Humane “corrections”: What more can we do?
23rd October 2023
In this blog, Olivia Rope, Executive Director of Penal Reform International, reflects on the human cost of imprisonment and challenges governments and institutions to do more to build humane, effective criminal justice systems. It is based on her keynote address, delivered at the International Corrections and Prisons Association Annual Meeting in October 2023, and calls for a justice system grounded in dignity, proportionality, and sustainability.
In October 2023, at the International Corrections and Prisons Association’s annual meeting in Antwerp, I delivered a keynote exploring the state of global prison systems and what more we can do to ensure they are humane. I started with the story of Kodet, a woman that PRI was able to help through a programme in Uganda.
When she was 25 years old, Kodet who came from a remote district in northern Uganda was convicted of murder and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. She’d been fighting with a friend who she used to drink alcohol with. This friend had beaten Kodet’s child, so she grabbed a stick and tried to strike him. But instead, Kodet accidentally hit her brother’s child who died on the spot.
Kodet had a troubled upbringing. Her parents both died when she was young. They were maize farmers and owned two huts. Kodet dropped out of school when she was 13 years old. Her older brothers used to beat the younger siblings, Kodet was tormented. These older brothers married and brought their wives into the family home making it harder for Kodet and her young siblings to stay. As a result, Kodet was forced to get married at just 15 years old. Her spouse rented a one-roomed hut. Both dug in neighbour’s gardens to earn a living.
But, and this is the big but… Kodet became a beneficiary of Penal Reform International’s programme that provides business management training to women in prison. When she was finally released, as part of this initiative, she was given seed money by PRI to start her hair Saloon business. Today, Kodet and her husband rent a room and she earns money from plaiting hair, a skill she mastered while in prison… Her young brothers told her to stay away from the community, because they fear mob justice in retaliation for the death of her nephew. But Kodet hopes to help her brothers who are 9 and 13 years old to go to school. Her children had to escape their local village with their father, because her brother wanted to kill them. She credits PRI for giving her a reason to live – she had lost all hope whilst in prison until we invited her to join our programme. I heard this story last week in Kampala. Kodet addressed a room of 250 people at a conference organised there by PRI and partners on women in the criminal justice system in Africa. She spoke in front of the head of prisons, the head of police, and the Chief Justice of Uganda.
Kodet’s story illustrates the power of rehabilitation and of supporting and treating people with humanity and dignity – and valuing them as human beings. It’s an example of achieving humane corrections in practice.
But what are so-called “humane corrections” and how do we achieve them?
We all know what ‘corrections’ is. But the term ‘humane’ seems somewhat more vague, or subjective. When I turned to Google, it told me that ‘humane’ means to have or show compassion. It suggested a list of other supposedly similar words. They included “understanding, Sympathetic, Tolerant, civilized; charitable”. These resonated with me when we speak about what “humane corrections” should be. Then after the long list of similar words google offered one “opposite” word – cruel. Cruel’ treatment – the anthesis of humane – is in fact illegal under international law (through the UN Convention against Torture.) It is also prominent in the very first Rule of the UN Nelson Mandela Rules which serve as the blueprint and should guide us all in the treatment of prisoners.
But before we look at what more can be done to achieve humane corrections, we need to assess and understand where are we now.
Status of prisons
No prison system is the same. No justice system or legal framework or approach is either. However, we at PRI know that there are common approaches, challenges and opportunities across many justice systems. Our Global Prison Trends, that we have published annually for the past 9 years, document and distil these.
To give us some context, Here are some key findings from our Global Prison Trends 2023
1. There are more than 11.5 million people in prison worldwide, mostly men.
According to the “World Prison Brief“, for over about 2 decades since 2000 the total number of prisoners globally has increased slightly more slowly (at 24%) than the estimated general population over the same period (at 28%) . That might seem logical – more people on the planet, more prisoners. But this conclusion ignores:
This is the highest number of people in prison ever. Prison systems do not have room for this many people. Prison overcrowding is more common than not. Around 120 countries have recorded occupancy rates exceeding prison system capacity – and even those which do not exceed national capacity often do in individual facilities, especially in pre-trial settings. The upward trend goes against all international commitments – binding and non-binding – and stated shared objectives, not least captured in the Kyoto Declaration, adopted at the UN Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice in 2021 which set down the goal to achieve the opposite. In other words, the rising global prison population goes against the will to reduce the unnecessary use of imprisonment and in particular use pre-trial detention only as a last resort.
2. Around a third of the global prison population are awaiting trial, presumed innocent but remaining in pre-trial detention
In over 50 countries there are more people detained pre-trial than those serving a prison sentence! This is again, despite International law stipulating it should be used as a last resort. Recognising that excessive use of pre-trial detention remains one of the biggest drivers of prison overcrowding, some recent efforts to tackle the use of this as a default measure have included time limits and removing mandatory pre-trial detention for specific offences. When it comes to who is in prison – which is intrinsically linked with how we achieve humanity and dignity in prisons, the picture is perhaps changing.
3. There are more than 740,000 women and girls in prison globally – representing an increase in all regions except for Europe and rising at a faster rate than men.
Women and girls are up 60% since 2000 compared to 22% for men.
Why? The war on drugs. Compared to men, there are a larger proportion of women in prison for drug-related offences at 35% globally. Compared to 19% of men. The sharp increases in female prison populations in parts of Latin America and Asia are due to punitive drug policies which disproportionately impact women. Some countries in these regions have seen up to 50, 60, and 80% of women in prison for drug-related offences.
4. An estimated 23 million children globally are affected by imprisonment, either directly or through a parent.
Breaking this down, an estimated 261,200 children were in criminal justice detention in 2020. In total 19,000 children were living in prison with their mother. More than 22.5 million children globally are estimated to have at least one imprisoned parent (that’s over 1% of the population of the world’s children).
Now to turn to three issues PRI sees as the most emerging, pressing challenges in delivering humane corrections –
1. Crisis-responses
Prisons and wider justice systems don’t operate in a silo. The impact of crises in recent years – and the magnitude and number of overlapping crises – are increasing. We have witnessed a massive impact on prison systems – particularly in places where there is serious prison overcrowding.
The COVID-19 pandemic is perhaps the most obvious crisis in a long list that directly affected prisons in recent years. It had a huge cost, not just financially – possibly one we cannot quantify – but also in terms of the people who were detained during long lockdowns, and the staff too. Research now suggests the impact will be long-term. The biggest prisoner survey conducted in one European country revealed that mass solitary confinement during lockdowns that went on for much longer than a year – involving people being locked in their cells for 23 hours a day – had exacerbated or ‘turbocharged’ a mental health crisis. More than a third of people in prison showed symptoms of ‘severe anxiety disorder’, with high levels of post-traumatic stress and “widespread trauma” from extended isolation and the boredom of these lengthy lockups. The researchers of this study concluded that while these lockdowns probably saved lives initially, they dragged on well past the point where they were necessary to contain covid outbreaks.
As we all gather here there are wars being waged – from Sudan to Ukraine to Afghanistan and now Israel and Gaza. Violent conflict has grown dramatically in the past decade.
At least 13% of the global prison population, totaling over 1.4 million people, are in prison in 57 of what’s classified as ‘fragile’ contexts and ‘extremely fragile’ environments by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Maintaining functioning prison systems and basic minimum standards of imprisonment under the UN Nelson Mandela Rules in such situations becomes highly challenging. Criminal justice systems that have been devastated by conflict commonly lack resources, have an absence of trained personnel, and cannot function effectively.
Through PRI’s work in Central African Republic, Yemen and Sudan we have witnessed the desperate situation in prisons – which remain largely invisible to many humanitarian agencies. Basic necessities cannot be met. Acute water and food shortages affect both detainees and staff. This breeds insecurity, which leads to increased levels of violence, allows widespread torture, and corruption is rife.
Rebuilding justice systems post-conflict contributes towards restoring stability in conflict-torn countries and restoring confidence in government. The penitentiary system is an essential link in the chain, it has a vital role to play restoring long-lasting peace, the rule of law, and-establishing a functioning justice system, and the core functions of government. Yet re-building and strengthen prison system is often low priority, and left to a few lone actors.
Natural disasters and extreme weather, occurring more frequently and intensely, continue to impact prison systems and the people detained and working in them – in some cases fatally as PRI documents in our Global Prison Trends reports. PRI compared data from the INFORM Risk Index with national prison population data from 2021, and we found almost 30% of the global prison population (over 3 million people) live in the 12 countries most exposed to natural hazards. The huge earthquake that struck Türkiye in February this year affected at least 17,600 people held in prisons across 6 provinces. Authorities transferred and evacuated some people requiring a major operation. This is just one recent example of many where prisons are affected by natural disasters.
There are frequently ripple effects from natural disasters like contaminated water, food shortages, sewage issues and the spread of diseases. In some prisons, disaster risk reduction (DRR) is in place, to prevent or mitigate these sorts of impacts. This is typically the case in countries and jurisdictions that frequently experience natural hazards, and often have been supported by international actors. For example In the Philippines, the mapping of the 475 jails nationwide was conducted with support from the International Committee for the Red Cross. This mapping found that about a quarter of the 130,000 detainees held pre-trial detention in the country’s jails were located in areas at high risk of floods, drought, typhoons, landslides, heatwaves, earthquakes and volcanoes.
The ICRC supported DRR for the system and when I visited last year I saw all of the evaluation maps and instructions that form part of this. But there are many places, even high-income countries, where the government or local authorities have failed to include prisons in their DRR – or install heating /cooling systems to mitigate extreme temperatures. This is a pressing oversight given the forecast that we will increasingly be affected by climate change. DRR for prisons need to include steps on prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery and post-disaster needs assessment. To strengthen these areas, PRI has guidance on disaster risk reduction for prisons. Based on primary research, we offer practical measures with a human rights-based approach for practitioners and frontline staff working in prison systems.
We are also facing a global so-called “economic downturn” – a threat of a global recession –. It’s not news that justice systems – and particularly prisons and probation systems – are underfunded. Often described as the poorer cousin to police and law enforcement, prisons remain at the ‘bottom of the pile’ In terms of political priority and therefore resourcing. For PRI’s 2020 Global Prison Trends, we undertook a comparative overview of total government expenditures on prisons. Across 54 countries, we found that this usually amounts to just less than 0.3 per cent of their gross domestic product (GDP). Staff and infrastructure appeared to receive the greatest share of funds allocated, with many countries spending alarmingly low amounts on food in prisons and rehabilitation programmes.
PRI has since assessed the impact of rising prices in food, gas, electricity and so on on prison systems and the people detained. We found that rising costs have impacted a range of essential commodities and services from food and energy to transport and staffing. Where pay is given to prisoners for work, it has remained at the same levels, and where people are provided money by their families, families have been unable to provide as much to their loved ones in prison, due to rising costs. This has a knock-on affect – prisoners are unable to purchase necessary items as they have become more expensive. Also, families’ ability to support loved ones in prison by delivering medication or food has been reduced in many places. There are also charges for phone calls, or high transport costs for family visits. These are becoming increasingly impossible to meet as families who are low-income feel the financial squeeze. As a result, we are concerned that organised crime groups can become emboldened, and the situation is fuelling corruption and enforcing hierarchies and sub-cultures among the prison population. – an issue I will speak about later.
Prison staff are also impacted by rising costs and austerity measures. At best their salaries can be frozen. At worse they are not paid and experience worsening living conditions. We have heard of budget cuts and resource problems leading to the abortion of prison reforms, the cutting of rehabilitation programmes and reduction in food quality.
Overall this brings a deteriorating situation for people in prison, it affects the ability to deliver corrections humanely. Indirect impacts include unsafer places of detention, less support for rehabilitation and this in turn means society as a whole are less safer.
Self-sufficient prisons are viewed as a possible solution to overcoming challenges related to supplying adequate food and enough of it to feed prison populations. For example, a multi-agency initiative called ‘Green Prisons’ has been launched in South Sudan involving prison farms being set up to address food security in prison settings. More prisons in South Africa have become self-sufficient through fruit, vegetable and milk production, chicken-broilers and layers, red and white meat abattoirs, and piggeries in prison farms, introduced by the Department of Correctional Services. I add one reminder here – of course when self-sufficient prisons are set up, labour conditions, within such initiatives need to be ensured.
Conflict, natural disasters and the global rise of living costs “crisis” are overlapping and not exclusive – how do we ensure our prison systems are humane and uphold the right to dignity within all of this? Well, the absolute prohibition of torture and inhumane, cruel and degrading ill-treatment, as prescribed under international human rights law, applies at all times, even in times of crises or emergency. (There’s that term cruel). There is also the right to life, the right to dignity – rights that are irrevocable. In other words, they apply no matter what. The international standards – the Nelson Mandela Rules and the Bangkok Rules must guide responses to crises. This means that during natural disasters, for instance, while of course security considerations are needed to protect the public and staff, the right to life and protection of human life must trump all. But, both can be achieved with proper contingency plans in place.
Looking at COVID-19, at the start of the pandemic, strict controls in prisons were understandable. But as time passed, prolonged lockdowns and isolation caused serious harm and were often no longer justified. PRI and others urged respect for the Nelson Mandela Rules, warning against prolonged solitary confinement. Still, many prisons imposed blanket restrictions, with people confined in near-total isolation for months. There was hope that the attention on prisons might lead to lasting change. But instead, many emergency measures have quietly become permanent.
2. Technologies
The role of technology was propelled by the pandemic. Think of the introduction of virtual visits for prisoners, which became the norm even in prison systems which had firmly rejected using remote means of communication until then. Also, virtual hearings which are part of the rapidly expanding opportunities for increased efficiency but have brought with them concerns around protecting fair trial rights voiced by the UN (and shared by PRI and many others). The expansion of new and emerging technologies across criminal justice systems at such a fast pace is, we believe, a threat to delivering humane corrections that is not adequately appreciated.
Of course there are so many facets of using technologies in prisons and there are many benefits – for both prison authorities and the people imprisoned. On the plus, programmes like “coding out”, in the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and Romania, have involved prisoners being taught computer programming skills and have facilitated job placements in software development for participants after release. These sorts of initiatives give people in prison opportunities to become digitally literate so they are not left behind when released. Digital literacy is recognised as being critical to development and has been considered a human right by the UN since 2016.
Virtual calls can allow for greater contact between prisoners and the outside world – whether to lawyers, family, or support services. There are so many benefits to creating more secure facilities for detainees and staff through CCTV, plus improving access to healthcare with telemedicine – if all done right!
However, it is clear that the ability to adopt tech – and what sort of tech – varies significantly – not least because of a digital divide. One country’s ability to connect prisons to the internet is not even a possibility in another. It doesn’t all come down to resource and technological infrastructure, though. Internet bans are still in place in prisons on the grounds of security in some places.
The role of the private sector in developing and offering technologies is also important. However, providing digital solutions, equipment and the infrastructure is one thing, but ensuring it is used properly and for the right reason is another. PRI has seen in various places tech set up, but not used correctly, or abandoned after a short period. It’s either not fit for purpose, based on incorrect assumptions of the needs, or requires a huge investment in ‘soft skills’ for it to be used. The latter requires a lot of investment (not only financially but considerable change in processes, affecting workload, requiring training, and so on). What might look like “Shiny solutions” have in some cases taken precious resources away and not brought about positive change or contributed to more humane corrections. The complexities involved with having technology in prisons and the wider criminal justice system (including the courts) poses ethical, human rights and practical challenges.
PRI believes there is not enough monitoring and evaluating of the possible harm of tech. To quote the head of Artificial Intelligence for the Council of Europe: “the human rights issues come from the humans using the technology, not the technology itself.” There is a clear need for guidelines which are based on a human rights-approach to ensure that tech helps not hurts. The recognition of harm from the increase in the use of digital technology by criminal justice sector has led to more attention at the international level, and moves for some regulation.
For example, the Council of Europe is developing a Recommendation the Use of Artificial Intelligence by Prison and Probation Services. Furthermore, the EU is working on the Artificial Intelligence Act. Civil society groups including, Amnesty International, have called for the Act to incorporate explicit prohibitions of predictive and profiling AI systems in law enforcement and criminal justice. The UN is launching an exploration of digital rehabilitation for prisons.
Much is today written about biases in algorithms used for policing. This shows that for whatever purpose it is used – at a bare minimum AI requires constant monitoring so that biases that creep into it are kept in check. In other words this means checking how the result from the algorithm comes about, questioning it, and never relying on it 100%. This of course requires training and better understanding by the practitioners using it. Nevertheless, if designed and put in place correctly, technology can contribute towards achieving 0humane corrections. We will hear over the next few days many examples of this.
Tech certainly can provide an opportunity to realise the principle of normalisation in detention in line with the Nelson Mandela Rules, to safeguard against abuse and to provide educational opportunities, among many other benefits. To ensure that it does more good than harm we need to:
– Undertake comprehensive needs assessments before embarking on any introduction or upscale of digital solutions
– Ensure policy and legislation are in place so there is a regulatory framework and adequate safeguards against harm in place.
– Build in enough resources to evaluate the impact and sense check the delivery of digital interventions needs
3. Addressing the fundamental – and perhaps uncomfortable – problems
The last emerging and pressing challenge to delivering humane corrections is what I would call the Fundamental – and perhaps uncomfortable – problems. As civil society, we have to raise the uncomfortable issues. These are uncomfortable because they are often entrenched, however not impossible to address if acknowledged.
Looking at 2 major barriers to achieving humane corrections that rehabilitate, or at the very least do no harm to the people in the justice system –
Racism or discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity in justice systems has received a lot of attention in recent years. You will remember back in May 2020 the case of George Floyd, an African American man who was killed by a white policeman in the US. His death sparked protests against the pervasive, long-standing race-based discrimination by police and by “the system” – and this is not limited to the US! The Black Lives Matter movement led to some immediate action to address this systemic racism, and international institutions, from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to the UN Human Rights Council and the EU Commission, vowed to follow them.
However, PRI’s assessment showed that these institutions, the national policymakers and the protestors themselves ,largely focused on police and law enforcement reform. Many political statements, declarations, action plans, etc. failed to mention racial discrimination of these groups in prison systems. This is despite the fact discriminatory treatment of ethnic minorities and other groups is well documented by many reports from independent and internal inquiries.
International standards are clear – equality does not entail treating everyone the same. Putting in place positive measures or providing for the specific needs of different groups or individuals is not to be regarded as discriminatory. I suggest that there is still a way to go with addressing discrimination in prison and probation systems – a strategic priority for PRI in fact – not only because it is a persistent human rights issue, but because it inhibits rehabilitation and social reintegration. This represents a fundamental barrier in achieving humane corrections. Particularly given who is in prison.
Through an analysis of pathways into criminal justice systems, PRI and partners research shows that criminal procedure, penal codes, and as discussed policing continue to discriminate. Some are colonial legacies, some have been brought about by widening economic and social disparities, and some through entrenched discriminatory norms against certain groups. There are laws that criminalise, for example, so-called ‘nuisance’ behaviours like being a rogue or vagabond, not being able to ‘give a good account’ of yourself, loitering, begging, touting, or not being able to pay fines. These laws effectively criminalise poverty and status – and target people for who they are, rather than what they have done. This results in the arrest and imprisonment of people who come from groups who are marginalised in our societies, including people who are poor or homeless, migrants, the LGBTIQ+ community, people with disabilities, informal traders, people who use drugs, ethnic minorities and racialised groups.
PRI is part of a global coalition of organisations who advocate for the repeal of laws that target people based on poverty and status. We are mobilising. And we see this as essential to achieving humane detention conditions as we ultimately need to reduce the number of people in the system, which corresponds to numbers of people in prison…
And organised crime and corruption
In January 2023, 19 people were killed when an armed drug cartel launched almost-simultaneous attacks on a prison and a police station in a Latin American country struggling with organised crime. 10 prison staff, seven detaineees and two attackers were killed. 25 members of the gang escaped from the prison and federal authorities later found a “VIP zone” in the facility stashed with drugs and money. While this particular incident or type of situation may be context or region-specific, organised crime including prison gangs and the corruption that accompanies this, we believe is a persistent and growing issue. Where organised crime groups seize control of the prison system, authorities often only secure the prion’s perimeters. These situations usually occur amid high corruption, weak security systems, poor infrastructure, overcrowding, insufficient and undertrained prison staff. Gang leaders can dictate everything in a detainee’s day-to-day life, from sleeping arrangements to orchestrating riots.
PRI’s analysis shows that organised crime is increasingly becoming a significant challenge in prison systems globally in every region, although to different extents. And represents a serious barrier to achieving humane corrections. Various responses to this have been put in place, for example the Italian model of total isolation for mafia bosses. But most criminal justice systems don’t have the capacity to implement such models, which also raise human rights concerns. Away from media coverage of prison riots, murder and chaos, there is more action needed, which requires more understanding taking into account the various nuances from country to country, and region to region, organised crime and corruption simply needs more attention!
So “what more can we do?”
To conclude with, here’s some recommendations that apply to all of the themes covered today.
1) Create a humane justice system as a whole. Ensure that prison is used legitimately in line with international standards. Avoid sending people to overcrowded, under resourced, understaffed prisons unless it is absolutely necessary.
2) Collect data, be more transparent and open. By their very nature prisons, and to a lesser extent probation systems, are closed institutions. More transparency leads to evidence-based decision making, less human rights violations, more understanding and empathy from the wider public to prisoners, and respect for the prison service.
Accurate data on prison and criminal justice systems is essential for law and policy makers and other actors at all levels in order to identify gaps and make change. Becoming more transparent and open brings fruitful, effective cooperation with external agencies and networks, and fosters an all-system approach.
Although international standards require states to record (and investigate) all deaths in prison, a recent PRI survey across 25 countries found that official information relating to deaths in prison was published in just 11 of those. In some cases, data is simply absent or highly unreliable. Sometimes academia or civil society organisations tries to fill this gap by collecting information on, or estimating the number of, deaths in prison. Common reasons for absent data include a lack of resources or the capacity to collect and share data, or a general absence of transparency or political will. Without this information there is no way to address issues leading to preventable deaths. This may lead to lack of accountability for any wrong doing or negligence.
Transparency is critical if we want to build systems that are humane. Independent detention monitoring can be a tool for directing transformative change.
Civil society like PRI can support strategising, training and institutional change, but this is not possible if systems are secretive and closed.
There are many good examples to draw on:
Open days for the public to see inside prisons, opening restaurants where the public can dine with prisoners cooking and serving food (these projects also create vocational opportunities for detainees), creating websites with public data Allowing documentary makers and journalists access to cover positive initiatives in prisons.
And my final recommendation.
We need to put people who have first hand experience of criminal justice systems centre stage. Looking at the programme for this conference… the depth of knowledge and expertise in this room is evident from the array of topics and examples to be shared this week. But there is another group of experts not fully tapped into. To achieve humane corrections it requires an investment in leadership, in front line staff, in healthcare staff, in organisations who support and deliver programmes. And we would add an investment in centering the leadership and voices of people who have experienced prison first hand, people with so called ‘lived experience’, or experts by experience.
There is a real movement building. For instance, earlier in the year there was the first ever International Convening of Formerly Incarcerated Women in Bogota. This brought together 60 women from across the globe who had experienced imprisonment and want to work towards change together.
In Europe, organisations like Young Perspectives in the Netherlands, Peer Power in the UK and Wayback in Norway are all initiatives where there has been meaningful engagement of people with lived experience in penal reform efforts. People who have experienced the system firsthand, are experts. We need to listen, not only to their stories, but their recommendations need to also be heard and acted upon. After all they know best how policy and practice impacts them. Their input can often be the “make or break” or mean the difference between an ill-thought through intervention – or one that is truly impactful and sustainable.
Meaningful is key – to avoid tokenism where people with lived experience are consulted to effectively “tick a box”.
So there needs to be consideration of:
– The Space where people meet needs to be safe and welcoming,
– Voices of people must be listened to. Their views can be expressed in various ways, for instance creatively, through art…
– Their must be genuine willingness to take on their input, views of people with lived experience by the justice actors (to avoid tokenism, as mentioned)
So that I “walk the walk” and amplify the voices of people who have spent time in prison, I will finish by letting them speak here via a short video with members of PRI’s new group of “Experts by Experience”:
This speech was produced with the generous support of the International Penal and Penitentiary Foundation.