An effective rehabilitation policy agrees that the core purpose and measure of rehabilitation must be to reduce re-offending. However, a reduction in re-offending can only be achieved through a rehabilitative strategy which re-integrates offenders into society by giving them the opportunity and assistance needed to reform. An effective prison rehabilitation strategy must look not only at the offending criminal behaviour but also at the individual inmate himself or herself as stated by Dissel (2012). A prison rehabilitation regime must, where appropriate, investigate the inmate’s background and needs in order to develop specific measures for his or her reintegration into society. A lot is involved in addressing offending behaviour and other deficiencies.
In developed countries (western countries), programmes such as offering alternative life choices to the offender through the provision of education, training and work opportunities are common and well-funded (Coyle, 2009). In addition, their rehabilitation regimes are designed to deal with the different needs of different types of correctional centres. These include factors affecting the re-offending of certain groups such as women, juveniles and terminally ill and remanded inmates. Various correctional centre reports have recommended that, wherever
78
possible, offenders should be actively engaged in their own rehabilitation and encouraged to take responsibility for themselves and their behaviours (Coyle, 2009).
The other strategy used in western countries, according to Henseltine et al. (2009), is to capacitate the families of offenders to support the re-integration process other than targeting only the offender for behaviour change. This is a two-way process that seeks to address the problem of re-offending, especially sex offenders and drug addicts. The community and family of the offender are prepared to support and keep the person occupied as well as provide maximum support to the person so that they become responsible for their actions and behaviour.
3.7.1. Effective Models of Intervention to Address Offending Behaviour
Prisoners, as human beings, have various expectations that, to a larger extent, should influence the kind of approaches and programmes to rehabilitate them. Given the diversity of circumstances in which individuals commit offences, it is generally agreed by various researchers in criminal rehabilitation that successful prisoner reform programmes should be guided by the principles discussed below.
A sound conceptual model, targeting the criminogenic needs of offenders: This is in sound compliance to the Responsivity principle. Social cognitive skills, role playing and modelling are also essential (Rupande & Ndoro, 2014). These principles work in various degrees depending on the capacity of individual policies and regimes of implementation. All the same, generic models of interventions compatible with world standards of good correctional practice and treatment of offenders are in place and accessible to various correctional settings (Cullen et al., 2011). In the advent of a global village and millennium development goals, more of the recommended interventions have proved useful if applied holistically.
Rehabilitation regimes around the world comprise a number of different types of interventions which are employed in varying degrees to provide purposeful activity for prisoners. These challenge offending behaviour, provide basic education to tackle illiteracy and innumeracy and equip prisoners with life and work skills (Cullen et al., 2011). According to Cullen et al. (2011, p. 22), the most common interventions are:
Needs assessment to identify the offender’s needs and classify the types of intervention required.
79
Academic education to address the prisoner’s educational deficits and enlighten them mentally and socially for acquisition of the various skills to be offered;
Behavioural and cognitive skills programmes to challenge offending behaviour and offending-related risks;
Vocational training to provide transferable and recognised skills to increase prospects of employment on release;
Work to give prisoners experience and create a normal culture of working and increase prospects of employment on release; and
Re-integration to provide assistance to prisoners with finding social family support and employment after their release.
The models of intervention do have their shortcomings, especially those tested and found to work in western economies. Studies done in Africa revealed that there are socio-cultural determinants of criminal behaviour. Rupande and Ndoro (2014) cite a study done in Nigeria that confirms this notion saying social and economic activities available in communities are major determinants of the nature of crime the offenders get involved in, meaning criminal behaviour is influenced by economic and social activities one is exposed to. These two researchers then come into the conclusion that the natures of crimes common in western economies are different from those of Africa. To a larger extent, the tested and proved working models to address criminal behaviour and curb re-offending, may also not really work in the Africa society regarding the determinants of criminal behaviour and social activities the offenders are exposed to (Rupande & Ndoro, 2014).
3.8.Conclusion
The purpose in this chapter has been to consider various theoretical reasons for rehabilitation and its meaning. It will now be clear that what at first sight appears to be a relatively straightforward concept is in fact rather more complex. Just what is meant by it, what one think it entails and how one justify doing or attempting it depends to a great extent on the theoretical position(s) one adopt. It is for this reason that there is no single vision of offender’s rehabilitation approach, but rather a collection of views, some of which appear to have relatively little in common and even at times to be in conflict. In this chapter, the focus was also put on the subjects agreed by various scholars as best practices in offender rehabilitation. The next chapter is centred on the international correctional service systems by presenting four
80
national case studies (Norway, Canada, Japan and Malaysia) on the rehabilitation of inmates, and explores how each country regulates and institutionalises this aspect of the prison system.
81 CHAPTER 4
OFFENDER REHABILITATION APPROACH IN NORWAY, CANADA, JAPAN