In a country where 9 out of every 10 offenders re-offend, it is high time we looked at other models
The post Can South Africa benefit from Finland’s handling of recidivism? appeared first on The Mail & Guardian.
It is often said that recidivism (reoffending) is the criminologist’s stone. This means that it is a huge issue in criminology, in both mainstream and critical takes on the subject.
One could even go as far as saying it is a wicked problem, that is, one that defies explanation.
One innovative way to deal with such a vexed issue is by way of a comparative lens. These motivations were part of my rationale for posing the question of what the South African Department of Correctional Services could plausibly learn from Finland insofar as limiting reoffending is concerned. In a recent paper published in the journal Phronimon, I ask precisely this question.
South Africa has an unsustainably high rate of recidivism — about nine out of every 10 ex-offenders re-offend — which is compounded by the fact that it also has a stigmatising shaming culture, as opposed to an integrative shaming culture.
In a stigmatising shaming culture, on the one hand, ex-offenders are routinely discriminated against and ostracised which drives them away from mainstream culture and its values into the arms of criminal subcultures. Examples of such cultures are South Africa and the US.
In an integrative shaming culture, on the other hand, ex-offenders or the formerly incarcerated, which is the more recent name for this group, are encouraged to reintegrate into society and given jobs and other opportunities to ease the transition. Examples of such cultures are China and Japan, as well as many African countries.
China, for example, had a well-publicised rate of between 6% and 8% but their figures are compounded by the fact that the Chinese have very little tolerance for reoffending and execute re-offenders by the thousand. This applies to crimes from drug dealing and human trafficking to petty offences.
An integrative shaming culture is decidedly more effective in curbing recidivism. In fact, the well-known Australian comparative criminologist John Braithwaite argued that stigma is nothing if not “counter-productive” and “criminogenic” in fuelling re-offending.
This raises the interesting question of whether or not a stigmatising shaming culture could also exhibit features of an integrative shaming culture. More to the point, bearing in mind that no culture is entirely homogenic, could the presence of such integrative shaming characteristics affect the recidivism rates of a stigmatising culture positively?
In my own PhD, following a suggestion by the French post-structuralist philosopher Jacques Derrida, I developed tools with which to transplant ideas from one culture to another in space and/or time.
One of these tools is the notion of the “sliding signifier” (Derrida) or the “signifying chain” (Lacan), to demonstrate what exactly the transplantation of ideas entails.
A contemporary of Derrida, Jacques Lacan’s revolutionary insight of “signifying chain” implies that a signifier remains intelligible along the chain of signifiers (different [contextual] re-interpretations) as it moves from one context to another and will then either succeed in or fail at creating new meaning within each new context to which it is inscribed.
Yet, for Derrida, the issue of the non-saturation or indeterminacy of the signifier in a particular context is “inscribed in the nature of the mark”. By using ideas on integration, for example, found in contemporaneous Chinese culture, I attempted to transplant some of these to South Africa’s harsh stigmatising shaming culture.
In the case of Finland, I found a ready-made stigmatising shaming culture heavily influenced by integrative shaming features. These characteristics are found in the Finnish prison setting as well as the post-incarceration environment.
But the most glaring characteristic of the Finnish system is that they managed to achieve a recidivism rate of around 31% (with deincarceration at 53/100 000). This is much better than South Africa’s unacceptably high 86% to 94% (259/100 000).
Said in another way, in a country where nine out of every 10 offenders re-offend, it is perhaps high time we questioned the wisdom of the rehabilitation paradigm.
Why would this be the case if both Finland and South Africa evince stigmatising shaming cultures? Said in another way, even though South Africa’s rate of incarceration is almost five times as high as that of Finland, Finland has but a third of our rate of reoffending.
Preliminary conclusion: A high(er) rate of incarceration does not result in less recidivism, but from Braithwaite’s perspective, would enhance it within the context of a stigmatising shaming culture.
As far as Finland is concerned, my research found that the following features embedded in their system make the Finnish context exemplary for emulation by the South African correctional services department.
These features have been collected as data points and categorised under the following headings: punishment should be a mere loss of liberty; prevention of prison harms; promotion of placement into society; promotion of conditions of normality within the prison environment; prisoners must be treated justly with respect for their human dignity and responsiveness to offenders’ concerns.
Without unpacking these categories in any great detail, it is worth stressing that the golden thread which runs through these five ideas can be explained with reference to a conflict-transformation theoretical lens.
It is argued that this great accomplishment in Finland manifests as a result of a meaningful acknowledgement of offenders’ and ex-offenders’ basic human needs, thereby removing this primary source of conflict.
In the words of Gavin Bradshaw, a South African academic and an expert on social cohesion: “Most recent research work on negotiation also supports the fact that integrative approaches are usually far more effective [than power bargaining].”
Recognition of formerly incarcerated peoples’ basic human needs, as Bradshaw indicates, is bound to have a significant impact on South Africa’s rates of recidivism.
The Finnish experience has shown the value of the application of sensible conflict transformation perspectives in the management of crime and the South African correctional services department would be well advised to consider the lessons learnt.
Dr Casper Lötter is a conflict criminologist affiliated with North-West University’s School of Philosophy (Potchefstroom) as a research fellow. He has a special interest in cybercrime.
The post Can South Africa benefit from Finland’s handling of recidivism? appeared first on The Mail & Guardian.
