The violent death of Muniba Kruger, allegedly at the hands of her father, an ex-prisoner, has once again focussed attention on issues related to bail, awaiting trial, rehabilitation and parole.

The known facts in this matter raise horror in the minds of the public, as it is almost unfathomable how anyone, let alone a father, can deliberately kill his teenage daughter, if indeed this is the case. Beside the biological relationships indicated in the early assumptions related to this death, important and urgent issues related to the criminal justice system are once again under the spotlight.

This case clearly points to a number of important matters: firstly, it highlights the impact of imprisonment, and shows that the outcome of custodial sentences and imprisonment is not always positive, and that sometimes prisoners learn more of the same anti-social behaviour for which they were imprisoned in the first place. The erroneous public view currently headlining the media, that prisoners live lives of luxury whilst behind bars, creates an image far removed from the truth – that prison environments are harsh, often a matter of survival of the fittest, where basic human needs are barely met and where tough, rough and sometimes criminal behaviour are the norm.

Rehabilitation does not happen through osmosis – it requires deliberate action on the part of the correctional authority AND on the part of the prisoner. Simple custodian and “hard labour’ approaches are not only insufficient, but sometimes causes more harm than good.

Secondly, rehabilitation is not an exact science. Whilst many theories exist to support this work, experts agree that rehabilitation does not carry any guarantees. This is primarily because therapists and rehabilitation practitioners are dealing with human nature, which can act and respond to stimuli spontaneously and independently, and one cannot read another’s mind to predict what behaviours are to follow. Measuring instruments and risk assessment tools to determine future behaviour are helpful to an extent, but cannot be regarded as exact predictors of future behaviour. This is not to say that rehabilitation programmes and services should not exist, indeed it is imperative that they do, but one should be realistic about the outcomes.

One of the strongly recommended measures to heighten the chances of successful reintegration into a community is of course the focussed and ongoing support and monitoring of released prisoners once they are back in community. This is an area where NICRO can make a strong contribution, but due to the high incarceration rate, resources and endeavours in this regard have to be significantly increased.

Contrary to media reports, prisoners on parole are monitored by correctional supervision staff of the Department of Correctional Services, so a measure of support is technically available. The quality and quantity of this support must be reviewed, given the high numbers of released prisoners, the unique difficulties of family and community life and the skills of the staff who carry out this function.

This case also highlights the way in which bail decisions are made. In retrospect, it is puzzling that an accused with a previous conviction for rape can be released on bail on a charge of assault of a young girl. Does this indicate a failure of the police investigator who did not inform the prosecution of the background of the accused? Were the family of the victim and the accused interviewed about their feelings of safety? Is the accused still on parole?

This case does not only point to a possible dereliction of duty but more importantly a review of certain parts of our decision making processes in the criminal justice system, so that important decisions that affect the safety of others are taken on a more informed and consultative basis. The situation of the victims and witnesses in these violent cases should move centre-stage.

Despite this tragic case, it remains true that there are many convicted individuals whose rehabilitation and reintegration can be better served whilst remaining in family and community environment, and engaging in restorative and developmental programmes to strengthen sound personal functioning.

It is also true however, that there are convicted individuals for whom custodial sentences to remove them from society for our safety is the only response. On the basis of the limited facts available at present, there are clear indications that this could be such an individual, who represents a serious threat to the safety of others, and for whom bail and parole decisions should have been cautiously and comprehensively considered.

Celia Dawson
Deputy Executive Director
NICRO
25 March 2008

For interviews contact Karin Blumer on 021 462 0017 or 082 4144 614