GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE IN NAMIBIA: TREATING THE
PERPETRATOR AS AN INDIVIDUALMariana Martin *I. INTRODUCTION
On the 29 of January 1998, John Lukas1 got sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. According to thecourt roll, the offender stabbed the victim at least twenty times and slit her throat. The victim was 21 years
old and a girlfriend to the offender. John, a first-time offender, was 27 years old at the time of the offence.
thAccording to his version, on the 4th of December 1996, he went to his girlfriend’s house. They were noton good terms at the time, because she was involved in an affair. He was accompanied by police officers as
he did not want any problems to develop, yet wanted to talk to her. This visit followed two earlier unsuccessfulattempts to get the police to assist him to return his girlfriend to him so they could discuss the matter
together with their families.
After finding the girlfriend home, she admitted that she was involved with someone else and identified
John as her ex. She claimed to no longer be interested in marrying him. This brought John to the decision
to just gather his belongings and leave. The police concluded that there was nothing it could do about thedomestic affair and left the house. Following the police’s departure, John apparently started gathering his
belongings following which the girlfriend and her sister attempted to prevent him from leaving as they did
not want him to remove any of his belongings from the house. He clarified that the girlfriend felt entitled tohis belongings despite being involved with someone else as she asserted that he had no right to his belongings
as he had also been involved in affairs himself before.
He narrated that as the victim’s sister then started tugging at his bag, he shoved her into the room andlocked her in to prevent her from interfering in his plan of removing his belongings. He then entered theliving room at which point the victim entered the room with a kitchen knife. The victim apparently thenstabbed him on the hand, after which he grabbed the knife from her. They stumbled on the couch then she
grabbed his private parts leading to him stabbing her continuously as she failed to loosen her grip on him.
According to him, he only realized the extent of the stabbing at the end of the process. He concluded that
he was enraged by the girlfriend’s actions and felt disrespected by her and the sister.
This paper provides an account of John’s experiences under the guardianship of the Namibian Correctional
Service. The aim of the case study is to practically highlight how the Namibian Correctional Service treats
perpetrators of violence against women and children (gender-based violence) with the aim of reducing theiropportunities for recidivism.

II. NAMIBIA’S APPROACH TO THE REHABILITAION OF PERPETRATORS OF
GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE
In terms of the Correctional Service Act, 2012 (Act No. 9 of 2012), offences are classified as eitherscheduled or non-scheduled, with the former referring to the following offences and the latter constituting
any other offence not included here: 1. Assault, when a dangerous wound is inflicted; 2. Treason; 3. Murder;
4. Rape; 5. Robbery; 6. Offences relating to the illicit possession, conveyance or supply of dependenceproducing drugs; 7. An offence under the Nature Conservation Ordinance, 1975 (Ordinance No. 4 of 1975) for
unlawful hunting of specially protected game where the value involved in the offence exceeds N$ 5000-00; 8.
An offence under the Controlled Game Products Proclamation, 1980 (Proclamation No. 42 of 1980) for the＊
1

Mariana Martin holds the position of Commissioner: Rehabilitation in the Namibian Correctional Service, Namibia.
Not his real name.

43

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 110
unlawful dealing in any controlled game where the value involved in the offence exceeds N$ 5000-00; 9. An
offence relating to money-laundering; and 10. An offence relating to illicit dealing in or smuggling of
ammunition, firearms, explosive or armament.
The correctional service’s electronic database for capturing offender information, the Offender Management
System, further categorizes offences under the following labels: 1. Murder; 2. Any sexual offence involving achild; 3. Attempted murder; 4. Assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm; 5. Attempted rape; 6. Rape;
7. Robbery with aggravating circumstances; 8. Culpable homicide; 9. Indecent assault; 10. Robbery without
aggravating circumstances; 11. Attempted robbery; 12. Ill treatment of Children; 13. Assault by threat; 14.
Common assault; 15. Crimen injuria; and 16. Domestic violence.
Because perpetrators of gender-based violence can fall into a number of the above categories, there is no
single designation of a category inclusive of all acts that could be related to violence committed against
women and children. In the same fashion, the Namibian Correctional Service does also not provide
interventions to offenders in terms of the offences they have committed. The rationale for this is simple: The
Namibian Correctional Service does not believe in a “one size fits all” approach in terms of offender
rehabilitation and reintegration.
In fact, it abides by the conviction that each and every offender is unique in terms of the factors that may
have predisposed them to offending, in terms of the factors that have precipitated their offending, and interms of the factors that may perpetuate their offending behaviour, even if they may have committed theexact same offence.
Predisposing factors relate to the factors that would have put the perpetrator at risk of engaging in
gender-based violence, the precipitating factors refer to specific events that would have triggered the act,
while perpetuating factors are those that maintain the problem once it has become established.
The position of the Namibian Correctional Service is, thus, that different offenders have different risk
factors for offending and that the way to reduce their risk of recidivism is through the identification of theirindividual risk factors and the subsequent addressing of their individual criminogenic factors, i.e. the dynamic
risk factors related to their offending. This is in line with the principles of the Risk-Need-Responsivity
framework.
The first one, the risk principle, identifies the need to match the services provided to offenders to theirindividual levels of risk, ensuring that the offenders with the highest risk of offending not only receive themost intensive treatments, but also that they should be prioritized in the delivery of services. The second
principle, the needs principle, speaks to what the focus of treatment programmes should be on and stresses
the relevance of attending to those aspects that are changeable, i.e. the dynamic risk factors. Finally, theresponsivity principle concerns ensuring that interventions provided to offenders are able to be impactful
and that is achieved through attending to factors that could affect their motivation to participate in suchinterventions at the individual level, but also through creating environments that foster change.2
The Offender Risk Management Correctional Strategy essentially recognizes the individuality of each
offender in terms of the factors that may have precipitated their offending, the risks they may present for
future offending, needs that they may have to address their criminogenic factors, and in terms of theirmotivation to address their needs and work towards changing their lifestyles.
Through the Offender Risk Management Correctional Strategy, which is the approach adopted by the
Namibian Correctional Service to guide its operations and rehabilitation and reintegration efforts withoffenders, the initial focus of the correctional service would be to attempt to identify John’s individual risk
and needs as a means to direct his treatment plan.
Typically, like any other offender admitted to any of Namibia’s correctional facilities where the Offender
Risk Management Correctional Strategy has been implemented, a perpetrator of gender-based violence
2

Bonta, J. & Andrews, D. A. (2007). Risk-Need-Responsivity Model for Offender Assessment and Rehabilitation.
Rehabilitation, 6: 1-22.

44

173RD INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
would start their journey by being admitted in a Reception and Assessment Unit.
The Reception and Assessment Unit aims to provide a smooth and effective introduction of offenders to
the correctional system in terms of facility rules, their entitlements within the correctional system, thegeneral procedures for risk management that the Namibian Correctional Service follows, the services and/or programmes they can access, and the expectations for appropriate behaviour that will be enforced bycorrectional staff.
However, the central aim of the Reception and Assessment process is to begin to gather relevant
information related to the risk and needs of the offenders as well as to classify them in terms of their escaperisk, institutional management risk and in terms of their risk to public safety. (In Namibia, offenders areaccommodated in living units of different security levels in terms of their security classification.)
The maximum three month stay in the unit is occupied by assessments to identify offenders’ immediateneeds, including physical and mental health and personal safety concerns. Furthermore, they are assessed
objectively and consistently in terms of their criminal and social history in order to determine the mostappropriate security level for their initial placement in the correctional facility. To provide information
required to feed into their individualized treatment plans, offenders’ criminogenic needs, including theireducation levels are also assessed.
These initial assessments culminate in the development of the following documents, among others:i.

Admission Profile
The Admission Profile notes both basic identification information on the offender such as name,nationality, last address, physical description, scars or tattoos, and known address of next-of-kin,
as well as any particularly noteworthy security risk factors, such as notoriety of the offence, gangor terrorist related involvement, any history of arson, deportation status, etc.

ii.

Assessment of Offender Risk Factors and Inventory of Offender Needs and Reintegration Concerns
This assessment is completed in order to determine the offender’s most significant needs, concerns
and risk factors that relate to their offending and that should be addressed before release. The
assessment is conducted with an interview that follows a set of guidelines to explore the natureof the offender’s issues and concerns in relation to the following twelve life areas:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Intimate partner (spouse, girlfriend or
boyfriend), children and other relatives
Friends and acquaintances
Employment and financial situation
Education and training
Health and any medical issues
Hobbies, pastimes, and recreation
Alcohol or drug use

8.

Accommodation, home and household
matters
9. Self-changes
10. Love, intimacy and sexual matters
11. Spiritual beliefs and feelings about
their offence
12. Life in incarceration

The level of risk for the following seven major dynamic risk factors is also assessed:
1.
2.
3.

Education, training and employability
Family relationships
Lifestyle, associates and criminal
attitudes

4.
5.
6.
7.

Alcohol and drug use
Personality and thinking
Emotional well-being
Pattern of criminal offending

This assessment of risk and needs is intended to provide a comprehensive picture of the offender’s usual
motives for offending and the areas of need that should be dealt with for safe reintegration. The Assessmentof Offender Risk Factors and Inventory of Offender Needs and Reintegration Concerns is a crucial document
which begins to inform the appropriate case management of the offender, including development of the
Offender Sentence Plan.

45

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 110
iii.

Criminal Profile Report
This report is produced after a structured interview is conducted with the offender. The interview
follows a set of guidelines to explore the nature of the offence, factors that may have led to theoffence (both external and internal), criminal history and patterns of offending, social andemployment/education background, relationships, use of leisure time, drug and alcohol use, etc.
The report is intended to provide a comprehensive picture of the extent of criminal involvementof the offender, degree of stability or instability in their lives, and usual motives for offending.
The Criminal Profile Report is a crucial document which begins to inform the appropriate casemanagement of the offender, including the initial Security Classification placement of that offender.

iv.

Offender Reception Observation Report
There is an opportunity to carefully observe offenders during the Reception and Assessment
Process, so correctional officers note the early adjustment of offenders in terms of their attitude,
mood and emotional state, level of cooperation, behaviour in the unit, acceptance of their sentence,patterns of interaction with other offenders and with correctional staff, etc. The Offender
Reception Observation Report is a brief checklist which guides correctional staff to note particularfactors or indicators as they observe the offenders.

v.

Offender Self-Assessment
This refers to a brief ‘checklist’ that offenders are asked to complete in order to record their views
about what they believe might help them to stop offending, the kinds of problems they perceive
or are willing to admit to, and in what areas or for what kinds of concerns they wish to receive
some help. Though this is clearly a subjective document, it provides a useful starting point for
further discussion with the offenders about the kinds of needs they might wish to address during
their period of incarceration.

vi.

Offender Sentence Plan
This form presents an overall rehabilitation plan of an offender by outlining factors that havesignificantly contributed to their offending. These factors get translated into specific goals in the
Correctional Treatment Plan that will be addressed at various stages of the offender’s incarceration.

vii. Initial Security Classification
Security classification refers to the objective assessment of custody and supervision requirements
during the period of incarceration. Security classification requirements are assessed with therelevant instruments designed for this purpose, and completion of these instruments is thorough,accurate and is based on structured guidelines.
Following conclusion of the Reception and Assessment processes, offenders are transferred to their living
units according to their security classifications (either maximum, medium, low-medium, minimum). Once inthe living units, the actual work to assist the offender to transform begins. Through the case management
process, which aims to help offenders address their needs based on their Correctional Treatment Plan,
offenders get referred to the necessary interventions. The provision of evidence-based programmes thathave a meaningful impact on reducing reoffending is central to the Namibian Correctional Service.
The above describes the journey travelled by our case study, John, in attempting to address the factorsthat have contributed to the murder of his girlfriend.

III. JOHN’S RISK FACTORS AND HIS RESPONSE TO REHABILITATION EFFORTS
Among other interventions, John participated in the Thinking and Living Skills for Reintegration
programme as part of efforts to rehabilitate him. The programme provides offenders with the cognitive skills
required for adequate social and emotional adjustment. The programme takes a psycho-educational andcognitive-behavioural approach, in order to impart knowledge and skills that will ultimately aid in offenders
adopting more pro-social behaviour and attitudes.
The programme aims to replace the maladaptive thinking patterns of offenders with cognitive skills thatcan promote pro-social behavioural choices. Offenders are taught to become more reflective rather than46

173RD INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
reactive, more anticipatory in their responses to potential problems, and more planful in their responses topotential problems, thus resulting in them learning to be more deliberate in their thinking.
The Thinking and Living Skills for Reintegration programme is delivered in a series of group sessions
designed to build cognitive skills in a progressive manner. The programme is conducted over a period of
about four to six months with group meetings being run two times per week. In addition to the groupmeetings, individual sessions are conducted with the offenders at regular intervals to assess their progress
and assist them with their problem areas as well as help set up intervention and re-integration goals for
them.
Before participating in the programme a pre-programme assessment was conducted, which helped to
identify the following contributing factors to John’s offending:
The motive of his offence appeared to be retaliation. The need to retaliate was instigated by the rage hereported to have experienced after he interpreted the girlfriend’s attempt to stab him as a sign of disrespect,lack of recognition for him and provocation. The perceived provocation was only the final trigger leading tothe offence. It was established that his rage got activated much earlier by perceptions of betrayal when he
finally realized that his girlfriend was serious about ending their relationship. The rage also developed as asecond emotion following feelings of embarrassment and humiliation when the girlfriend publicly denied
their involvement.
It was, thus, identified that John showed some evidence of poor problem-solving skills when it was
discovered that there was a history of problems with his girlfriend, which he failed to attend to until mattersrose out of hand. It was also found that John had a fear of failure or lack of faith in his ability to succeed,
both economically as well as romantically, which influenced his need to cling onto his girlfriend. Additionally,
it was found that John had a tendency to overgeneralize as well as make arbitrary references (deriving theabsolute worst scenario and outcomes for a given situation), which also influenced the development of hisfears about his future in relation to his girlfriend ending their relationship.
These personality dispositions, along with his tendency to interpret ambiguous situations as intentionally
provocative towards him (provocative intentional bias), and his strong expectations of others’ behaviours
relating to what he perceives as acceptable or unacceptable behaviour (such as his attitude towards betrayal,
infidelity, etc.) were further recognized to have contributed to the offence. Low social-perspective taking, asderived from his failure to consider the viewpoints of others when trying to interpret events occurringaround him also could have contributed to his offending.
In line with his risk areas, the Thinking and Living Skills for Reintegration programme focused onteaching John self- and emotional-control skills, conflict management skills, cognitive skills, inter-personal
skills, as well as general problem-solving skills. In relation to emotional control, the programme helped him
gain understanding of the foundation of his emotions, particularly those of anger, fear and shame. John also
seemed to have recognized the significance of refraining from solving problems while he is emotionallyaroused, as he was able to assent to the idea that his emotions at the time of the offence had affected his
ability to effectively solve his problem.
The realization that he failed to positively manage conflict, as he let problems in his life escalate before
attempting to solve them, brought him to the understanding that he needed to become more tuned into the
feelings, perceptions and needs of other people to minimise opportunities for conflict to develop. He seemed
to comprehend that the ability to truly understand others would likely decrease the intensity of his negative
emotions, thereby also decreasing opportunities for conflict to arise.
Although other examples of how John seems to have benefitted from the programme can be shared, themost significant impact the programme seems to have had on John was to modify his style of rigid thinking
that greatly created the risk of problems arising in his life. Some changes in his thinking related to expectations
he had of people, particularly the ones he had of his girlfriend (the victim) and her sister, and his philosophy
on how he should be treated by other people. To illustrate, his view of life was that he generally must be
respected and acknowledged or appreciated and that people he treats well should treat him well in return.
Another dogmatic thinking style that John had was that people should be loyal to each other and the47

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 110
programme assisted John to recognize that he tended to entertain such destructive thoughts.
Although it was initially a struggle, he eventually seemed to have accepted, to some degree at least, that
he had some unrealistic and unhelpful expectations of others and that those expectations may have extensively
influenced his perception of the events leading to the offence as intolerable and provocative, which in turn
could have promoted his violent reactivity.
John’s risk factors may not be that different from those of many perpetrators of gender-based violence in
Namibia, particularly as far as far as cultural beliefs about how women are expected to conduct themselves
are concerned!

IV. THE OUTCOME FOR JOHNJohn ended up being released on full parole a few years ago. In Namibia, offenders can be released on fullparole after having served a half of their sentence under confinement. Such release is subject to having
displayed meritorious conduct, self-discipline, responsibility and industry during the period served. Also it
must be perceived that the offender will not, by reoffending, present an undue risk to society before theexpiration of the sentence he or she is serving and that the release of the offender will contribute to thereintegration of the offender into society as a law abiding citizen.
When he got released into the community, John was classified as requiring intensive community
supervision, which is the most intensive supervision level. In terms of the Namibian Correctional Service’s
community supervision framework, three different supervision streams exist, based on the premise that
community supervision should also be risk driven.
Although all ex-offenders are at risk of reoffending, certain groups of offenders may be more likely toreoffend while on Community Supervision compared to others. Bearing this in mind, it is imperative to target
limited community corrections resources on the offenders who either pose the greatest risk to the community(as based on risk assessment tools) or who are the most likely to benefit from the provision of interventions.
While in the community, John attends scheduled face-to-face supervision sessions with his Community
Supervision Officer. Telephone contact and house visits are also a common feature of community supervision.
The aim of these supervision modalities is to provide the necessary support to offenders to promote theirdesistance.

48