Upload
samantha-quinn
View
223
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Official figures
Implications for classification & rehabilitation
Engendering correctional centres?
Deputy Minister Ms Hlengiwe Mkhize, raised issues related to slow pace of development of gender-sensitivity within correctional centres
“Mismatch between what is said in public and what is practiced privately”.
Beyond traditional discourses
Feminist-sociological, Foucauldian discourse analysis & subaltern approaches.
Classification of offenders is not an objective, value-free practise
Detached from power dynamics that are at play in the larger society
I want to understand the classification of women from their voices “subaltern approach”
Unpack the subjectivities surrounding their rehabilitative needs
Management of order among inmates “perceived dangerousness”
Privileges = security placement
Monitor – offenders behaviour
Similar risks and needs for corrective intervention.
What is being classified? And How?
Who or what is being excluded by this classification?
What are the criteria for inclusion in the classification? On what basis are some objects excluded?
What person or group of persons constructed this classification? Who accepts or uses it?
Who is authorized now to employ or modify this classification?
What is the source of authority of the person/s who developed the classification or of those who now use it?
Does any person or group challenge the validity or criticize the effects of this classification? Why?
How was its object regarded before it was classified this way?
How do women classified as offenders, reclassify themselves?
How dangerous is a female inmate? The more dangerous an inmate, the easier it is to classify a person
The focus is on how to punish; and not ‘why to punish
The social construction of female deviance The ungendered legal process – police, court &
sentencing decisions Reduced levels of humanity Psychological needs – targeted
Identify the object of a classification or reclassification tool
Identify what the classification excludes
Identify the human subjects who devise and use the classification system
Locate the classification system in time & space
Gendered pathways to incarceration ◦ Contrasting case histories ◦ Racialised women – illegal work shoplifters, e.g
“ukuphanda” “sihleli” – feminine and masculine roles
◦ Drug related offending◦ Childhood abuse = incest – collude with the
abuser – telling lies◦ Indirect victims – ‘mother to my mother, sisters &
brothers
Significant relationships – drug addicted partners, abusive spouses
Resistance to violence – criminalisation
Children
Agency – sex workers ‘robbing and conning clients
Fighting past injustices
The average correctional centre regarding classification and rehabilitative programming or corrective intervention for women has not changed.
◦ Obsolete programs (anger management, religious pogramming, laundry – earn R10-00 per load; hairstyling)
◦ The gap between inside and outside would be greater than ever
◦ Overcentralisation and unique centrs (very few in each province)
◦ Excessive security, which added to prisons’ centrality and uniqueness would make for the gradual loss of family and other relations
◦ Patterned on men’s prisons, alien to women’s needs.
Correctional centres = warehouse-prison = not the prison which deters, rehabilitates or punishes, but rather that which neutralizes.
Postponement of women’s offending = shoplifters = distribution of offenders
“the main justification for classification of offenders is the notion for criminal contamination or contangion (Foucault, 1979a)
There seems to be common sense understanding that criminality is catching and that perhaps it matters more when you catch it (Goldinglay, 2009).