ABSTRACT
The study was designed to establish whether
declining prison facilities interfered with the rehabilitation of offenders in
Ikoyi prison, Lagos State, Nigeria. An approach drawing from both quantitative
and qualitative methodologies was adopted. A cross-sectional survey and
in-depth interview of prisoners enabled the exploration of specific objectives formulated around the purpose of the study,
which included the need to know how ‘needs assessment and classification of
offenders correlated with their progress in the rehabilitation process’, and
‘the effect of improved prison industry on the creation of jobs opportunities
for the interned offenders’. A probability sampling technique was adopted for the study. Thus,
simple random sampling method was used to select a sample size of 183
inmate-respondents from a total of 1,835 inmate population in Ikoyi prison.
Also, non-probability sampling technique was adopted in the study to select ten
(10) prison personnel, and ten (10) inmates, using quota sampling method. In
total, 20 respondents were selected for the in-depth interview. Quantitative and qualitative data generated during the study were
analysed using frequency distribution tables and simple percentage, and content analysis. The study found no positive
correlation between needs assessment and classification of offenders and their
progress in rehabilitation process, inmates who participated in vocational
education and training were less likely to reoffend, inmates tortured by prison
officers were more likely to be driven toward collective behaviour, improved
prison industry would create job opportunities for inmates. The study concluded that there was a
constant increase in the prevalence of recidivism; especially among male
inmates and that most crimes¸ patterns of relationships and behavioural
predispositions were offender specific. Recommendations were made.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS Pages
TITLE PAGE......................................................................................... i
CERTIFICATION.................................................................................. i
DEDICATION.......................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................... iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................... v
LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................... vii
ABSTRACT................................................................................................ viii
CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY.......................... 1
1.1 Introduction......................................................................................... 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem.................................................................. 14
1.3 Objectives of the Study..................................................................... 18
1.4 Research Questions............................................................................ 19
1.5 Significance of the Study.................................................................. 19
1.6 Scope of the Study……..................................................................... 20
1.7 Conceptual Clarification............................................................................ 20
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................... 23
2.1 Introduction......................................................................................... 23
2.2 The Inner Social Organization of the Prison....................................... 23
2.3 The Effect of Prison Programmes On
Recidivism.............................. 29
2.4 Offender Assessment and Classification .......................................... 30
2.5 Offender
Rehabilitation.................................................................... 34
2.6 The Effect of Rehabilitation on Offender
Behaviour......................... 40
2.7 The
Effect of Prison-Based Education and Work Programmes on Offender
Behaviour…………………………………………………….... 41
2.8 The Effect of Prison-Based Education on
Offenders and Benefits to Society51
29 Summary and Conclusion of Literature
Review………………………. 53
CHAPTER THREE: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
3.1 Introduction................................................................................................... 55
3.2 Conceptual
Framework………..................................................................... 57
3.3 Research Hypotheses..................................................................................... 58
CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH METHODS..................................................... 60
4.1 Introduction.................................................................................................... 60
4.2 Research Design.............................................................................................. 60
4.3 Study Area……………………………………………………………… 60
4.4 Population and Sample
Frame....................................................................... 61
4.5 Sample Size and Sampling
Technique....................................................... 61
4.6 Research Instruments………………………………………………..… 62
4.7 Method of Data Analysis.............................................................................. 63
4.8 Problems Encountered................................................................................. 63
4.9 Ethical Issues in Social
Research................................................................... 64
CHAPTER FIVE: DATA ANALYSIS............................................................. 65
5.1
Introduction................................................................................................... 65
5.2 Data Processing………………………………………………………....... 65
5.3 Data Presentation, Analysis and
Interpretation............................................... 66
5.4 Test of Hypotheses......................................................................................... 78
CHAPTER SIX: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION
AND RECOMMENDATIONS 86
6.1 Introduction………………………………………………………… 86
6.2 Discussion of Findings………………………………………………… 87
6.3 Summary and
Conclusion............................................................................. 93
6.4 Recommendation…………………….......................................................... 94
REFERENCES....................................................................................................... 96
APPENDICES........................................................................................................ 111
LIST OF TABLES
Title Pages
Table5.3.1 Distribution of Respondents on
Socio-Demographic Variables......... 66
Table 5.3.2 Distribution
of Respondents on prison sentence………..................... 67
Table 5.3.3 Distribution
of Respondents on Needs Assessment and classification69
Table 5.3.4 Distribution
of Respondents on Participation in Vocational Education and Training
………………..............................................................71
Table 5.3.5 Distribution
of Respondents on the Impact of Vocational Education
and Training
Offered while in prison……………………………… 73
Table 5.3.6 Distribution of Respondents on Life inside Prison Table 5.2.3:.......................................................................................... 74
Table 5.3.7 Distribution of Respondents on relationship with Prison
Officers............... 76
Table 5.3.8 Distribution of Respondents on Improved Prison Industry and
Creation of Employment Opportunities for inmates........................................ 77
Table 5.4.1 Cross Tabulation of Specific Assessments Undergone at Induction
and
Change in Attitude and Behaviour of
offenders.............................. 79
Table 5.4.2 Cross Tabulation of Importance of Skills Acquisition and Basic
Education to Inmate Life and Would Still
go ahead to commit an
Offence after undertaking a training in
Prison.................................. 81
Table 5.4.3 Cross Tabulation of Prison Officers push Inmates Around and
Prison
Officers have been Unfair to Inmates.............................................82
Table 5.4.4 Cross Tabulation of Rehabilitative Facilities in the Prison
Industry
are Functional and There are Inmates Employed
in the Prison Industry..........................................................................................84
CHAPTER
ONE
BACKGROUND
OF THE STUDY
1.0
INTRODUCTION
Since the inception of the modern
criminal justice system, a persistent response to the question of what to do
with offenders has been to rehabilitate them in the mainstream of social life (Paranjape, 2011: 463). Prisons are usually structured to identify the peculiar problems of
each inmate and device means of guiding him or her out of the problem. Although prisons are considered as the most widely used institutions
of correctional administration but their role has been a subject of severe
criticism and scrutiny from the point of view of rehabilitation of prisoners
(or offenders) (Ugwuoke, 2010 and Paranjape, 2011). An observation of the population that goes in
and out of the prisons shows that there are some problems in the system; hence,
the prison system has not been able to achieve the ultimate goal of
rehabilitation.
More than half of a century ago, Gresham Sykes wrote that
“life in the maximum security prison is depriving or frustrating in the extreme”
(Sykes, 1958:63), and little has changed to alter that view. Indeed, sykes’s
observation is perhaps more meaningful now than he first made it, because prison
facilities in many parts of the world are in poor condition (Cavadini and
Dignan 2002; 2006; 2007/13). The disrepair is such that even in European
countries, where prisons are generally considered good, prisoners are
‘simmering on the point of riot or rebellion’ (Cavadino and Dignan 2006: 43).
The discontent is not only with their fellow inmates, but also with prison
staff, who are often demoralized, disaffected and restless (Cavadino and Dignan
2006). A prison is not expected to be exactly a bed of
roses (as the inmates are there for penal purposes), neither is it supposed to
be a bed of thorns and thistles meant to snuff life out of the occupants. Edwin James wrote that “prison
experience for the inmates in the main consists of enforced idleness and an
obligation to conform to behaviour which primarily is aimed at maintaining the
smooth operation of the institution and less about assisting offenders with
their problems, or helping them to desist from crime (James, 2006: 19-27). This
may have prompted scholars such as Edgar et al. (2011: 3) to argue that “prisons
conspire to create model inmates rather than model citizens”.
Whilst Prison facilities in Africa are moving toward
behaviour change approaches for inmate rehabilitation in the same way as their
European counterpart, the degree of success in their implementation is however
inadequate (Tenibiaje, 2010 and Ijaiya, 2009). Although prisons are supposed to
be places for transformation and rehabilitation, scholars have adjudged
Nigerian prisons a school of crime (Obioha, 1995; Adetula et al., 2010; Tanimu,
2010; Tenibiaje, 2010). Dambazau (2007: 210) has proposed that inmates left
unoccupied with positive and constructive activities are likely to engage in
vices, such as sale and use of drugs. Despite the fact that approximately half
of inmates go on to re-offend when released from prison (Prison Reform Trust,
2011: 26) as a growing body of evidence has suggested (Soyombo, 2009; Wilson,
2009; Ministry of Justice, 2010; National Bureau of Statistics, 2010 and
Abrifor et al. 2010), much of what is done within prisons is not based on sound
evidence but, rather, on custom, bureaucratic convenience, and political
ideology (James 2006; Lipsey and Cullen, 2007: 3).
The recurring relationship between imprisonment, release
and recidivism has ensured that policy makers have given this subject
considerable attention over the past two decades in particular. “[N]early three
in five prisoners are re-convicted within two years of leaving prison” (Rt.
Hon. Tony Blair MP, ‘foreword’ to McEvoy, 2008: 4). Of the offenders
released in 2004 in Britain, 58% were convicted of another crime within two
years (Home Office 2007: 1). In 2009, 90% of the adults receiving a custodial sentence in the United
Kingdom had previously been convicted on at least one prior occasion. According
to the Ministry of Justice’s November 2010 Compendium of Reoffending
Statistics, 20% of the offenders who were discharged from custody between
January and March 2000 had been reconvicted within three months (Ministry of
Justice, 2010). This figure rose to 43% after a year, 55% after 2 years and 68%
after 5 years. By 2009, 74% of the initial cohort had been reconvicted
(Ministry of Justice, 2010).
An assessment carried
out in 2010 by the Director of National Intelligence on former Guantanamo Bay
detainees indicated that an estimated 20% of them had re-engaged in criminal
activities (Director of National Intelligence, 2010).
Soyombo (2009) reported that the rate of occurrence of
criminal recidivism in Nigeria in 2005 was 37.3%. Also, Abrifor et al. (2010)
estimated the prevalence of recidivism in Nigerian prisons at 52.4% in 2010.
Since then, there has not been any indication that the trend has declined. A
report on trend and pattern of recidivism shows that 81% of male criminal
inmate offenders and 45% of female criminal inmate offenders were re-arrested
within 36 months of discharge/release from the prison custody (Wilson, 2009 and
Abrifor et al., 2010).
The figures are even more startling when one considers
that young male offender within the age groups of 18 to 20 years in England and
Wales were reconvicted at a rate of 64% over the same period (Home Office,
2007: 6). While the reconviction rates in Northern Ireland are only slightly
lower for adults (46% within two years), the figure for young offenders (74%
within two years) underlines the deeply rooted nature of the problem of
recidivism (NIPS/NIPB Resettlement Strategy, 2003: 5, cited in McEvoy, 2008:
4).
A study on the offender’ educational experience and
learning needs showed that in the prison population, a lack of basic skills is
common: 48% of prisoners have a reading age at or below the level of an 11 year
old (this increases to 65% for numeracy and 82% for writing skills), half of
all prisoners do not have the skills required by 96% of jobs and only 1 in 5
can complete an application form (Prison Reform Trust, 2009). In 2005, the
Department for Education and Skills reported that 52% of male prisoners and 71%
of female prisoners had no qualifications at all (Department for Education and
Skills, 2005). The lack of qualifications and difficulties with communication
are parts of the explanation of high levels of offender unemployment – 13 times
higher for offenders than in the general population. Furthermore, studies have
reiterated that the majority of prisoners worldwide come from economically and
socially disadvantaged backgrounds. Poverty, unemployment, lack of housing,
broken families, histories of psychological problems and mental illness, drug
and alcohol abuse, domestic violence are realities that are likely to be found
in most offenders’ lives (Belenko, 2002; James and Kenneth, 2004; Zhang, 2004;
United Nations, 2006; Przybylski, 2008; Reichert, 2010; Chaturvedi, 2006, cited
in Paranjape, 2011, and Pettit, 2012). According to Hawley et al. (2013: 5),
among the 640,000 prison population in the E.U., there are a significant
proportion of low-skilled Europeans. “Even though there are no exact data on
the qualification levels of prisoners, it has been estimated that only three to
five per cent (3 to 5%) of them would be qualified to undertake higher
education, and in many countries there is a high instance of early school
leaving among prisoners” (Hawley et al., 2013).
Tanimu (2010) has found that a typical convict in
Nigerian Prison is a semi-literate male in the prime of his youth (18-29
years). He is most likely convicted for committing property-related crime.
Occupationally, he is either unemployed or self-employed in the lowest
occupational ladder.
The reasons given for re-offending are many, but as
suggested in the following quote, vocational education, training and employment
are internationally identified as pathways out of the recidivistic life of
crime: “While many factors contribute to re-offending, offenders and
ex-offenders tend to have skills levels well below those of the general
population, and are much more likely to be unemployed” (Department for
Education and Skills, 2005: 6), yet sustained employment is a key to leading a
crime-free life. Low levels of qualifications have important negative effects
on prisoners' employment prospects upon release, which has been found to be one
of the key factors influencing whether or not ex-convicts re-offend. Thus, the
provision of basic skills education, and particularly, vocational training, in
prisons has an important role to play in the reintegration process of
prisoners. However, as noted by the European prison rules, it is important to
provide educational opportunities, which meet the needs of individual
prisoners. This includes providing education and training also for those who
have higher prior educational attainment (Hawley et al., 2013).
Maxfield and Babbie (2008: 122) define recidivism as the
re-occurrence of criminal behaviour. According to Scott and Marshall (2005:
552), recidivism is the conviction of crime on more than one occasion; thus, a
recidivist is a person who re-offends (Scott and Marshall, 2005: 552). According
to Maxfield and Babbie (2008), the rate of recidivism should be calculated by
counting the number of prison release or by counting the numbers of offenders
placed under community supervision who are re-incarcerated for technical
violation or new offence within a uniform period of at-risk street time.
According to Scott and Marshall (2005: 552), recidivism is measured in relation
to the type of last sentence or last offence, as percentages re-offending, or
re-convicted.
THE HISTORICAL
BACKGROUND OF PRISON
Historians have documented the existence of prisons in
ancient Greece and Rome. For example, the Mamertine Prison, constructed in Rome
in the 7th century B.C., consisted of a vast network of dungeons under the
city’s main sewer (Champion, 2009). These subterranean cells held political
dissidents and criminals for short periods of time in cramped, miserable
conditions. However, the practice of confining wrongdoers for long periods as a
form of punishment was not widespread until after the 15th century (Champion,
2009).
With the march of time and advancement of knowledge and
civilization, the conditions of prisons also improved considerably. Since the
present day penology centres round imprisonment as a measure of rehabilitation
of offenders, the prisons are no longer mere detention houses for the offenders
but they seek to reform inmates for their future life. The modern techniques of
punishment lay greater emphasis on reformation, correction and rehabilitation
of offenders (paranjape, 2011: 418). The modern prison system in Nigeria is
essentially based on the British prison model which in itself is an outcome of
prison development in America during the late eighteenth century.
THE ORIGIN OF
PRISONS IN NIGERIA
The origin of modern prisons service in Nigeria is traceable
to 1861 (Nigerian Prisons Service, 2013). The progressive incursion of the
British into the hinterland and the establishment of British protectorate
toward the end of the nineteenth century necessitated the establishment of the
prisons as the last link in the Criminal Justice System (Elias, 1967). Prisons
modelled on the one first established in Lagos in 1872 spread across the
country in line with the gradual expansion of the colonial jurisdiction and in
1876, the prison ordinances came into force (PTS Kaduna, 1991). Thus, in 1910,
there already were prisons in Degema, Calabar, Onitsha, Benin, Ibadan, Sapele,
Jebba and Lokoja (Orakwe, 2014). In 1920, a Commission was set up to report on
prison conditions and in 1932; a borstal was established in Enugu (Egu, 1990;
PTS Kaduna, 1991: 14). The prisoners were in the main used for public works and
other jobs for the colonial administration (Arthur, 1991). According to Orakwe
(2014), it was not until 1934 that any meaningful attempt was made to introduce
relative modernization into prison service. It was at this time that Colonel V.
L. Mabb was appointed Director of Prisons by the then Governor, Sir Donald
Cameron (Orakwe, 2014).
NIGERIAN PRISONS
TODAY
The abolition of Native Authority Prisons on the 1st of
April, 1968 and the subsequent unification of the Prisons Service in Nigeria
therefore marked the beginning of the Nigerian Prisons Service. In 1971, the
government white paper on the reorganization of the prison was released. The establishment
and growth of the prison is backed by various statutes, amongst which was the
Prison Act No. 9 of 1972 (Nigerian Prisons Service, 1979; Orakwe, 2014), which
was reviewed in 1990 and is currently under review. The Act, which is known as
CAP 366, Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1990, defines itself as ‘an
act to make comprehensive provisions for the administration of prisons in
Nigeria and other matters ancillary thereto’ (Nigerian Prisons Service, 1990:
1). The prison is charged, inter alia, with the responsibility of taking
custody of those legally detained, identifying causes of their behaviour and
retraining them to become useful citizens in the society (Federal Government of
Nigeria, 1990: 3-5; Orakwe, 2014). From the foregoing, it seems clear that
though the Decree makes secure custody the first role of the prisons, it also
makes it explicit that reform and rehabilitation are the ultimate aims of the
Prison Service.
Today, there are 235 prisons across the 36 states and
Federal Capital Territory (FCT) with a total capacity of 47,284. The inmate
population has gradually grown from 43,312 to about 54,144 (male 53,069, female
1,075), with approximately 25,000 personnel
(http://www.prisons.gov.ng/about/history.php). The Prisons Service now has a
command structure that boasts of 8 zonal commands, 36 states commands, 1 FCT
command, 144 prisons including farm centres and 83 satellite prisons. It also
has four training schools, one Staff College and 2 Borstal Institutions
(Orakwe, 2014).
The above history, though clearly partial, is important
to consider as: “[T]he correspondence between the ideal models of state
institutions and their actual operation is complicated by the very process
through which they come into being” (Aguirre, 2005: 11). We should not forget
however that state institutions do not come into being once and for all; they
are always in a process of coming into being. It is this fact that makes it
imperative to focus analysis on ‘their actual operation’, their practices as
well as their purported values or penal philosophies.
Whilst educational provision for offenders usually has the primary aim
of reducing reoffending, the association between a lack of basic skills and
offending is, as we have seen, not readily demonstrated (Harper and Chitty,
2005). Education does however have much further reaching benefits that may have
more indirect, but no less significant impacts. Oreh (2006) rightly observed
that education in prison is necessary because its provision will make the
prisons become places of continuous and informal learning rather than ‘schools
of crime’. Although there is very little research in Nigeria on prisons
education (for example, Yakubu, 2002; Mango, 2006; Oreh, 2006; Evawoma-Enuku,
2006), inter-state research and international meta-analyses demonstrate the
significant contribution that education and employment make to the reduction in
reoffending rates. According to the Nigerian Prison Service Manual (2011), the
realization of the object of rehabilitation of convicted offenders is to be
done through a complicated set of mechanisms consisting among others:
conscientiousness, group work, case work session, recreational activities,
religious services and adult and remedial education programmes, educational
development project, skills acquisition programme, mid-range industrial
production, agricultural service and after-care service programme. The prison’s
services providers should not only identify the causes of the prisons’ inmates
anti-social behaviour but also endeavours to set them on the road to reform
through induced self-rediscovery and eventual change for the better.
According to Federal Government of Nigeria (1989), some of the specific
objectives of rehabilitative services in Nigerian prisons are to: ensure effective
management of crisis situation of the prison inmates; an appropriate training
for the prison inmates in order to reduce dependency; and promote the provision
of adequate and accessible recreational and sporting facilities for the prison
inmates. Rehabilitation services in Nigerian prisons therefore, should be aimed
at increasing the educational and vocational skills of inmates, and their
chances of success upon release. In order to accomplish these goals, prison
inmates are encouraged to participate in rehabilitative programmes made
available to them while in prison. This is crucial for prison inmates
especially because many of them entered the prisons more socially, economically
and educationally disadvantaged (Chaturvedi, 2006; Paranjape 2011; Pettit,
2012). The key to success in a free society for many of these socially,
economically and educationally disadvantaged prison inmates is rehabilitation.
There is no better way to help prison inmates re-enter the larger society
successfully and break the in-and-out of jail cycle than to provide them with
skills that they need to succeed on the outside world. Schuller
(2009) describes how offenders often lack human, social and identity capital,
and that engaging them in education can help on all three of these levels
beyond increasing their ability to acquire qualifications (human capital).
Clark and Dugdale (2008) assert that learning and skills might contribute
something even more fundamental than reducing re-offending. Improving literacy
skills might have the “potential for restoring to society those people who are
excluded from full citizenship because they have yet to attain functional
literacy. In short, reading interventions for offenders are justified not by
reference to human wrongs but by reference to human rights” (Rice and Brooks,
2004: 2). Brooks similarly writes “Western governments
… place less emphasis, but should place more, on the need for good basic skills
as a human right so that everyone can fulfil their potential and therefore take
a full role as private individuals, citizens, family members and employees –
and probably earn more” (Brooks, 2010: 191). Enhanced personal development
should be the central goal of learning (Schuller, 2009); and being individually
empowering (Reuss, 1999); learning can have very positive effects on mental
health (Field, 2009). Furthermore, offenders could benefit from acquiring the
ability to better manage their own health needs (substance abuse, mental
health) including learning to use health services to good effect (Schuller
2009). Research on offender perceptions, although limited, has highlighted some
of the potential wider positive impacts of basic skills learning programmes,
such as gains in self-esteem, self-confidence and motivation; having access to
computers; and receiving encouragement for their progress (Adult Learning
Inspectorate, 2004). Educational achievement,
then, can have more than just direct, instrumental benefits. Arts based courses
may have a distinct and important contribution to make, not least through links
made with charities and voluntary organisations. Research into the impact of
music based programmes for offenders in prisons found clear benefits and
improvements in engagement with education more widely, interpersonal skills,
improvements in social skills and relationships with prison staff and a
decrease in aggressive behaviours. Some of the important features identified by
offenders and staff which were seen to contribute to these benefits were
participation in shaping the learning experiences, negotiating with others and
sharing achievement through performance (Wilson et al., 2009).
With this in mind the researcher has sought to
understand, through this inquiry, how the known risks of re-offending could be
reduced and re-integration improved. An important contextual factor in the
current delivery of rehabilitative programmes and services is that of
inadequate rehabilitative facilities. This factor has resulted in a significant
increase in the prisoner re-offending in recent years. Individual offenders who
serve their whole time – some people do not even get a parole term – are simply
released from prison without any assistance whatsoever (Narelle, 2010). A major
consequence of inadequate rehabilitative facilities is diminished accessibility
to prison programmes and services.
Despite calls for more comparative studies on penal institutions and
inmates, the dominant axis of comparison remains the Anglo-American. Developing
countries are arguably systematically excluded from comparative studies (King
and Maguire, 1994; Weiss and South, 1998). While
criminologists and practitioners have been active in the field of penal reform
in developing countries, their reports remain limited to description and
criticism with little by way of explanation or analysis. The tone of voice
emanating from prisons in Africa notes that prisons are overcrowded, conditions
are appalling, health is threatened, justice is slow, two-thirds of prisoners
are waiting trial/not convicted, violence is the norm, and human rights are
routinely violated (Aiyedogbo, 1988; Omorotionwman, 2005;
Wines, 2005; Agomoh and Ogbozor, 2006; Sarkin, 2008; Amnesty
International, 2008; Tenibiaje, 2010; Davidson and Chiemele, 2012). These
voices, however, fail, of course, to tell us much about causes, dynamics or
processes. Thus, this study takes as its starting point the need to account for
prisons as institutions established to help inmates to get over their social
handicaps and to remove the stigma that darkens their present and future life
through rehabilitation. It is now widely acknowledged that rehabilitation
schemes in prisons have been neglected by researchers seeking to study prisons
despite repeated statements of their importance (Hawkins, 1976: 85; Thomas,
1978: 58–62; Liebling and Price, 2001: 4). Most studies of the prisons have
been concerned with the sociological analysis of the prison as a social system
and have examined the social structure, role and normative system, and value
orientation of inmates (Goffman, 1961; McCorkle and Korn, 1954; Clemmer, 1958;
Schraq, 1954; Civil Liberty Organization, 1995). These studies have developed
propositions concerning the effect of prisons on both the institutional and
post institutional behaviours of inmates. A number of studies (for example,
Obioha, 1995; Adetula et al., 2010; Tenibiaje, 2010; Tanimu, 2010) have,
hitherto, shown that contact with the prison institution in Nigeria makes the
less hardened individuals to be more hardened in criminal activities upon
release, with more tendencies than not, to relapse to criminal activities,
which generates high frequency of recidivism.
This study is justified because prison inmates are
members of the larger society whose movement are restricted. The prison aside
serving as custody for convicted people doubles as a rehabilitative centre.
Functional prison facilities, no doubt play a vital role in the rehabilitation
process. This study, therefore, becomes imperative, in that its findings will
reflect the kind of attention the prison system in Nigeria receives from the
public and policy makers. It is assumed the findings will either leave the policy
makers fulfilled or further challenged; and bring about a general awareness for
rehabilitative needs of the interned offenders. Omorotionwman (2005) has
reported that the Nigerian prisons are in sordid state and that the conditions
under which prisoners live are pathetic, and do not meet modern and
international standards for prisons inmates all over the world. Although
rehabilitative policies are necessarily influenced by value, resource,
organizational, and political factors (Rezmovic, 1979), it is suggested that
programmes that seek to reduce criminal involvement should be informed by the
scientific data on what works. The goal should be to develop a clearer
understanding of what should be done to successfully rehabilitate offenders
(Rhine, 1998). Therefore, the question is “To what extent can the prison
rehabilitate inmates?” The answer to this question will hopefully be achieved
by empirically examining the experiences of the inmates.
In the light of the above, the study seeks to explore
what facilities are available in prison and why, how they are accessed or used,
how staff respond to and facilitate rehabilitation of offenders (or inmates),
and how inmates conduct their work within the facilities. This will involve a
critique of inmates’ assessment of facilities in the prison, followed by an
assessment of the inmates’ view of the prison social setting and general
practices. The inmates’ view of the prison’s official attitude towards them and
its implications for the rehabilitation ideals will be examined.
An approach drawing from both quantitative and
qualitative methodologies is adopted. The quantitative component – a survey of
prisoners – will enables an exploration of prisoners’ use (and non-use) of
rehabilitative facilities in prison. The qualitative component – both inmates
and prison guards will be interviewed to generate data on how rehabilitation
scheme is perceived, experiences of inmates, and how the scheme operates in
prisons. Ikoyi prison has a population of 1,835 inmates and it is believed that
recidivists will constitute a substantial portion. Data will be obtained from
the interned offenders in Ikoyi prison, Lagos State, South West of Nigeria.
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The Nigerian prison facilities are undeniably in a
deplorable condition. The Prison Act may have been unable to define the
purposes of imprisonment, silent on the crucial service of rehabilitation, and
archaic in its concept of revenue generation. The resultant structure is
inadequate.
The prisons in Nigeria are currently operating freely,
and individual prison facilities lack a management information system that
monitors cost effectiveness in prison industries (Omoni and Ijeh, 2009). There
is no activity based cost accounting system for prison industries in Nigeria.
This has resulted in a lack of financial transparency and precludes any
possibility of a cost benefit or a cost effectiveness analysis of any given
performance by the industry. Although most of the prisons have facilities that
enable inmates engage in vocational training, the working tools are lacking and
where there are existing trade and skills acquisition centres within the prison
yards, they are either not functioning or unsuitable for some of the inmates
who may prefer other trades and educational learning processes that are not
existing in the prisons rehabilitation curriculum. In some prisons where they
train the detainees on tailoring, there is only one sewing machine to a
population of about 300 detainees. Besides not having tools, there are no instructors
and workshops for training of the detainees (PrisonWatch, 2000). For example,
there are no rehabilitative facilities in existence in Ijebu-Ode prison, except
a cane-making workshop and the equipment in the workshop was provided by the
Catholic Church through its Justice and Peace Department. The tailoring and
wood-carving shops available are not functional (Aminu, 1997: 11). The same
thing applies to facilities such as carpentry, knitting, welding and a host of
others. Lack of adequate funding appears to be the main reason constraining the
Nigeria prison from delivering on its mandate. Consequently, inmates are
economically unproductive, physically idle and emotional disturbed (Dambazua,
2007 and Oshodi, 2010).
Accessibility to
education and training is becoming increasingly constrained because education centres have a limited capacity, and the massive build-up
of prison population has further reduced the availability of education in
prisons (Omoni and Ijeh, 2009). As a result, inmates make use of tree shades
outside their cells and cellblocks as makeshift classrooms. In prisons such as
Shendam, Wase, Lakushi, Agaie, Dekina, Lamingo, MSP Nassarawa, MSP Omu Aran,
Kabba, Ankpa, and Idah in the North Central, there are no educational
facilities (The National Human Rights Commission, 2012).
Needs assessment and classification of offenders, which
are done to ensure offenders experience progress in specific programmes, are
rarely carried out by the prison administration at induction due to lack of
meaningful programmes. Canton et al., (2011) assert that evaluation of risks
(and needs) of offenders should be a component assessed prior to a programme
being implemented. The absence of classification of
inmates has made it possible for low risk offenders to be influenced into
reoffending by the potent anti-social norms of their higher risk peers. This
has encouraged inmates to get on one another’s nerves and friction between
staff and inmates is quick to develop (Omorotionwman, 2005). Linked to this is
the deteriorating ratio of staff to prisoners. This further precludes access to
some programmes as a custodial officer needs to be present for the delivery of
initiatives such as Vocational Education and Training (VET). In their absence
these cannot be provided.
The lack of harmony between prison staff and inmates is
a major factor that comes in the way of prison administration in performing
their rehabilitative function. This accounts for the culture of fragility and
explosive social violence (in the manner of riot) that is re-current and
descriptive of Nigerian prison community over the years. In Kuje Prison, for
example, a riot which occurred on the 28 March, 2007, resulted in the death of
two inmates and left many others injured. Similar circumstances led to at least
two other riots in 2007, one in Kano Central Prison on 31 August, 2007 and the
other in Ibadan’s Agodi Federal Prison on 11 September 2007, resulting in the
death of almost 20 inmates (Davidson and Chiemele, 2012: 1).
The availability of rehabilitative facilities, meaningful programmes and
services may not have formed the priority consideration for the board that is
responsible for the review of prisoners in Nigeria, but they remain a
consideration. As noted by Przybylski (2008), a state
of affairs whereby inmates are not provided an opportunity for self-improvement
constantly warns of danger to social order, because
almost every one of them will eventually return to the community. The result of all this is that inmates come out of prisons harder
and more determined to deal a blow at the society that continues to punish them
so cruelly. The three problems yearly exacerbate one another: little funds,
little reformation, and self-reinforcing spiral of criminality. The result is a
vicious cycle: little rehabilitation of prisoners, recycle of criminals,
increased prison population, higher cost to tax payers, higher budgetary
demands, lesser rehabilitation and higher rate of recidivism (PrisonWatch,
2000: 4). A continuous cycle of crime and punishment, otherwise referred to as
recidivism, is thus instituted. Increased level of insecurity frightens
away foreign investors, and tourists; and by implication, foreign capital
greatly needed for national development is denied the nation. Recidivism contributes to high crime rates which have resulted in
loss of lives and property, thereby threatening public peace, safety of lives
and national cohesion. Also, criminal activities by such recidivists have made
the country unsafe for economic and commercial activities for both local and
foreign investors, sometimes, forcing them to relocate to safer climes. With
such development, the country had lost billions of Naira which would have been
invested in developmental projects that could benefit the Nigerian citizenry. In
recent times, imprisonment is anchored on the ‘3Rs’ – “principle of
Reformation, Rehabilitation and Re-integration”. However, the increase in the rate of recidivism
among prisoners in Nigeria, which has been documented by studies (for example, Wilson, 2009; Soyombo, 2009; Agali, 2004 and Chenube, 2009; Abrifor
et al. 2010; National Bureau of Statistics, 2010: 167) calls to question the effectiveness of the
Nigerian Prisons Service in its reformatory, rehabilitation and re-integrating
function. This was reiterate by the then Controller-General of Prisons that “if
the Nigerian Prisons Service does not process these prison inmates and return
them unreformed to the society, the society will be in for problems” (Ogundipe,
2006), and this is actually the case in contemporary Nigerian society. As a result, crime by former inmates alone accounts for a
substantial share of current and perhaps, future crimes in Nigeria.
Data from the Annual Abstract of the Statistics on
inmates in Nigerian prisons indicate that in 2009 alone, a total of 156,351
prisoners were held as repeat offenders (recidivist) (National Bureau of
Statistics, 2010: 167). Of the 156,351 prisoners held as repeat offenders,
149,187 were male, while 7,164 were female. A breakdown of the figure shows that
1,159 prisoners were convicted for six times (male 1,121 and female 38), 6,457
prisoners were convicted for five times (males 6,340, and female 117), 15764
prisoners were convicted for four times (male 15,366, and female 398), 20,022
prisoners were convicted three times (male 18,797, and female 1225), 25,582
prisoners were convicted twice (male 23,870, and female 1712), and 30,386
prisoners were convicted once (male 29240, and female 1146); with only 56,981
prisoners as first offenders (male
544,53, and female 2,528) (National Bureau of Statistics, 2010: 167).
From this background, peace, safety of lives and
property are threatened thereby affecting the rate of investment in social and
economic growth and developmental processes. Nigeria, as nation-state, deserves
a criminal justice system it can be proud of. Thus, it becomes imperative to
examine the declining facilities in Ikoyi prison, South West of Nigerian and
accompanying challenges on rehabilitation of offenders.
1.3 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
This study is aimed at
investigating how declining prison facilities impede the rehabilitation of
offenders, using Ikoyi prison, in Lagos State, South West of Nigeria, as the
study location. It is believed that the outcome of this inquiry will invoke a
programme of action, which will be adopted to improve funding of prisons and
services, so as to facilitate offender rehabilitation, and catalyze
re-integration when discharged. These will serve additive values to national
security and development. In view of this, the research will be guided by the
following objectives:
1. To find out if there is a correlation
between needs assessment and classification of offenders and their progress in
rehabilitation process.
2. To find out if there is a correlation
between participation of inmates in vocational education and training and
reoffending.
3. To find out if inmates tortured by prison
officers are more likely to be driven toward collective action.
4. To find out if there is a relationship
between improved prison industry and creation of jobs opportunities for
inmates.
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
To achieve the
above-stated objectives, the study will provide answer to the following
research questions:
1. Is there a correlation between needs assessment and classification
of offenders and their progress in the rehabilitation process?
2. Are offenders, who participated in vocational education and training
programmes while in prison, more likely to reoffend, either in prison or after
their release?
3. Are inmates tortured by prison officers more likely to be driven
toward collective action?
4. Is there a relationship between
improved prison industry and creation of jobs opportunities for inmates?
1.5 SIGNIFICANCE
OF THE STUDY
Prisons have always been
a key focus of penologists, criminologists and those interested in human
rights, the rule of law and a host of other matters. Their significance as a
field of enquiry has lately been amplified, partly due to their state of declines
through neglect, rise in inmate population and the problem of rehabilitation of
offenders. Issues in criminal justice and rehabilitation are no longer
pertinent only for the nation-state, but have major global implications for the
international community. In this context, prisons offer a critical field of
research as they concern a state’s most intrusive and extensive power to curb
crime through rehabilitation of institutionalized offenders. Prison research
thus brings into sharp focus the relationship between individuals and a state
and the state itself (Yates and Fording, 2005).
In the time ahead, it
would appear prudent that rehabilitative policy and practice be “evidence
based.” Possessing a great deal of knowledge about the existing research,
policy makers would embrace the view that rehabilitative programmes, which is
informed by the principles of effective intervention, can “work” to reduce
re-offending (or recidivism) and thus, can help foster public safety.
Therefore, it is hoped that the outcome of the study will provide some
direction to policy makers on the type of interventions that will prove more
effective in reducing re-offending. Furthermore, the study will serve as a
reference material for prospective researchers.
1.6 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
This research focuses on
the context in which rehabilitative strategies and prison industry operate and
considers the efficiency and effectiveness of those strategies. In particular,
this research seeks to identify the problems faced as a result of deteriorating
prison facilities; the education profile of prisoners; the power imbalance
between staff and inmates; the current approaches to prisoner rehabilitation
and prison industries in Ikoyi prison. The selected prison (Ikoyi prison) is
located in Lagos State. Apart from being declared a British colony in 1861,
Lagos State served as metropolitan area in the South-Western region of Nigeria.
The prison was actually established during the colonial days; thus making it
one of the oldest in the South-West of Nigeria.
1.7 CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATION
§ Prison Instructor or officer:
uniformed prison employee whose primary job ranges from training, securing to
moving inmates from one location to another.
§ Incarceration or imprisonment: The
bodily confinement of a person in a jail or prison.
§ FCT: Federal Capital Territory.
§ Prison facility: a secure place
where someone is confined as punishment for a crime or while waiting to stand
trial.
§ Prison population: all of the people
who inhabit a prison.
§ Penal: this means ‘of or relating to
punishment’.
§ The penal system: this includes
prisons, but also alternatives to custody, such as systems for bail and
community service orders (where existing) elements such as parole boards,
probationary services and inspectorates, and traditional and informal sanction
systems.
§ Criminogenic: Producing or tending to
produce crime or criminality.
§ Prison: The Prison Act Cap 366 Law
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria defines prison as a place delimited and
declared as such by the law of the nation and created to ensure restraint and
custody of individuals, accused or convicted of violating the criminal law of
the state (Nigerian Prisons Service, 1990).
§ Under-trials or Awaiting Trails:
this is someone who is imprisoned before the start of his or her trial. Because
the prisoner has not been formally tried, he or she is presumed to be innocent
under the principles of many legal systems and, therefore, is entitled to
special benefits and treatment that are not offered to regular prisoners.
§ Inside cell block: prison
construction in which individual cells are stacked back to back in tiers in the
centre of a secure building.
§ Prison industry: an institution that
exists in prison where inmate labour to maintain large, profit-making prison industry
or plantations.
§ Recidivism: is the re-occurrence of
criminal behaviour (Maxfield and Babbie, 2008:122). It may also refer to the committing
of an offence or breaching of a condition of sentence whilst on a community
based sentence. Four measures of recidivism rates are generally used:
re-arrest, reconviction, resentencing, and return with or without a new
offence.
§ A recidivist: is a repeat offender
(i.e. one who re-offends shortly after being released from prison for a
previous offence) (Scott and Marshall, 2005: 552).
§ Rehabilitation: is a crime
prevention strategy rooted in the notion that offenders can change and lead
crime-free lives in the community (Webster, 2004: 115). It involves helping an
inmate return to a normal life by providing training or therapy.
§ Vocational Education and Training:
prison-based highly skilled handcraft that requires knowledge of technical
education and craft training in a trade or skill to be pursued by inmates as a
career after serving prison sentences.
§ Ex-convict: is one who has been
released from confinement after serving his/her sentence in the prison (Omoni
and Ijeh, 2009).
§ Prisoner,
Inmate, or Offender: Section 19 of the Prisons Act Cap 366, Page 29,
Laws of the Federation of Nigeria,
1990 and 2004, defines a prisoner as any person lawfully committed to
custody.
Click “DOWNLOAD NOW” below to get the complete Projects
FOR QUICK HELP CHAT WITH US NOW!
+(234) 0814 780 1594
Login To Comment