RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.80

OVERCROWDING: CAUSES, CONSEQUENCES AND
REDUCTION STRATEGIESNeil Morgan*

I. INTRODUCTION: ‘DOING MORE WITH LESS’All correctional services face the challenge of ‘doing more with less’. Doing more means that they are
expected not only to ‘house’ prisoners in a safe and secure environment but also to deliver rehabilitative
programmes and to prepare prisoners for release. Importantly, they must also meet the growing
expectations of external accountability agencies including human rights organizations. Doing more with lessreflects the fact that that the number of prisoners is generally increasing at a faster pace than the resourcesthat are allocated to corrections. The current global financial crisis is likely to exacerbate the problem. Theremay well be an increase in some types of crime and a consequential increase in the number of prisoners but
it is unlikely that there will be a commensurate increase in available resources.
It is therefore especially timely for UNAFEI to be examining the topic “Effective countermeasuresagainst overcrowding of correctional facilities”. This paper analyses the causes of overcrowding (including
the question of what statistical data is required to obtain an accurate picture). It then itemizes and discusses
the negative consequences of overcrowding, which extend far beyond questions of ‘bed numbers’ before
concluding with some suggestions about possible legal options to reduce overcrowding.
My second paper will examine some ways in which to ameliorate the negative effects of overcrowding.
First, it notes some of the measures that can be used to manage overcrowded facilities and discusses theimportance of developing and monitoring standards for service delivery. Building out of this, it then outlines
the role that independent accountability agencies, such as human rights agencies, may be able to play. In
this part of the paper I will be discussing, amongst other things, the role of the Office of the Inspector of
Custodial Services in Western Australia and the implications of countries ratifying the Optional Protocol to
the Convention against Torture (OPCAT).

II. OVERCROWDING: UNDERSTANDING THE CAUSES
If we are to have any chance of developing effective countermeasures to overcrowding, we must firstunderstand the precise causes of overcrowding in the particular jurisdiction. Most people assume that prison
populations rise in response to two factors, namely, rising crime rates and/or longer sentences imposed by
the courts. Although these factors are obviously important, the causes of overcrowding are multi-factored
and multi-layered. Good quality statistics are essential if we are to understand the effect of these different
factors.

A. Crime Rates and Imprisonment Rates
One of the most interesting points to emerge during the annual conferences of the Asian and PacificConference of Correctional Administrators (APCCA) is that there is no simple link between crime rates
and imprisonment rates . For example, both Singapore and Japan are ‘low crime’ countries according to
official crime statistics. However, on international scales, Singapore has a high imprisonment rate whereas
Japan has a low imprisonment rate. Some parts of the USA appear to have both a high crime rate and a highimprisonment rate. And some European countries, such as the Netherlands, which have a low imprisonment
rate, are reporting problems with some types of crime. Thus, international comparisons show that all four
permutations are possible: high imprisonment rate/low crime rate; high imprisonment rate/high crime rate;
low imprisonment rate/high crime rate; and low imprisonment rate/low crime rate.
* Inspector of Custodial Services, Western Australia; Winthrop Professor of Law, University of Western Australia.

52

142ND INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

Presentations to APCCA reveal very variable patterns in terms of the extent to which changes in
imprisonment rates reflect changes in crime rates . For example, Japan and Malaysia have attributed theirincreasing rates of imprisonment to increased crime rates (and, in the case of Japan, to more foreign prisoners).
However, in other countries there is no clear link between crime rates and imprisonment rates. In Australia
and New Zealand, recorded crime rates have been relatively constant in recent years but imprisonment rates
have gone up dramatically. This appears to be partly due to an increase in the seriousness of some offences(see below) but is also due to a general ‘tightening up’ on law and order issues.
In Canada, crime rates have been declining but the imprisonment rate has remained constant rather
than declining. In some countries, including Cambodia and Indonesia, the increasing rate of imprisonment
appears to be due to more efficient policing and prosecution practices as well as to a probable increase insome crimes.
Korea, Singapore and Thailand have seen a significant decline in the rate of imprisonment. In Korea, thisseems to reflect changes to prosecution and parole practices not just changes in crime rates. Singapore’s
recent sharp decline does not seem to reflect an equivalent drop in the crime rate; rather, it seems to be
attributable to the development of a number of alternative sentences, a system of home detention, andreduced recidivism rates (see below). Thailand’s reduced rate of imprisonment is due to a large extent to
the increasing use of drug rehabilitation centres rather than prisons; in other words, some of the decline in
imprisonment really involves a displacement to other facilities.

B. Unsentenced Prisoners
Prisoners may be either sentenced or unsentenced. The term ‘unsentenced’ is used here to refer to people
who have been remanded in custody awaiting trial or who are currently on trial. The proportion of sentenced
to unsentenced prisoners varies dramatically between countries. Most countries are between 10% and 30%.
However, the figure is less than 10% in some places (including Brunei and Singapore) and more than 50% inothers (65% in India and 75% in Sri Lanka).
Thus, in some places, there is very limited potential to reduce overcrowding through measures targeted atunsentenced prisoners. In others, however, there is considerable potential for appropriate countermeasures.
However, statistics tend only to refer to the number of unsentenced prisoners. To develop effective countermeasures, we need more detailed data to work out whether the problem is:(i) Inflow: in other word, the number of people being remanded in custody and the reasons for this. For
example, were they refused bail or were they granted bail but unable to meet the conditions set by
the court?
(ii) Duration: in other words, the length of time for which people are held in custody as unsentenced
prisoners; or(iii) Both inflow and duration.
Across Australia, bail laws have been tightened up, leading to problems of both flow and duration but
there also appear to be some differences between different States and Territories. In India, it would appear
that the most pressing problem is duration not flow. India’s annual presentations to APCCA indicate that the
proportion of suspects remanded in custody is relatively low, but that there can be a very long wait for trials
to be finalized.
It is only by undertaking research that identifies the exact nature and extent of the problem that we candevelop appropriate jurisdiction-specific solutions (see below).

C. Pressure Points (Including Female Prisoners)
Overcrowding and pressures on prisoner numbers are not spread neatly and evenly across prison
systems and there tend to be particular pressure points. For example, in many Australian prisons, the least
overcrowded parts are the highest security sections of maximum security prisons and punishment areas.
This is because prisoners are managed, in part, through reduced association with others. In many countries,
the demand for beds for unsentenced prisoners outstrips supply more than with sentenced prisoners.
Another very significant global trend has been the increase in the number of women committing serious

53

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.80

crimes (often drug-related) and therefore in the number female prisoners and their proportion relative tothe number of male prisoners. Most jurisdictions now have between 3% and 7% female inmates (including
Japan, Korea, Australia, Canada, India, Indonesia and New Zealand). However, the figure is higher in a
number of other jurisdictions, including Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Hong Kong and Thailand. Importantly,
in most places, the rate of female imprisonment has risen faster than the male population over the past
decade . This is the case in Canada, China, Japan, Indonesia and Singapore and a number of other countries.
Australia’s figures are particularly dramatic; the number of female prisoners has doubled in the last ten
years and the number of male prisoners has increased by around 50% over the same period. Unfortunately,
women therefore quite often face more significant overcrowding problems than men.

D. Police and Prosecution Practices
The criminal justice process is best seen as a ‘funnel’ or ‘pyramid’ because the courts only deal witha small proportion of the total number of crimes. In other words, there is an ‘attrition rate’ between thenumber of crimes committed and the number sentenced.
This situation comes about in a number of ways. Some crimes are never reported to the police (theso-called ‘dark figure’ of crime). Some crimes are reported to the police but are not ‘cleared up’. And somecrimes are cleared up in that the police find the person they believe to be responsible but, as a result of
the exercise of police or prosecutorial discretion, the case is never taken through the courts. This may, forexample, happen in countries with practices of ‘diversion’ through cautioning, prosecutor’s fines, referrals to‘restorative justice’ processes.
The ‘attrition rate’ varies between crimes and between countries but it is often estimated that the courts
deal, at most, with 10% of some crimes. For example, in countries where such research has been done, it isgenerally found that sexual offences are under-reported (often because the parties are known to each otheror for other reasons). Some estimates put the figure of reported sexual assaults at around 25%. Of these
25 cases, some will not be solved by the police and others will not proceed to trial because the prosecuting
authorities believe the evidence is weak and that there is ‘no reasonable prospect of conviction.’ It is easy tosee how the number of offences that result in conviction may be less than 10%.
The same is true of burglaries. In Australia, the majority of burglaries (probably 90%) are reported to thepolice because victims tend to be insured and a police report is a precondition of making an insurance claim.
Historically, however, only around 15% of burglaries were cleared up by the police. Again, some did not
result in a conviction so that, like sexual offences, the end result was probably that no more than 10% wereconvicted and sentenced.
However, changes in police and prosecution practices and advances in policing techniques can lead to anincrease in the number of offences that result in a conviction, even when even the actual number of offences
has not changed. The best recent example is probably the use of DNA as a means of identification. This has
led in many parts of Australia to a significant ‘DNA catch-up’ involving previously unsolved burglaries andother crimes. This occurs when a person is arrested and charged for an offence and his or her DNA is thenchecked against DNA samples obtained from earlier crime scenes. If they get a match, the suspect is likely
to be charged with the earlier offences as well as the more recent ones. Given the DNA evidence, he or
she is also more likely to plead guilty or be found guilty. Similarly, in cases of rape, DNA evidence makes it
easier to prove that the suspect had sexual contact with the victim (though it does not address other criticalissues such as whether she consented to sexual contact).

E. Sentencing Practices
International experience suggests that there are at least five factors at the sentencing stage that may
contribute to increasing numbers of prisoners. The relevance of these factors in each jurisdiction will vary.
1. More Crime
The number of people being sentenced to imprisonment by the courts will sometimes reflect the simple
fact that there is more crime being committed, cleared up by the police and prosecuted.
2. Seriousness of Offences
We have already noted that in some countries, the imprisonment rate is going up even though the54

142ND INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

overall crime rate is not. However, one of the problems with recorded crime statistics is that they generally
refer to broad offence categories and do not give a clear indication of the seriousness of the offences inthat category. For example, in the Penal Codes of India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Singapore, the word ‘hurt’means any ‘bodily pain, disease or infirmity.’1 The more serious offence of ‘voluntarily causing grievous hurt’is rather narrowly defined. This means that the offence of ‘voluntarily causing hurt’ will therefore include
some relatively trivial matters and some very serious ones. General statistics on the number of offences of
causing hurt will not reveal the actual amount of injury that was caused. There is certainly a perception inseveral countries (including Australia, New Zealand and Canada) that although the statistics do not show any
more crimes of violence in numerical terms but that the levels of violence are increasing. Inevitably, this willlead to longer sentences.
3. Offender Attributes
There is a good deal of evidence that criminal justice systems are now dealing with more complex
offenders who have more complex problems and needs. Substance abuse, mental illness and other forms ofmental impairment are on the rise and are often associated with higher levels of violence and more difficult
management problems in prisons. Some countries also face a growing problem with gangs.
4. Alternatives to Imprisonment
There are many possible alternatives to imprisonment based on ideas such as supervision, community
work and undertaking rehabilitative programmes in the community. The extent to which judges will use
such alternatives will depend on whether they are seen to be realistic options (see below).
5. Law and Order Politics
In many countries, the media tend to focus on crime and usually focus on dramatic examples of violence.
Public concern is heightened, even if the ‘real’ crime rate is not escalating, and this can lead to politicalresponses such as mandatory minimum sentences, higher maximum penalties and reduced access to early
release schemes such as parole. At times, this can also lead to conflicting and confused messages to sentencing
judges. For example, in Western Australia, some innovative new alternatives to custody were introduced in
the 1996 and judges were encouraged to use them. But at almost the same time, they were being criticized forleniency and mandatory minimum sentences were introduced for ‘third strike’ home burglars.

F. Releasing Practices
Another critical part of the ‘jigsaw’ concerns releasing practices. There is a wide variety of potential early
release options.
1. Pardons or Amnesties
These are used inter alia in Thailand, the Maldives, Mongolia, Vietnam and Indonesia and are ad hoc, notgoverned by legislation and unconditional (the person is free and is not subject to compulsory supervision ormonitoring on release).
2. Remission Systems
These are statute-based but are again unconditional (for example, Malaysia and Singapore have statutory
schemes allowing remissions of up to one third of the sentence imposed by the court). However, in theinterests of ‘truth in sentencing’, some countries (including Australia) have abolished remission on the basisthat it distorts the real meaning of the sentence imposed by the court.
3. Parole Systems
These are statute-based and are very different from remissions in that (a) release on parole tends to bediscretionary; and (b) the offender is subject to supervision and monitoring on release, with the ultimate
sanction being a return to prison. The conditions that are placed in parole orders typically include conditions not
to re-offend, to report regularly to a community corrections/parole officer; to undertake certain programmes in
the community; and (if the person is a drug user) to submit to drug testing. Parole involves both a ‘carrot’ (anincentive) and a ‘stick’ (a threat). It can be of either short or long duration.
1 Generally see Stanley Yeo, Neil Morgan and Chan Wing Cheong, Criminal Law in Malaysia and Singapor e, LexisNexis,

Singapore, 2007 chapter 11.

55

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.80

4. Home Detention
This generally involves the use of electronic monitoring. It can be either a ‘front end’ sentencing option
or a form of early release. When used as an early release scheme it tends to be of relatively short duration(up to six months) because of its intensity.

G. Breaches of Parole and other Orders
The final element in understanding imprisonment rates (and, therefore, overcrowding) concerns theway in which the system responds to breaches of conditional orders such as parole, probation and othercommunity based sentences. In the United Kingdom a very large number of people are returned to prison
each year for breaching orders. Sometimes this is because of serious offending but it is often because theperson has failed to comply with the conditions of the order itself. A number of senior judges and others
have expressed their concern that many of the ‘failure to comply’ breaches, such as failing to report to aprobation officer, are attributable to the person's ‘disorganized circumstances’ and not to real ‘villainy’.
There is no doubt that the flow into prison for breaches of orders can be dramatic. The question of ‘failure
to comply’ breaches raises some particularly interesting questions with respect to the aims of communitybased orders, the conditions that should be placed in such orders and the consequences that should flowfrom a breach.
Take the example of urinalysis testing as a condition of parole. First, it should be noted that there arevery different approaches to the use of such conditions across Australia. In Western Australia, a condition of‘regular and random urinalysis’ is routinely imposed in parole orders if the offender has any history of druguse. In practice, this means urinalysis is a condition of the vast majority of parole orders. In Victoria, on
the other hand, urinalysis is not routinely used but may be imposed if the person is undertaking a specificdrug rehabilitation programme where monitoring is considered desirable. A second question concerns whatshould be done if the person returns a positive urinalysis result. At one time, the Western Australian Parole
Board was hesitant to hold the person in breach and return them to prison simply for returning a positive
result, unless there was also evidence of further offending, or of the drug use being very serious (eg ClassA drugs) or escalating. In other words, the Board saw urinalysis as a monitoring tool . However, Board
membership has changed and the Board now views urinalysis much more as a breaching tool , with a single
positive test for any drug being very likely to lead to a return to prison.2

H. Summary and Case Study
Understanding imprisonment rates and overcrowding requires careful analysis. The factors will vary
between different jurisdictions and there is no single-hit solution. The normal assumption is that higher
imprisonment rates reflect higher crime rates or tougher sentencing practices by the courts. However, thepreceding analysis has shown that the situation is much more complex.
Western Australia provides a particularly good example of the points that have already been made. The
following table shows the rate of imprisonment over the past five years.

2 Some interesting issues arise from such policies. Cannabis stays in the system far longer than some of the harder drugs

such as heroin, amphetamines and ‘ice’. Consequently, the person who takes cannabis will be at risk of returning a positive
urinalysis result for longer that the person who uses ‘worse’ drugs such as heroin or ‘ice’.

56

142ND INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

The table shows that the rate of imprisonment has increased dramatically, from 3,150 in May 2004 to
4,150 in April 2009, an increase of 30%. The increase from June 2008 to April 2009 is particularly dramatic(420 prisoners, or an 11% increase, in just 10 months).
These increases are of such a magnitude that they cannot be attributed simply to changes in the crimerate, in the number of people coming before the courts or in judges’ discretionary sentencing practices.
Instead, the increases reflect a number of factors. These include the DNA back-catch; an election in which‘law and order’ was a big issue and there was pressure on the judiciary to ‘get tougher’; the implementationof an election promise to reduce the ‘discounts’ that judges had previously given to offenders to compensate
for the abolition of remission (see above); a very dramatic tightening up on the number of people released onparole; and an increase in the number of people returned to prison for breaching parole.
In other words, the neck of the criminal justice ‘funnel’ in Western Australia has become wider, the exit
routes have been squeezed, and there is more chance of a person quickly re-entering the prison system forbreaching orders.

III. CONSEQUENCES OF OVERCROWDING
A. Introduction
Overcrowding presents numerous challenges for prison management. Some of these are well-known but
others are less commonly-understood. In my view, it is essential to clearly identify these consequences andto articulate them to government. The crucial point is that it is not just a question of finding places for people
to sleep but a question of safety, security, human rights standards and meeting correctional goals such as
rehabilitation. It is also essential to explain to governments that the matters discussed below have a cumulativeand incremental effect.

57

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.80

The following list is not necessarily complete but covers some of the key ways in which overcrowding
will impact on staff and prisoners in terms of day to day arrangements and on more systemic considerations.

B. Facets of Overcrowding
1. Capacity and Cell SpaceThe most immediate problem that people associate with overcrowding is that prison cells (or, when they
are used, dormitories) need to house more and more people. The focus is usually on ‘bed-space’. Sometimes
it can be difficult to get a precise assessment of the extent of this problem because ‘bed-space’ and ‘capacity’
can be rather flexibly interpreted. For example, in Western Australia, most prison cells were originallydesigned with the intention that they would be single-occupancy (usually called the ‘design capacity’).
However, it is physically possible to put bunk beds in most cells and rather than being a necessary exception
at certain times, it seems that ‘double bunking’ is becoming an acceptable norm. These double bunks are
now counted in prison capacity charts to give a figure that is termed ‘current actual beds’. Official ‘head
office’ figures claim that one of the State’s prisons currently sits at 95% capacity (based on comparing thenumber of prisoners with the ‘current actual beds’). The prison superintendent regards it as being at over
160% capacity (based on comparing the design capacity with the number of prisoners).
2. Development of Unit Infrastructure for Increased Numbers
It is rare for additional facilities such as showers, toilets and better eating/recreation areas to be put into
housing units when numbers are increased. Indeed, it is impossible to undertake renovation work when theplace is full!
3. Staff Resources
Staff resources may not keep pace with rises in prisoner numbers. There are two potential aspects to thisproblem. First, the number of staff per head of the prisoner population may decline. Secondly, the quality andexperience of staff may well drop off.
4. Safety and Security
Overcrowding is likely to increase the risks of assaults and bullying between prisoners (for example,
undetected in-cell behaviour). Unless the necessary additional staff resources are injected (both number andquality), staff are also likely to feel less safe.
5. Dynamic Security
The combined effect of the previous points is likely to be that staff will lapse into a less positive role:
they will become gaolers rather than correctional officers and will retreat into their secure areas rather thaninteracting more positively with prisoners. This means that many of the benefits of ‘dynamic security’ (suchas reducing pressure and gathering useful intelligence through positive interactions) may well fall away.
6. Education, Programmes and Work
Each of the above play a crucial role in modern correctional systems. First, they aim to assist prisoners’
rehabilitation and reduce the chances of a return to prison (thereby repaying the investment in such activities).
Secondly, they keep prisoners busy and thereby improve security in the institution. Busy prisoners who haveaccess to positive activities are less likely to cause trouble than idle and frustrated prisoners. Computer accessfor study and recreation purposes is also increasingly valued. However, experience suggests that it is unlikelythat the necessary resources will be allocated to developing the physical infrastructure and staff resources tomeet a full level of service delivery. This will mean reduced rehabilitative effects and enhanced tension in theinstitution.
7. Recreation
Recreation helps keep prisoners fit and is a valuable safety valve for reducing tension. Opportunities forrecreation frequently drop back at times of overcrowding.
8. Contact with the Outside World
Contact with the outside world is recognized as being integral to improving the chances of prisoners
successfully ‘re-entering’ society at the end of their sentences. Again, the infrastructure (such as more
telephones, more facilities for video-links and internet visits and additional visiting times) must be provided
if prisons are to meet such goals. But at times of financial constraint and staff pressures, this is unlikely to be
the case.

58

142ND INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

9. Hierarchical Regimes
Hierarchical regimes are a core feature of good modern correctional systems. The idea is that prisoners
should be able to work their way up through the system, from a basic regime to a more enhanced regime.
For example, in Australia, the aim is for prisoners to earn the right to move to higher levels of privileges
and more enhanced regimes, ideally culminating in ‘self care’ (sometimes, but not exclusively, in minimum
security). Hierarchical regimes that reward good behaviour have a good effect on discipline and security
but they simply cannot be achieved if the prison is full. For example, if all the ‘self-care’ units are occupied,prisoners will have to remain at lower levels even when they have earned the right to advance. For thisreason, it is often said in Australia that prisons should ideally be at 90% of their design capacity.
10. Food and Health Services
These inevitably come under great stress at times of overcrowding because, again, experience suggeststhat the full complement of additional resources (both physical and human) is rarely provided.
11. Sewerage and Other Issues
If a prison was designed with a population of 500 in mind, there is an obvious risk that sewerage systems
and other resources such as water recycling will come under stress as a result of increased numbers.

C. Summary
The individual, cumulative and systemic effects of overcrowding are dramatic. Even if places are foundfor prisoners to sleep, staff resources and the resources required for food, health, education, programmes,
work, recreation are likely to drop back relative to the number of prisoners. It will no longer be possible
to offer a proper hierarchical regime, the benefits of dynamic security are likely to be lost, and the humanrights of prisoners (which attract increasing national and international scrutiny) will be adversely affected.
Tension is likely to increase and the prison regime may become more assertive and more confrontational as
the system tightens up and drifts into ‘survival’ mode. It is not melodramatic to conclude that the risks of aloss of control or riot are thereby magnified.
IV. MEASURES TO REDUCE OVERCROWDING: A BLUEPRINT

A. Introduction
It follows from what has already been said that the measures that are pursued to reduce the extent
of overcrowding should reflect a careful statistical analysis with respect to the precise reasons behind
overcrowding in the particular jurisdiction. The following section sketches some of the possible options, mostof which will require legislative attention and not just the setting of policy directions.
B. Unsentenced Prisoners
1. Inflow
Measures to tackle the problem of inflow include greater use of bail (though in many places, the politicalreality is that the focus on ‘law and order’ is seeing more restrictive bail laws and less weight given to thepresumption of innocence); the development of options such as electronic monitoring or bail hostels; andemploying ‘bail co-ordinators’ in prisons to assist people to meet their bail conditions.
2. Duration
Measures to tackle the problem of the duration of stay before sentence include more prosecutors, morecourts, more judges and more efficient court processes. Ideally, perhaps, there should be a limit on the timethat a person can be held pending the outcome of a trial. The Indian Supreme Court has ruled that people
should not be held for longer than the maximum sentence for the offence with which they have been charged.
In Scotland a stricter limit applies: there is a general limit of 140 days (increased from 110 days in 2003)3 on thetime a person can be held before a trial commences.

C. ‘Community Based Sentences’ and Prison as the Last Resort
1. Realistic Modern Sentencing Options
Realistic modern sentencing options should be given to the courts if prison is to become, as it should
3 http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/justice1/reports-04/j1r04-02-vol01-02.htm#11

59

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.80

be, the option of last resort. Across much of the Asian and Pacific region, this does not seem to be the case.
Courts still seem often to operate with a limited number of alternatives such as fines and probation. Fines
may be unrealistic and probation is often conceptualized as an order that is imposed ‘instead of sentencing’
the person. There is a good deal to be said for developing community-based sentences where there is afocus on punishment and reparation (for example through community work) as well as rehabilitation.
2. The Right Administrative Infrastructure
Correct administrative structures must be put in place to support community-based sentences. Thereis room for debate as to whether such services should be located (a) in welfare departments, separate fromprisons (as has historically been the case with many probation services) or (b) in an integrated departmentof correctional services that covers both prisons and community corrections. In my view, the latter option
is generally preferable as it better recognizes that community based-sentences are ‘real sentences’ not just‘welfare’ measures. It should also help to ensure a continuum of services (and in some systems, there may
be an opportunity for correctional staff to work for periods of time in both the custodial and non-custodial
sections).
3. A Statutory Hierarchy of Sentencing Options
Such a system has been adopted in most Australian jurisdictions. This means, in essence, that the judge
must not impose a sentence of imprisonment unless all other options (which are ‘ranked’) have been ruledout as inappropriate.
4. Limitations on Short Sentences
Some jurisdictions have abolished short term sentences. The theory behind this was sound: it was tomake imprisonment truly the last resort by encouraging judges to use the alternatives. However, it has
proved problematic. Western Australia has abolished sentences of six months or less. But this means thatwhen judges do reach the conclusion that there is no alternative to imprisonment, their starting point is
now seven months (or, legalistically, six months and one day) – sometimes rather longer than they consider
necessary.

D. Police and Prosecutorial Discretion
Where possible, efforts should be made to divert appropriately selected minor offenders out of themainstream criminal justice system to reduce (a) the risks of ‘contamination’; (b) the problems that can
result from a formal criminal record and (c) the costs of and pressures on the traditional criminal justicesystem. Typical options here include formal cautioning, referrals to ‘restorative justice’ programmes andfinancial penalties. To date, in many countries, formal cautioning and referrals to ‘restorative justice’
programmes have tended to focus on juveniles. In my view there is scope for such options to be more fully
developed for both juveniles and adults.
E. Parole and other Forms of Early Release
Parole systems have come in for some criticism in a number of countries on two main grounds. The firstis a general complaint that parole weakens the sentence and makes the system too ‘soft.’ The second is thaton the occasions when people on parole commit serious crimes of violence, there is criticism of the decision
to grant parole to that person.
However, there is a good deal to be said in principle in favour of a system where the person spends
part of the sentence in custody and is then released back into the community under supervision and withthe threat of being recalled to prison rather than releasing the person without such constraints at the endof their sentence. It is impossible to totally eliminate the risk that the person will offend again because
parolees are generally serious offenders who lead high risk lifestyles (that is why they are in prison!).
However, careful risk assessments by a Parole Board will help to reduce community risk. Ideally, legislation
should set out the parameters of parole decision-making.
I noted earlier the question of people coming back into prison – potentially for the whole balance of thesentence – because of ‘failure to comply’ breaches (for example, failing to report as required) rather thanfurther offending. If this is the case, it is worth considering an approach that caps the period for which aperson can be returned to prison for such breaches – perhaps at a maximum of 28 days. This provides the
person with a real incentive to comply but reduces the problem of long-term returns.

60

142ND INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

F. Prison-Based Rehabilitation Programmes
For most of the past 40 years, there has been a focus on delivering rehabilitation programmes in prisons.
The main focus these days is on courses that are built out of a behavioural psychology/cognitive skills
framework. This is not the place to debate the success or otherwise of such programmes but two points
must be made in the context of the topic ‘reducing overcrowding’. The first is that Parole Boards are likely toplace significant weight on ‘programme completion’ as this is seen as a way to reduce the risk of re-offending.
It is therefore essential that programmes are delivered in a timely manner and are completed by the time
the person is eligible for parole. Secondly, even if a programme has been assessed as successful in otherjurisdictions, it is essential to ensure that the assumptions on which it is built are relevant locally, that theprocess of delivery is appropriate to the particular offender group, and that evaluations of programmes arecarried out.
G. Re-Entry Initiatives
Over recent years, there has also been growing interest in the development of initiatives that ease aperson’s ‘re-entry’ back into society. This approach is not based on any complex theory but is essentially amatter of common sense. As such, it should be something to which every system can aspire and work. The
three main areas of concern to prisoners on release are generally accommodation, family and employment.
Many prisoners have struggled with one or all of these issues in the past and correctional services should
therefore try to address them as best they can (a) before the person is released and (b) after release(perhaps using the opportunities presented by a supervised parole system).
There are a number of possible models but in the Asia Pacific region, Singapore probably provides themost interesting case study. As noted earlier, Singapore has a high imprisonment rate and the country isrenowned for being very tough on crime. However, it was recognized that this was having the effect thatcriminals were ‘demonized’ and not accepted back into society. The Yellow Ribbon Campaign, combinedwith more prison-based rehabilitative programmes and a concerted effort to link offenders into work on
release have made major inroads. Recidivism rates have dropped and the rate of imprisonment has declined
substantially. So much so, that Singapore will not need all of its projected new prison capacity – an enviable
position indeed!

61