Resultados de la encuesta de recolección de datos de los pacientes

Even though the women initially indicated that rehabilitation is a choice for women offenders, this narrative was later followed by an indication that there are barriers that limit women classified as maximum security offenders in exercising this choice (The programmes for the maximum, right, they are like limited….because if I am arrested for murder and I want to go and do entrepreneurship. They will say, “no, no you are not allowed to do that kind of course it’s only for people who did fraud”-Nomusa). Allowing human beings to make choices regarding their lives is an ethical and moral obligation. Such allowance is also informed by the freedom and liberty afforded to respect the autonomy and independence of people in making decisions about their lives (Patterson, Adelle & Parker, 2000). For maximum security offenders, the system seems to have already decided which rehabilitation programmes are suitable for this group, as indicated by: “you maximums you have a lot of anger you can go and do anger and then do psychologists”-Nomusa.

As indicated in the results section, women who are classified as maximum security offenders are also studying through correspondence and they reflected that the DCS policies sometimes are a barrier that makes studying through correspondence quite challenging. Patterson et al. (2000) indicate that the principle of choice should be aimed at encouraging active

participation in rehabilitation programmes, through making meaningful and informed choices about the selection of rehabilitation goals, objectives and services. This, therefore, means that

180

policies in an institution must enable each individual to make informed choices regarding the selection of long-term, short-term or intermediate rehabilitation objective. Most importantly, each individual receives appropriate modes of communication regarding the availability and scope of choice and the manner in which their choice may be exercised.

The process of informed choices, therefore, has the potential of clarifying expectations and within the DCS, as much as there is an indication from two women (Anita and Caroline) that women are offered information on rehabilitation services that are available in the correctional centre, not much emphasis is put on providing comprehensive information about the available choices or the scope of these choices. As a result of this, the narrative of: it’s like they are not doing what we are supposed to be getting in their house which is this DCS by Anita also

indicates how women may feel that the DCS is not meeting their needs, which sometimes speaks to limited communication about the choices available for women classified as maximum security offenders.

In light of the above, my argument is that the narrative of choices in rehabilitation represents an underlying narrative of a system that delegates responsibility to the offender in the absence of mechanisms that facilitate an informed choice process. In a penal system infused with power dynamics inherent in the culture of the correctional system, exercising freedom of choice may not always be possible for offenders, as indicated by one of the women (Anger management you, you have to attend it when you have done a violent crime like it’s a must it’s not that it’s your choice that you attend it but it’s a must for you to do it-Gabisile). The choice narrative in a penal system rehabilitation seems to be about making a choice between two alternatives, which is either choosing rehabilitation or not. Within that choice, there are limits in terms of the

programmes that the women classified as maximum offenders get into, should they choose rehabilitation. This does not make sense, especially when understanding the strategic direction of

181

the correctional system that places rehabilitation at the centre of all activities (White Paper on Corrections, 2005: p9).

There is an expectation from all levels of society that people who offend are incarcerated to be rehabilitated. Yet they are given a choice to either engage or not engage in rehabilitation. One then questions the use of having rehabilitation as a specified goal if there are still people who may not engage in the rehabilitation process, which also raises the question of who benefits from the rehabilitation of offenders at the end of the day? My contention is that it is society, correctional services and families as well as the offender who benefit from rehabilitation. Without rehabilitation, the societal harmony and balance continues to be impacted negatively whether or not offenders are reintegrated as offenders interact with community members through visits. One of the women indicated that engagement in rehabilitation and observed change in them by their children instils a sense of hope that one may positively influence their children while incarcerated, as indicated by Ruby that if you doing something better…then you also sending a message to your kids because they will say okay at least mommy is studying. The choice narrative inside the penal system indicates a delegation of responsibility for rehabilitation largely onto the shoulders of the offender, which then results in an individualised rather than a collective approach to the rehabilitation of offenders, which in turn undermines the effective implementation of the narrative of “corrections as a societal responsibility” (White Paper on Corrections, 2005).