Dear Editor,

IF THERE is one country in the Caribbean that needs a break from the epidemic of crime, it is Guyana. Prisoner rehabilitation, then, must be seen in a larger context than just benefiting the offender. The authorities must understand that they must engage the rehabilitation of prisoners with the safety of the wider community in mind.To view the benefits of a changed criminal as only applying to him or her is to be civilly and communally myopic.

For too long, politicians have shrugged off prisoner rehabilitation because they naively attribute the benefits only to the offender. I read with much angst the recent lament from Justice Cecil Kennard as he expressed the long-established fact that if the findings and recommendations of the last prison CoI had been implemented, the latest tragedy and multiple deaths in the prison would not have happened. I bet that there is not one single solitary soul who would step up and take responsibility for the lack of implementation of those findings, which cost tax payers millions to compile.

What we all know for a fact, however, it that responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of our politicians.

Editor, I am framing this discussion with this summary slant because, at the end of the day, prisoner rehabilitation must first be the work of the government; for they are the custodians of the prisoners. However, what all politicians quickly find out is that, short of a prison riot which sees many dead, there are little or no political benefits to rehabilitating prisoners. A politician gets or loses no votes if he diverts money to the rehabilitation of offenders.

Neither does a politician win or lose any set of constituents if he harps on what he is doing to change the behaviours of the incarcerated.

Prisoner rehabilitation, in actuality, is a political zero sum undertaking.

The notion from the skeptics and cynics is that these guys are virtually irredeemable and money spent to rehabilitate them could be best spent on prevention. Any nominal politician knows of this baseline thinking, so for years on end and with billions spent or research and reports, a politician can get away with the lack of the implementation of common sense, actionable, prison reforms and yet feel no negative political consequence.

President Granger seems to be somewhat an out-of-the-box thinker in this regard. However, his noble humanitarian acts of annually releasing convicted criminals is shrouded in political correctness. For indeed it cost his administration nothing to release prisoners.

In fact, when one looks at the hefty sum it takes to maintain an offender, President Granger might well receive accolades from those financially inclined. So while the President wins the nod for his Godly and civil beneficence, this, however, does not solve the crime or recidivism problems. More has to be done. Actual money needs to be expended, not just on the oft repeated CoIs, surveys and reports, but on practical pre- and post-release rehabilitation programmes.

Under the last administration there was a Superintendent who served as both Chaplain and Re-entry Coordinator for the prison. She was specifically employed for, and tasked with, envisioning and implementing programmes that should have reduced the rate at which the guys returned to prison, and hence reduce the overcrowding. It might be helpful for the powers that be to ascertain from the Superintendent what contributions she has made over the many years she served in that capacity.

Except she was grossly inept or the then government completely nonchalant, there must have been practical suggestions and recommendations that she would have made that would have also reduced the likelihood of that tragic event.

Justice Kennard’s latest observation rings true. It bemoans the failure of the previous administration on the prison front. However, one could well argue that had there not been a massive riot with resultant deaths, it might well have been likely that the atrocities now being addressed would still be the modus operandi of the Guyana Prison Service. In other words, prison life is as such in Guyana that except the government is severely embarrassed, human rights and international best practices get thrown out the window.

This government, in this Golden Jubilee Year, has a similarly golden opportunity to seize the moment. All the stars have been aligned to, once and for all, establish a normal, internationally acceptable prison service. The inmates have spoken; the international community has vowed their support for prison officers’ training; the CoI is moving apace; the Minister of Public Security, VP Ramjattan, is hands-on; and just recently the IDB awarded the Guyana Government a grant of US$15 million, US$2.3 of which is directly for the purposes of prisoner rehabilitation and social integration services.

Through this IDB Citizen Security Strengthening Project (CSSP), there should be established a rehabilitation and reintegration service and delivery training plan. Part of the loan will also be used to address prison overcrowding and alternatives to incarceration. If these are handled correctly, Guyana might well be on its way to no longer being known as a crime-ridden nation.

Guyana’s recidivism rate stands at 75% (meaning that 3 out of every 4 persons in prison were there before). If the money assigned is attributed to the rehabilitation of prisoners, and if those released from prison can be placed in a programme in which they are helped with their criminogenic needs (drug addiction, job training, employment, education, etc), the residents and visitors can rest assured that crime would soon no longer be the order of the day in Guyana.

The ball of prisoner rehabilitation is in the hands of this administration, history will say what they did with it.
PASTOR W. P. JEFFREY
Practical Christianity Ministries