by H. G. Dharmadasa,
Visiting Lecturer in Criminology
Sri Jayawardanapura University,
Former Commissioner General of Prisons

The rehabilitation model has been accepted as the most suitable method of treating prisoners. It is because it entails humanitarian treatment of prisoners and not because rehabilitation of prisoners has proved to be a great success as Mr. Rajapakse as asserted in his article on the "opinion" page of ‘The Island" of 7th December. As a welfare officer or a rehabilitation officer of the past one may boast about the great successes one has achieved, like reducing the recidivism rate in half, but all the research based evidence is to the contrary. Mr. R. finds fault with me for saying that "rehabilitation of offenders in prisons" is a failure. He thinks that I should not be saying such things because I was a former Commissioner General of Prisons. On the contrary it is precisely because I have been a prison administrator for nearly thirty years of which I spent almost ten years as the head of the Department of Prisons and has been exposed to systems of prison administrations in many parts of the world and had studied the subject of corrections and had been a visiting expert at the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute in Japan and a visiting lecturer at the Sri Jayawardanepura University for many years, that I can say it with more conviction and authority than most people who only have a casual interest or superficial knowledge of the subject. Truth about rehabilitation of prisoners can be bitter for people like R. who like to enjoy the euphoria of their false belief of the grand successes of rehabilitation.

R. has attempted to sarcastically condemn the statements I have quoted from authorities to prove that prisons do not rehabilitate prisoners, by referring to them as my gems. I leave it to the learned and the public to judge the capacity and the qualifications or work experience of R. to condemn such renowned authority. However I shall quote from the writings of a few more authorities including our own, to prove that rehabilitation in prisons does not work. John P. Conrad an eminent criminologist in his book "Crime and Its Correction’ published by the University of California, at pages 41 and 42 makes the following observations about the process of rehabilitation.

"If the condemned criminal is to be resurrected, if the exile is to return, what magic must be conjured up to transform the outcast into a neighbour? And if no magic is at hand, is not the entire process a dreary and dangerous exercise in futility? Sir Alexander Patterson, the innovator of British corrections, has said: ‘ You cannot train men for freedom in conditions of captivity’....there seems to be an arithmetical constant of failure which loudly echoes Patterson’s paradox, and a corollary of futility which follows from it".

Another criminologist James Reed writing the article on "Prisons" to the Encyclopedia of Social Sciences at page 1201 says this of the prison. "If the penitentiary changed its inmates, it was generally for the worse. Thus, institutions created as means of rehabilitating criminals and a humane alternative to traditional punishments saved few from vice or unnecessary suffering."

Our own renowned Correctional administrator, a former Commissioner of Prisons, Dr. V. N. Pillai who not only became the Director of the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Prisoners but also an UN expert, in his Report of the Committee on Prison Reform (1980) has stated the following at paragraph 14.

"Despite all the rhetoric and enthusiasm of penal reformers, the gap between the theory and practice continues to be wide. For one thing, the causes of criminal behaviour in each individual have still not been precisely identified. The number and the milieu of various causes, under different circumstances of time, place and social situations, are not invariably productive of the same type of crime, and in some cases of no crime at all. For another, there is doubt as to whether even the best equipped and organised prison system reforms and rehabilitates its inmates. No significant decrease in the rates of recidivism in any country in the world has been reported."

I know this last quotation is not honey in R’s ears, coming from the very person who initiated the welfare scheme in our prisons.

Mr. Rajapakse quotes a single instance of a ‘rehabilitated’ prisoner recounting a statement by former Commissioner of Prisons. C. T. Jansz and invites me to read the article. I do not wish to confront a statement made by a predecessor of mine, but would like to quote again from ‘Crime and its Correction’ by John P. Conrad. Referring to Sol Rubin’s book ‘Crime and Delinquency’ he says:

"Sol Rubin has suggested that no one knows how many of these successes would have flourished as well and with immensely less waste if they had been placed on probation or gone scot-free. No one knows, it is true, but the uneasy question compromises the confidence of the prison administrators and clinicians that successful outcome can be attributed to anything they do." For each such so called success story thousands of failures could be recounted.

Lo and behold, R. has made a hilarious statement in saying that he and Ms. Karunaratne do not consider rehabilitation as a crime prevention measure. He sharply rebukes me saying "Rehabilitation is not a part of a campaign against crime as HGD seems to think." Once again, I pity the ignorance on the part of R. Either he does not know what rehabilitation is, although has been arguing about it all the time, or he does not know what he is talking about. What does R. think rehabilitation is for, if not for the purpose of reducing crime? Rehabilitation of offenders is a tertiary form of crime prevention. A former Chief Justice Hon. Parinda Ranasinghe only a few weeks ago explained this to the prison officers at the Prison Officers Training Centre, during a seminar conducted by the Asia Crime Prevention Foundation. R. in his earlier article was boasting about the reduction of recidivism in the 1970’s proving his case with statistics which he later admitted to be false. Assuming it was correct, what did he think would have happened when recidivism rate was reduced? It means that a certain number has been abstaining from committing crime due to successful rehabilitation. Is that not crime prevention? For the benefit of R and the reading public I shall quote below the definition given to Rehabilitation in the Encyclopedia of Social Sciences.

"As used in the field of crime and justice, the word Rehabilitation means the purposeful reduction or elimination of an offender’s subsequent criminal behaviour through a programme of planned intervention."

R says that I had resorted to some nit-picking and laughing at their ignorance of the Standard Minimum Rules and quotes from his ‘hand book of reference’ the Ladduwahetti report that Sri Lanka has ratified the Standard Minimum Rules. I had made my references correctly and knew what I was saying when I said that the UN instrument ‘Standard minimum Rules’ is not a covenant and the rules are only guidelines for nations to follow. Such instruments are considered only as declarations and are not ratified by nations. I stand by what I said and continue to laugh at their ignorance. It is not necessary to consult an authority on international law, a first year law student will explain this. In fact I was surprised that the Ladduwahetti Committee had made such a statement and contacted the chairman himself to find out what his source of information was, regarding the ratification of the Rules on 28.05.1980 by Sri Lanka. He told me that it was taken from the Pillai Committee Report. I referred to the relevant section and found that the Ladduwahetti Committee had made an error. What the Pillai Committee had stated in Paragraph 16 of its report is that Sri Lanka has ratified the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on 28.05.1980 and not the Standard Minimum Rules (SMR). I can imagine someone making a mistake through ignorance but when the mistake is pointed out to make a mockery of it is foolhardiness. If only R had read the first and the second rules of the SMR instead of referring to the Ladduwahetti Report for clarification he would have realised that the rules are only guidelines and are not legally binding. Rule 1 of SMR is as follows: "The following rules are not intended to describe in detail a model system of penal institutions. They seek only, on the basis of the general consensus of contemporary thought and the essential elements of the most adequate systems of today, to set out what is generally accepted as being good principle and practice in the treatment of prisoners and the management of institutions."

The very first sentence of Rule 2 states that "In view of the great variety of legal, social, economic and geographical conditions of the world, it is evident that not all of the rules are capable of application in all places at all times." So how can they be legally binding?

I would also wish to comment on the decision to suppress the Welfare Officers posts in the Department of Prisons. Although R. is fighting a battle for the re-recruitment of Welfare Officers making inroads into the administration of the Prisons Department, he appears to be not conversant with the facts. If he cares to go through the relevant files he will find that the problem was presented to the Salaries and Cadres Committee and it was that Committee which made the recommendations. Anyone who knows a little bit of the procedures in public administration will know that a head of a Department has no authority to suppress or create any post. So the insults are returned by return of post as they have been wrongly addressed.

Finally I would like to reiterate that my argument is that rehabilitation is not possible in prisons. I emphasize that the best prospects for rehabilitation is community based sanctions. Correctional experts and penologists the world over have rejected prison as a place of rehabilitation or re-socialization. The Prison sentence, they say should be limited to the incorrigible and dangerous criminals and for all others alternative sentences should be found. Resolution 16 of the 7th UN congress on Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders advocates the use of imprisonment as the sanction of last resort. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial measures, (resolution 451110,14 dec. 1990) popularly known as Tokyo Rules (I wish R. has heard about it) emphasizes the use of non- custodial measures at all stages of the criminal justice procedure. In fact the primary reason for the formulation of Tokyo Rules was the increasing concern about potential of custodial sentences in rehabilitating the offender.