search, or search by technical

means of the clothed body.
2. Upon reasonable grounds, the person of an offender may be searched in the following
ways:
a. A search by visual inspection of the naked body;
b. Search by the physical probing of any bodily orifice;
c. A search by taking a body tissue or body excretion sample for analysis;
d. A search by the use of X-ray machine or technical device, by a qualified techni-
cian, if there are reasonable grounds for believing that an offender has swal-
lowed or excreted any object or substance that may be needed as an exhibit
in a hearing or may pose danger to himself/herself or to correctional officials
or to the security of the correctional facility; and
e. By detaining an offender in a manner prescribed by regulation for the recovery
by the normal excretory process of an object that may pose danger to himself
or herself, to any correctional official to any other person or to the security of
the correctional facility.
3. A search of a person of an offender is subject to the following restrictions:
a. The search must be conducted in a manner which invades the privacy and
undermines the dignity of the offender as little as possible;
b. A correctional official of the same gender as the offender must conduct the
search and correctional officials of the other gender must not be present;
c. All searches must be conducted in private;
d. Searches contemplated in subsections (1) and (2) must be authorised by the
Head of Correctional Centre but searches in terms of subsection (2) (b), (c), (d)
and (e) must be executed or supervised by a registered nurse, medical officer
or practitioner, depending on the procedure necessary to effect the search.
4. A correctional official or person conducting a search in terms of this section may
seize anything found. Work teams are also searched preferably by neutral officials
before entering the facility from work.

4.2.2.8 Conducting roll calls

Roll calls, preferably on a monthly basis, are conducted to ensure that warrants of detention
do tally with warm bodies.

35 PEN1502/1
This task is monitored by a senior official who should visit the isolation/single cells, sick
offenders in the hospital section as well as the kitchen in order to ensure that the whole
facility is covered. In the process, the senior official attends to possible complaints/requests
and must ensure that no request or complaint of whatever nature is overlooked.

4.3 EXTERNAL CUSTODY

External custody entails the safety of offenders, officials and members of the public
outside the correctional facility but within its perimeter fencing. Offenders’ visitors must
as far as possible be protected against any danger within the correctional facility. The
correctional sphere must not create opportunities where community members may be
prone to injury. Clear warning signs must be displayed to warn members of the community
against slippery floors.

4.3.1 Work areas

Offenders may at times be needed to work in bushy areas. Naturally a ratio of 1 member
to 8 offenders is recommended to enable the official to view his work team at all times.
The offender’s cards should be in the possession of the official to ensure that he can easily
identify his offenders. Officials should ensure that offenders do not exchange cards and
work teams without permission. It is prudent to first search the bushy area to ensure
that there is no contraband, specifically work areas which are not being used on a daily
basis. Offenders must be provided with protective clothing, specifically those working
in workshops, a butchery, pigsty, et cetera. It must also be borne in mind that offenders
do not qualify for workman’s compensation. If in the case of injury due to no fault of the
offender, ex gratia money will be considered in conjunction with the Treasury.

In the case of large work teams, officials armed with rifles should first be positioned before
offenders are allowed to work. Large work teams need to be visited by senior officials
who should also ensure that the member in charge of the work team is provided with a
two-way radio. Upon leaving the work area, offenders need to be searched to ensure that
no contraband is taken into the correctional facility. Members of public are not allowed
to communicate with offenders in working areas. Hospital guarding, escort to courts,
transfers from one correctional facility to other are all areas of external custody.

4.4 CONCLUSION
Internal and external security entails the safety of offenders, officials and members of the
public. Offenders should be searched as often as possible to ensure that the mandate of
the Department is maintained. Correctional officials with integrity need to be employed
so that they can instil change in the offenders. The challenge is that offenders come to
the facility because society has failed to control the offending behaviour. The success of
security lies in the hands of the offender, community, departments in the criminal justice
system and officials within the correctional system. The journey demands commitment
from all of us.

36
GLOSSARY

Castle a fortified home of an important person such as a lord or king

Cellar a room below ground level in a house, often used for storing wine or coal
Den a cave used as a place of shelter or concealment;
a squalid or vile abode or place
Dungeon a strong underground prison cell – especially in a castle
Felon a person who has committed a serious crime
Felony in US law, felony is typically defined as a crime punishable by a term of
imprisonment of not less than one year or by the death penalty
Prison also known as a correctional facility, detention centre or remand centre, jail,
goal or penitentiary, is a facility in which inmates are forcibly confined and
denied a variety of freedoms under the authority of the state
Prisoner a person who has been arrested and detained in a prison for having violated
the law of that particular country

37 PEN1502/1
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Champion, DJ. 1998. Corrections in the United States: a contemporary perspective. 2nd
edition. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Fox, VB & Stinchcomb, JB. 1994. Introduction to corrections. 4th edition. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall.
Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons report. 2006. Government Printers. Pretoria.
Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services 2015/2016 Annual Report. 2016. Government
Printers. Pretoria.
Labane, A. 2012. Offender classification as a rehabilitation tool. Unpublished MA Dissertation,
University of South Africa, Pretoria.
Mays, GL & Winfree, LT. 1998. Contemporary corrections. USA: Wadsworth.
Nxumalo, TW. 1997. Parole supervision: a penological perspective. Unpublished MA
Dissertation, University of South Africa, Pretoria.
Palmer, JW. 1997. Constitutional rights of prisoners. 5th edition. Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson
Peté, S. 2008. A brief history of human rights in the prisons of Africa. Available at: www.
hsrcpress.ac.za (accessed on 11 January 2018).
Reichel, P. 1997. Corrections. USA: West.
Singh, S. 2004. Prison overcrowding: A penological perspective. Durban: BK Bookbinders.
South Africa. Department of Correctional Services. 2005. White Paper on Corrections in
South Africa. Pretoria: Government Printers.
Terblanche, SS. 1999. The guide to sentencing in South Africa. 3rd edition. Johannesburg:
LexisNexis.
Van Zyl Smit, D. 1992. South African prison law and practice. Cape Town: Butterworths.
Weiss, S. 1991. Parole: a study of the parole system in South Africa with specific reference to
its inadequacies specifically from the parolee’s perspective. Unpublished dissertation
for BA Social Sciences Honours Degree, University of Cape Town, Cape Town.
www.hsrcpress.ac.za.
www.turlesa.com
Situational Analysis of Reform Schools and Schools of Industry in South Africa. 2002.
Available at: http://pmg-assets.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/docs/2003/
appendices/030228situation.htm (accessed on 24 January 2018).

38