Programmes for released offenders : An Indian perspective
Dr. B.N. Chattoraj
・ Professor and Head, Faculty of Criminology,
National Institute of Criminology and Forensic Science,
Ministry of Home
Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, India
The ultimate objective of the correctional administration is
the rehabilitation of offenders in the main stream of social
life. Aftercare as the harbinger of any rehabilitative endeavour
and as a vital link in the correctional cycle, has been conceived
as an approach and as a service designed to reduce the offender's
social isolation and dependence; to help him to get over his
social handicaps; to remove the stigma that darkens his present
and future life and finally to accelerate the process of his
rehabilitation as a socially useful and productive citizen of
the country. The person in a prison is often a victim of circumstances
and his detention period needs to be utilised for giving him
training and equipping him with skills which would help him to
rehabilitate himself in the society (Sabnis, 1958). Aftercare
programmes for the released prisoners need to be viewed as necessary
steps in the complete rehabilitation of the individual.
Aftercare is not a kind of benevolent activity intended to rescue
a fallen individual nor a sort of patronage extended by superior
persons. Aftercare is rather based on the understanding of the
needs and outlook of the person who is going out of a correctional
institution to face an unkind and unhospitable world outside.
The released prisoners start with a trauma, a psychological damage
to his personality and he is conscious of having been rejected.
Aftercare services have to heal this rejection trauma by way
of restoring his lost self confidence and rehabilitate him back
in the community as a productive and an useful citizen (Kali
Prasad, 1963). The All India Jail Manual Committee, 1957 had
rightly remarked that "Aftercare is the released prisoners'
convalescence. It is the process which carries him from artificial
and restrictive environment of institutional custody to satisfactory
citizenship, re-settlement and to ultimate rehabilitation in
the free community."
In this paper, an endeavour has been made to delineate the existing
status of aftercare and rehabilitation services for released
inmates from correctional institutions in the country. While
explicating the present position in this regard, research findings
of an empirical study which was undertaken by the author in recent
years, to explore the extent of benefit, released inmates (both
adults and juveniles) could really derive from these services,
have been supplemented. However, the main thrust of paper has
been on offering some pragmatic and workable suggestions for
enhancing the after care and rehabilitative services for released
inmates from correctional institutions in India.
Origin and development
The importance and efficacy of aftercare of released prisoners
had been appreciated in the country since long. The Indian Jail
Conference of 1877 for the first time, discussed the question
of helping ex-convicts but did not take any positive step to
implement it. However, a Discharged Prisoners Aid Society was
organised as a non-official agency in U.P. in 1894. Similar societies
were organised in Bengal in 1907 and in Bombay in 1914, but these
societies could not continue to function for want of government
support and public sympathy. In few states, some committees were
established in order to help the prisoners on their release (U.P.
Jail Reforms Committee, 1946). Simultaneously, steps were taken
by the provincial governments to help the discharged prisoners,
and the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies were formed in many
provinces in the country. The object of such societies was mainly
to help the released prisoners in their social and economic rehabilitation
in the community.
As a land-mark development in this field, an Advisory Committee
on After-care programmes was appointed by the Central Social
Welfare Board in 1954 under the Chairmanship of Professor M.S.
Gore to study, among other things, the nature and size of the
problem of those adults and juveniles who have been discharged
from correctional institutions, to determine the scope of after-care
programmes for these individuals, to assess the extent to which
the existing aftercare services meet the needs of the situation
and specify the manner in which they need to be developed and
modified. The Committee recommended for a very solid and a practical
base for the aftercare infrastructure and programmes in this
country. (Children Aid's Society's Report, 1955).
In pursuance of the Gore Committee's report, a comprehensive
aftercare programme was started during the Second and Third Five
Year Plans at the instance of the Central Social Welfare Board
and a few aftercare homes and shelters were set up in some states.
The Government of India also constituted a Working Group (1972-1973)
which defined correctional aftercare as a very essential step
in the criminal justice system. The Action Plan was brought up
by the All India Committee on jail Reforms (1980-83) which also
emphasized on establishment of Aftercare Homes to meet the immediate
needs of released prisoners for their proper readjustment in
the society.
A well-rounded scheme for the welfare of prisoners in terms of
their aftercare and rehabilitation, as formulated under the Seventh
Five Year Plan, was circulated among all the States and Union
Territories for consideration. The Government of India continued
to extend financial assistance to voluntary welfare organisations
for providing community-based care, welfare and rehabilitative
services for released offenders. Many States and Union Territories
also made remarkable achievement in areas of rehabilitation of
released inmates from Juvenile Correctional Institutions, drug
addicts, and a few categories of released adult offenders.
Despite all these efforts, rehabilitation prospects of released
offenders unfortunately have not improved at the disired level
because of many factors, some of prominent ones are paucity of
funds, lack of interest on the part of State governments and
mis-management by local staff. Many of these aftercare and rehabilitational
institutions were closed down or were converted into other kinds
of institution under the Social Welfare Departments.(Bhattacharyya,
1982). Only a few States are left with some very weak institutions
which are not able to cope up with the real dimensions of the
aftercare and follow up works.
Research findings
In order to ascertain the real
state of affairs in matter of rehabilitation of released prisoners
from jails and released inmates from juvenile correctional institutions,
a study was conducted during 1996 to 1998 in the Union Territory
of Delhi. The main objectives of the study had been (i) to ascertain
the present socio-economic status of released adult prisoners
and juvenile offenders, (ii) to examine the nature of crime committed
by them, (iii) to evaluate the impact of institutional training
on their rehabilitation, and (iv) to study the extent of benefit,
they could derive from the governmental and non-governmental
organisations for facilitating their rehabilitation in the society.
The study covered 200 adult released prisoners and 100 juvenile
offenders from jails and correctional institutions respectively
during the period 1995 to 1998. Primary data for the study was
collected through a structured interview schedule, interview
guide, participant observation and case studies.
Major findings
i) Majority of respondents were migrated from rural areas and
settled in resettlement colonies of Delhi mainly due to economic
reasons.
ii) Most of the children had disturbed family relations and had come from broken or inadequate families.
iii) Majority of adults were associated with crime against persons, predominantly murders and children were mainly involved in theft and other petty crimes.
iv) The extent of recidivism ranged from 55 to 65 percent and 35 to 52 percent among adults and chidlren respectively.
v) 69 percent adults spent more than 7 years in jail. In case of juveniles, it ranged from 5 months to 15 months.
vi) While financial distress, desire for revenge, hostility, dispute over property, communal conflicts and emotional imbalance were found to be dominant factors for adult criminality.
vii) Acute family poverty, unhappy family environment, faulty socialisation and influence of peer groups were identified as major factors for juvenile social maladjustment.
viii) Treatment and work programmes in the jails / correctional institutions had been more product oriented rather than reformation oriented. Vocational training was not properly geared to meet individual need and interest.
ix) Incentives given to both adult and juvenile inmates were very negligible particularly from the view point of their post release requirements for their rehabilitation.
x) Half of the adult samples and two thirds of the juvenile felt that vocational training imparted to them were neither interesting to them nor useful in their post release life.
xi) Only 20 per cent of the adult released offenders and 16 per cent of released juveniles could derive some financial assistance from rehabilitation assistance scheme of the Government and non-governmental schemes. Others who did not receive any assistance were either totally unaware of any assistance scheme or were otherwise incapable of availing the assistance because of the complications in rules. Only 6 per cent adults and 8 per cent juvenile could get some help from non-governmental agencies.
xii) Of all the difficulties, financial problem was the most prominent one among both adults and juveniles.
xiii) Lack of legitimate opportunities for work mainly because of prison stigmatisation, devoid of any personal job skill and non-availability of support from any corner were mainly identified as main source of difficulties faced by 84 per cent adults and 60.5 per cent juveniles.
xiv) Loneliness, isolation from relatives, hatred from the community people and hostile feeling of neighbours were experienced by 63 per cent adults and 68 percent juveniles.
xv) Too much police interference on their post release life was experienced by 67 per cent of adults and 85 per cent of released juvenile offenders.
Ground level constraints in rehabilitation programmes
The study could not find any
continuity of institutional treatment programmes with after care
services for the released inmates. Prison officers were not found
to consider that they had any responsibility for the after care
and rehabilitation of released inmates. The existing vocational
training imparted to the inmates did not match with the competitive
employment market which an offender had to face after his/her
release. The tools and equipments for training of the inmates
as well as the trainers needed to be upgraded to make the inmates
capable to earn their livelihood in the open market. One of the
significant hurdles which came in the way, was the lack of meaningful
workable communication between the institutional authorities
and the governmental and non-governmental agencies working in
the field of aftercare and rehabilitational services for the
released offenders. The existing communication channel between
the released offenders and the aftercare institution has been
found to be inadequate to bridge the gap between what an institution
can offer and what a released inmate can really avail himself/herself
of. In most of the cases, it was observed that correctional institutions
and aftercare and rehabilitative agencies were working in isolation
and not as a complimentary with each other. In fact, neither
correctional institutions nor the rehabilitation agencies were
found to be taking as a personal responsibility to see that a
particular released offender was really rehabilitated in the
society. Rehabilitative facilities were found to be very meagre
in proportion to the necessity. Whatever facilities were available,
most of the prisoners were found to be totally unaware and ignorant.
Common people were found to be least concerned about the rehabilitative
needs of the released prisoners.(Chattoraj, 1997). They were
equally unaware about the prison treatment programmes and their
impact on prisoners.
Ways and means for enhancing aftercare and rehabilitational services
In Indian context, it is urgently
necessary that an officially recognised system should be evolved
to pursue and ensure that the follow up action for the rehabilitation
of offenders must start from the day a prisoner enters into the
prison and end with his proper rehabilitation in the society.
This job may not be very difficult in India because majority
of prisoners hail from the agricultural community and they may
be easily absorbed in their original system with little bit of
counselling and social assistance. This services will be necessary
only for those who have lost their socio-economic roots in the
process of incarceration.
In India, the necessity for the proper rehabilitation of offenders
has been stressed time and again, since the All India Jails Committee,
1919. In fact, all the Prison Reform Committees, since then have
made plethora of recommendations for evolving an effective rehabilitation
system for the released offenders. But unfortunately, implementation
status of those recommendations had not been upto the mark. It
is the urgent need of the day that some machinery is created
at the Government level to pursue the follow up action of these
recommendations.
In order to give a fillip to rehabilitation of released offenders,
the government has to play a dominant role. Some organisation
like Rehabilitation Bureau which functions under the direct control
of Ministry of Justice, Govt. of Japan, needs to be created in
the country for continuous review and monitoring of the rehabilitation
work, since the day they enter into the prison, till they are
settled in the normal life.
There is an urgent need of involving community in the treatment
programmes in correctional institutions in a big way. It is a
well established fact that rehabilitation of a prisoner becomes
easy if the community support is enlisted in the greatest proportion.(Bedi,
1983). Since the ex-offender has to be rehabilitated in the society
only, the society has to come half the way in this regard. For
bringing the community closer, a three pronged approach needs
to be adopted. Firstly, maximum possible efforts should be initiated
to associate people from different walks of life in different
treatment programmes of the inmates in the institution itself.
Secondly, mass media has to be brought closer to the prison programmes,
so that people at large can be enlightened what good work is
being carried out in prisons for the reformation of prisoners.
Thirdly, voluntary organisations should be encouraged and strengthened
to work in partnership with the government agencies to facilitate
rehabilitation of released prisoners.
Community based treatment programmes have great potentiality
in enhancing rehabilitation of released prisoners. Among different
community based treatment programmes, probation services have
immense potentiality which has not so far fully harnessed in
the country. Probation as a method of treatment, not only, helps
in decongesting prison population but also creates an opportunity
for the offenders to correct himself in the community itself(Harris
Robert, 1993). Although, there is Central Act on Probation, enacted
in 1958, unfortunately, the probation services so, far, have
not been able to make any significant dent in the correctional
field in the country. The main reason of this state of affairs
may be attributed to common ignorance among public and general
apathy of the law enforcement agencies. There is an urgent need
to make the Probation services more popular among public as well
as to criminal justice system. This will definitely provide a
boost to the rehabilitation of released offenders.
At present, there is no legal support by which a released prisoner
can automatically be benefited by government or from other sources.
Some law like the 'Law for Offenders Rehabilitation Services
(1995)' of Japan or some similar acts as prevalent in other advanced
countries may go a long way in the augmentation of rehabilitation
programmes. The All India Committee on Jail Reforms 1983 also
strongly recommended that aftercare of prisoners discharged from
prisons and allied institutions should be the statutory function
of the Department of Prisons and Correctional Services.
Prison officers should be trained as to how, they can help the
prisoners for their rehabilitation from the initial days of their
imprisonment. They should be equipped with guidance and counselling
skill to facilitate legal assistance to indigenous prisoners,
help them to keep contacts with their families, pursue communities
to accept them back and maintain liaison with voluntary organisations
who will, in turn, help the prisoners for their rehabilitation.
Police officers, particularly at the grass root level, should
also be trained as to how they should deal with released prisoners
to facilitate their resettlement in social life.
The rehabilitation services for the juvenile can be enhanced
considerably if the aftercare of offenders discharged from the
institutions become the statutory function of the correctional
services. A team of well trained officers should be installed
in the headquarters of every state which will evaluate, monitor
and coordinate rehabilitative activities of different correctional
institutions in the country. They will maintain continuous liaison
with voluntary organisations working in the field of aftercare
and rehabilitation of juveniles released from the correctional
institutions. Planning for aftercare should begin soon after
the inmate enters the institution.(Srivastava, 1989). At the
same time, the number of aftercare institutions and organisations
should also be raised to meet the rehabilitative requirements
of all the released juveniles from the correctional institutions
in the country. Both voluntary and governmental organisations
for aftercare and follow up work should be adequately equipped
both infrastructurally and technically to make them discharge
their duties. Voluntary workers engaged in aftercare should be
provided with necessary training, encouragement, help, guidance
and incentives, so that they can perform their job properly and
can sustain their interest.
Conclusion
Despite lot of thinking and ideas which have been generated during the last century regarding the development of aftercare and rehabilitative services for the released offenders in this country, the present status of the existing aftercare services needs lots of improvement. The services in this respect have remained restricted mainly to giving temporary shelter and financial assistance to a very limited number of discharged prisoners. Although, a good number of after care organisations are operative in the country, excepting a few, most of them are suffering from acute financial crisis and lack of public co-operation and governmental support. The recommendations made by the Advisory Committee on Aftercare in 1955 have not been properly implemented. The Model Prison Manual, the Mulla Committee on Prison Reforms have strongly recommended for evolving a structured network of aftercare services for different categories of offenders on the basis of their rehabilitational needs. The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 has kept a clear cut provision for a sound aftercare base for the institutional juvenile offenders. In spite of all these, neither adequate infrastructural facilities for the aftercare services in the States have not been properly developed nor a stabilised organisational mechanisms have been evolved. As a result, not only the basic objective of correctional administration is constrained but also the entire efforts involving massive manpower and huge expenditure towards the correctional endeavour are not being properly utilised. It is, therefore, felt to be necessary to take up this issue with real seriousness and to translate the recommendations of the earlier committees into realities. A systematic approach needs to be adopted to sensitise the community as well the government regarding the importance of aftercare services in the field of prevention and control of crime.
References
1. Bhattacharyya, S.K., Social Defence, No.84, 1982.
2. Bedi M.S., Public participation in the Rehabilitation and
reintegration of offenders, Indian Journal of Criminology, No.I,
Vol.2, Jan., 1983.
3. Chattoraj, B.N., Aftercare Services for the Rehabilitation
of Offenders in India, Journal of Criminology & Criminalistics,
Vol. VIII, No.1, 1988.
4. Prasad Kali, Social Psychological Aspect of Social Work, Probation
India, Vol.1, No.3, 1963.
5. Robert Harris, Resource Material Series No.51, UNAFEI, Tokyo,
1997.
6. Srivastava S.P., Juvenile Justice in India, Ajanta Publications,
Delhi, 1989.
7. Sabnis M.A., Planning and Administration of Aftercare Services,
The Children's Act Society, Bombay, 1958.
8. Report of the All India Committee on Jail Reforms, Vol.II,
1980-83, Govt. of India.
9. Report of the Uttar Pradesh Jail Reforms Committee, 1946,
Govt. of Uttar Pradesh.
10. Advisory Committee on Aftercare Programmes, Central Social
Welfare Board, 1955.
11. Annual Report of the Uttar Pradesh Discharged Prisoners Aid
Society, 1938-39.
