Human rights and prisons

Stephen Vasciannie

LAST THURSDAY morning, The Gleaner, through a valuable front-page story by Glenroy Sinclair, opened our eyes to certain conditions at the St. Catherine Correctional Facility. Technically, the reports of beatings and other abuses in parts of the prison should be regarded as allegations, but even so, the seriousness of the situation cannot be denied.

Indeed, by the following day, the Ministry of National Security and Justice admitted that 39 badly injured prisoners have had to be treated at the Spanish Town Hospital. Though the Ministry seems inclined to attribute the injuries to confrontation between warders and soldiers on the one hand, and inmates, on the other, some inmates have advanced alternative perspectives. According to the inmates, there is more going on behind the walls of the prison than self-defence by warders; rather, they maintain that at least some of their number have been subject to brutal attacks by warders, and at least one former inmate has been quoted as saying: "Man get shot inna dem foot, inna dem side an' inna dem hand."

And, of course, very importantly, there are the revealing words of Dr. Raymoth Notice, one of the medical officers at the St. Catherine District Prison: "I saw a group of about 15 soldiers and warders handcuff an inmate, then kick, box and beat him with batons... I believe if it were not for my presence probably they would have killed him. It is awful and these inhumane things must stop."

Faced with this situation, and with condemnatory comments streaming in heavily from various groups in society, the main protagonists in our continuing saga of depravity in the prisons were once again on the horns of a dilemma. In response, Colonel Prescod, the Commissioner of Corrections, seemed keen to avoid the media; the hearsay reports being spread abroad cannot be laid at the Colonel's feet.

In contrast, Lambert Brown, the vice-president of the University and Allied Workers Union, no stranger to arguments concerning prison warders, was broadly accessible. I believe Mr. Brown's position is that we should have an inquiry into the matter, and that, in the interest of justice, we should not regard warders as guilty until proper channels have been explored.

Of course, Mr. Brown is correct on this point, and perhaps it is a little unfair to expect him to condemn the warders at a time when many of the facts are still open to dispute. Sometimes, however, Mr. Brown could be more conciliatory: given social concern at the likelihood of prison brutality, Mr. Brown could freely concede, without letting down the team, that if the actions are as alleged, then the warders involved should be roundly condemned and subjected to penal sanctions.

Mistaken attitudes

The problems at the St. Catherine Prison raise, once again, the matter of human rights abuses in Jamaica. For some persons in the wider society, arguments based on social self-defence and tough love continue to hold sway. Thus, in the particular case of prison conditions, many argue that there is no point in losing sleep about whether inmates are whipped into shape by their warders. After all, many say, these inmates are people who, during freedom, were prepared to cut the throats of hapless Jamaicans, rape young girls with impunity, shoot innocent citizens at point blank range, and live freely through murder, mayhem and theft, at the expense of those who accept norms of decency and honesty. Why, then, should we have any sympathy for "de ole criminal dem"? They had no concern for us during their lives of brutality and abuse. Society must defend itself by sending its prisoners to hell, and by throwing away the key.

The tough love crowd may not believe in throwing away the key to the prison gates, but they argue for rough prison conditions as a means of rehabilitation. So, their position is based on the assumption that if prisons are truly disgusting places, this will deter those considering a life of delinquency, and will reduce the level of recidivism by giving first-timers a short, sharp shock.

In Jamaica, these views are not often articulated publicly, but we can tell they exist from the lack of concern sometimes demonstrated when prison abuses come to our attention. Some human rights organisations and talk shows will consider the issues, but, save in truly egregious cases, the question of prison conditions does not strike a rich vein of outrage in the wider society.

Humanity

But why should it? Well, for a start, if we treat prisoners as if they are irredeemable brutes -- noble savages with the nobility all drained out -- there is every likelihood that they will, in fact, assume the mantle of total depravity. We will have cultivated a whole class of young men who regard society as inherently hostile, and who, as a result of institutional oppression, completely reject norms of civilised conduct. We will have cultivated and fed the enemy of society.

Moreover, if we always treat brutal people with brutality in kind, what will that do to our own spirit, and to our own sense of morality. It is not acceptable to close our eyes to institutional brutality, for, in so doing, we become complicit in the very crimes we abhor. This is not an argument for the molly-cuddling of criminals; rather, it is a suggestion to the effect that gratuitous brutality breeds resentment and reduces our own humanity as we countenance, without concern, the real prospect that the State is cracking skulls on our behalf, without legal justification.

Jamaica is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 10 of this United Nations treaty may well serve as our guideline on these matters. It reads in part:

"1. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person...

3. The penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation..."

We can aim for these elementary standards of decency, or we can have 15 warders applying standards of brutality beyond the treatment given to Rodney King. But we can't have both.

Stephen Vasciannie, an attorney-at-law, teaches at the University of the West Indies,