Speaker 1: Well, there's something that has really got a conversation going
Speaker 1: is comments made by Correctional Services Minister Peter Khrunivoltz, who
Speaker 1: raised the question of reinstating corporal punishment as part of
Speaker 1: the criminal justice system. This was removed from the law
Speaker 1: books or whatever was required. Yes, it was outlawed in
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety six, I think by an act of Parliament.
Speaker 1: The wider context of the conversation, though, is the overcrowding
Speaker 1: of South African prisons and in his view, and he
Speaker 1: backs it up with statistics, the minister is saying a
Speaker 1: lot of the people who are taking up space in
Speaker 1: prisons are awaiting trial, and they're they're because they are
Speaker 1: extremely poor and can't afford even small amounts of bail.
Speaker 1: But the wider debate is, of course, on the one hand,
Speaker 1: about the suggestion that corporal punishment might be a way
Speaker 1: of dealing with this, give people lashes and off they go,
Speaker 1: or the wider questions of why the prisons are so
Speaker 1: full in the first place, Why is the awaiting trial
Speaker 1: system as blocked up as it should be. Let's get
Speaker 1: some expert insight into this and welcome to the show.
Speaker 1: So Hella Surajpal who's a legal researcher at the Judicial
Speaker 1: Inspectorate for Correctional Services. And that Inspector, of course, is
Speaker 1: an official body and goes around looking at prisons and
Speaker 1: the conditions behind bars. So HeLa surraj PL welcome and
Speaker 1: thanks very much for giving us your time. I mean,
Speaker 1: if this is not a solution to overcrowding, and in
Speaker 1: particular the large numbers of people who are taking up
Speaker 1: space in prisons who are actually a waiting trial and
Speaker 1: have not been convicted, if this is not the solution,
Speaker 1: and I suspect you would argue it isn't. What do
Speaker 1: you think are the priorities instead? Good afternoon to you.
Speaker 2: Thanks so much for having me, and to you and
Speaker 2: your listeners as well. I want to start by saying
Speaker 2: that at CHICKS we absolutely agree with Minister for an
Speaker 2: Avult that overclouding is at unacceptable levels in our country,
Speaker 2: that it has devastating impacts on conditions of detention, on
Speaker 2: the safety of inmates and on officials, and that something
Speaker 2: needs to be done. And we also agree with him
Speaker 2: that it's largely driven by an increase in people awaiting
Speaker 2: trial and that we need alternatives to prison time to
Speaker 2: prison sentences, as you predicted, disagree that corporal punishment is
Speaker 2: an appropriate solution, and it's not just us who disagree.
Speaker 2: The question has been resolved, as you say, by an
Speaker 2: Act of Parliament, but also by a decision of the
Speaker 2: Constitutional Court in nineteen ninety five when they were considering
Speaker 2: specifically the question of corporal punishment against juvenile offenders, because
Speaker 2: at that time the state had already agreed that it
Speaker 2: would be unconstitutional or to punish adult offenders in this way.
Speaker 2: And they disagree because they said that corporal punishment violates
Speaker 2: a person's inherent human dignity, it's cruel, it's degrading, it's inhumane,
Speaker 2: and that our new democratic society should administer punishment that
Speaker 2: is in compliance with our constitutional values, and a state
Speaker 2: that meeters out violence against its own people is not
Speaker 2: in compliance with those values. But your question is a
Speaker 2: good one. Then what's the alternative if we agree that
Speaker 2: prison isn't appropriate, but that corporal punishment also isn't. And
Speaker 2: the truth is that there are lots of alternatives that
Speaker 2: already exist in our law. There is a community service,
Speaker 2: there is house arrest, there's probation, which means that you
Speaker 2: are in a community you can still work, you can
Speaker 2: still be with your family, but there are certain restrictions
Speaker 2: on what you can do. Where you can go, You
Speaker 2: have to report to a community corrections officer regularly. There's
Speaker 2: also restorative justice mechanisms where the focus is not on
Speaker 2: punishing you by sentencing you to prison, but on allowing
Speaker 2: you to make amends to the person who you can't.
Speaker 2: So that might mean if you've stolen bread, which is
Speaker 2: the example that Minister for in Avold use, we would
Speaker 2: figure out how you could pay back the damage that
Speaker 2: you've done to that shopkeeper, for example, or you would
Speaker 2: have a mediation process with the person that you've maybe
Speaker 2: gotten into a fight with at this tavern. So there
Speaker 2: are these alternatives that exist in our law. We call
Speaker 2: them non custodial options, but we neglect them because we
Speaker 2: over rely on prison sentences even for people who might
Speaker 2: be acting out of desperation, might be committing petty or
Speaker 2: trivial crimes, and we think those alternatives are what we
Speaker 2: really need to be focusing on.
Speaker 1: Thanks very much, lots of food for thoughts. So HeLa
Speaker 1: Suraj Kul is a legal research at the Judicial Inspectorate
Speaker 1: for Correctional Services