FORUM (Spotlight Weekly)

Penal Reform

By Ronald Nash

Imprisonment is problematic. Arguments on punishment or deterrence are as topical in the UK as they are in Nepal.

The punishment element of imprisonment should be the fact that an individual is deprived of his freedom for a prescribed period of time. This is the one restriction on civil liberties, which the state is entitled to make. Prisoners should not then be subjected to further deprivations over and above that restriction.

Severe overcrowding, undernutrition, lack of access to proper medical resources, lack of access to proper legal services, insanitary conditions and torture should not constitute further punishment. But it does in too many places, and it does in Nepal.

Groups such as women and children suffer added difficulties because of their lowly position in society. Scarce resources push these vulnerable sections further down the priority list. In prison these groups find their relative position even more difficult than on the outside world.

There are many people in prison that should not be there at all.

The November conference on Penal Reform in South Asia, held in Kathmandu, noted that up to 75% of the prison population in some regions are pre-trial prisoners. Lack of access to proper legal assistance means many prisoners, who would most probably be acquitted at trial, find themselves incarcerated with no hope of release.

I could go on. There are many issues to be addressed. The task is large. But we have started.

The British Embassy has taken a keen interest in penal reform in Nepal. We have worked closely with PRI and CVICT and I have myself visited several jails to see for myself what the problems are. Later this week I shall visit the jail at Kaski.

I have seen many dedicated individuals working both for the state and in NGOs. I should stress that the human rights problems I have described are not necessarily a sin of commission by the state. They are often the result of lack of resources, direction, information, training and co-ordination that has not enabled conditions in many jails to reach the standards which many of you here today have strived to achieve.

The fact that you have come today shows an intention to produce results and that is encouraging. I believe that this plan of action will provide some direction for all of those with an interest in the issue, to move forward together.

This is not the first such multi-agency approach that the British Embassy has been involved in. We sponsored both the November regional conference on penal reform, and the March follow-up in Kathmandu. We have supported workshops and other projects and I am pleased to announce today that we plan to fund two further projects in this area.

The first will look at the issue of prison officer training.

If prison officers are not given the tools and training to do their job in a humane and professional manner, then it is unsurprising if they do not achieve the standards that we would like to see. A lot can be achieved by raising awareness of human rights and by proper management and allocation of resources.

The second project that we will be funding will look at will be a pilot programme to examine alternatives to imprisonment.

In many countries, imprisonment is seen as the only sentencing option. In some places it may indeed be the only option. But we are learning that far from protecting society, imprisonment can actually harm it by causing such damage to an individual that their chances of becoming a rehabilitated, integrated and functioning member of society are destroyed.

Our long-term aim should be to imprison only those individuals who are genuinely dangerous to society. Alternatives such as community service and mediation can actually turn an individual away from a life of crime and into a contributing member of society.

There are other benefits too.

Community service provides a benefit to the community. Non-custodial approaches involving the victims of crime can help them get over their ordeal. Non-custodial sentences can be cheaper than prison. This saves the state money and reduces overcrowding for those cases where incarceration is the most appropriate sentence.

This makes for a powerful argument where resources are limited.

But many people see those convicted of crime as deserving of whatever treatment they receive, even if it is abusive. This complicates the task of persuading officials and public of the benefits of alternatives to prison.

This is a difficult and exciting area to explore and we look forward to sharing the results of this project with officials and NGOs interested in this discussion in Nepal.