Introduction

There are a number of special groups of offenders in prisons across the Asian and Pacific region. Some of these groups are specific to countries or regions. For example, some jurisdictions face difficult issues with respect to indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities. However, there are several other groups which cause concern across the whole region. These include young people; older prisoners; people suffering from a mental illness; people with an intellectual disability or brain damage; dangerous prisoners and members of gangs.

The discussion guide invited a wide ranging discussion and both the reports and the conference debates reflected this diversity. The most popular topics within the nation paper were young and older prisoners and those with mental illness or intellectual disability. A significant number also address the problems relating to gang members in prison. A smaller number referred to the problems of indigenous prisoners, prisoners with HIV/Aids and the control of dangerous prisoners. During the conference discussions, the Chairman also raised the difficult question of children who are either born in prison or who live with their mother in prison.

Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Korea, New Zealand and Singapore spoke formally on this topic and many other nations contributed to the ensuing debates. It would have been possible to devote an entire session to each of the special groups identified above. Consequently, this summary cannot do justice to the complexity of the issues raised by each group. However, it will attempt to provide a brief summary of the issues relating to the most widely-discussed groups. This may provide the basis for future APCCA conference topics. It will first attempt to draw out some common themes which affect the treatment of all these special groups.

Integrated Offender Management

There are so many “special groups” of offenders that it could almost be said that every offender falls into one special group of some sort. The New Zealand presentation therefore emphasises the importance of “a systematic, evidence-based approach to managing offenders throughout their sentence” and to the development of individualised sentence plans. Similar sentiments were expressed by a range of other contributors. This approach permits an assessment of the person’s risk, criminogenic needs and best treatment options, and a more efficient targeting of resources and programs.

Inter-Agency Collaboration

Many of these special groups of offenders present with a range of problems which require inter-agency collaboration. For example, some offenders who have an intellectual disability and/or a mental illness which is exacerbated by substance abuse. These offenders present very difficult problems, especially when it comes to their release into the community. During the conference debates, the point was made that it is not always easy to secure the necessary collaboration between different agencies. For example, an efficient management plan upon release may require involvement from mental health as well as correctional authorities. Unfortunately, such involvement can be costly. Certainly, Australia, New Zealand and Canada often find that health agencies are rather unwilling to take responsibility for potentially difficult clients. This can result in correctional departments having to face the responsibility and the cost of managing such offenders. Issues can also arise in terms of the coordination of educational and correctional objectives for young offenders (see below).

It was suggested by one of the delegations that the issue of multi-agency collaboration might be a suitable topic for more detailed discussion at a future APCCA conference. It does appear to be an issue which is likely to assume increasing importance given the greater focus on integrated offender management and through-care. It also appears to be an area in which APCCA members could explore potential strategies.

Young Offenders

The issues surrounding the treatment of young offenders were fully debated at the Nineteenth APCCA Conference in Shanghai, China in 1999. There do not appear to have been many major innovations and initiatives during the intervening two years, but some key themes did emerge from the various papers and from the presentations by Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Korea, New Zealand and Singapore:

Segregation

It is accepted across the region that younger offenders should, as far as possible, be segregated from older offenders. In Tonga, this is achieved by placing juvenile offenders on a separate island. More commonly, it is achieved by establishing separate institutions or units. There appears to be an expansion of such initiatives across the region. The delegate from Canada noted that the policy of segregation can sometimes give rise to anomalies. For example, there are some offenders who are adults in terms of their physical age but, due to their limited maturity or intellectual capacity, they might be better suited to placement in a “juvenile” institution rather than a prison. However, such a placement would be in breach of international obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Inter-Agency Collaboration

The delegation from Singapore gave an interesting presentation on the recently-established Kaki Bukit Centre (KBC). This represents an example of inter-agency co-operation, backed up by a collaborative management structure. The school is managed in partnership between a superintendent and a school principal, thus ensuring that the aims of custody, control and education are fully met.

The “Intermediate Age Group”

In all jurisdictions, there is a “cut-off” point at which people will be dealt with in adult courts as adult rather than juvenile offenders. However, in several parts of the region, there have been initiatives to provide an alternative custodial placement for those who fall into the “intermediate” age group. New Zealand reported that, in 1999, the government approved significant policy changes to allow specialist “Youth Units” to be built. Young people under the age of 17 will automatically be assigned to such units and they can also house people between the ages of 17 and 20. In Australia, practices differ across the country. In most jurisdictions, offenders aged 18 and above must serve their sentence in ordinary prisons. However, Victoria has a dedicated Youth Unit for 17 to 25 years old (with preference for 17 to 21 years old) and Tasmania permits some adults to be held in Juvenile detention facilities.

The “Short, Sharp, Shock”

Many penal systems have experimented during the past 50 years, with the concept of the “short, sharp, shock” approach to juvenile offenders. In other words, establishing a short but very harsh regime to deter young people from returning to custody. However, this approach now seems less popular and it is worth recording that New Zealand has abandoned the “short, sharp, shock” sentence of Corrective Training due to the extremely high recidivism rates.

Older Prisoners

Most jurisdictions noted an increase in the number of older prisoners. This reflects a number of factors. First, the life expectancy of people is generally increasing. Secondly, in many parts of the region, there has been an increase in the number of older sex offenders. Often, this reflects the fact that they are charged with and convicted of intra-familial offences which occurred many years ago.

The increase in the number of older prisoners brings a range of problems for correctional administrators. They include the following:

Physical Facilities

Older prisoners may require different physical facilities within the prison system. A number of reports noted that this had necessitated building modifications. The most recent prison to open in Western Australia contains a special geriatric unit and other jurisdictions (including Japan and Korea) have specially modified cells for elderly prisoners.

Health Needs

As noted by Japan, “Old inmates tend to impose a burden for ordinary institutions because of their physical condition.” During the conference discussions, it was also noted that, because of their previous lifestyle, many prisoners present with health problems, which are typical of older people. For example, some 40-year-old prisoners have the problems which are more typically faced by 50 to 60 years old in the broader community. The report from Thailand noted that these physical problems (such as eyesight and dental health) can be exacerbated by mental problems and family problems. In order to comply with their duty of care to older prisoners, several jurisdictions ensure that there are regular check-ups and appropriate testing. Obviously, the costs associated with such testing and treatment can be very expensive.

Staff Training

As the prisons come to house more elderly inmates, the role of staff may undergo some changes and it may be necessary to provide specialist training for staff. Canada has recently decided to target people with gerontology expertise in staff recruitment campaigns.

Prisoners with Mental Illness or Intellectual Disability

In all jurisdictions across the region, a significant number of offenders suffer from some form of mental impairment. This impairment can result from a mental illness (a psychiatric disorder such as schizophrenia), an innate intellectual disability or brain damage resulting from trauma or substance abuse. It also appears to be a growing problem. In some jurisdictions, governments have pursued a strategy of 'deinstitutionalisation' in the areas of mental health and intellectual disability. This has resulted in prisons having to cope with people for whom there are few other secure or supervised facilities. Most jurisdictions also face increasing problems of mental disorder associated with drug abuse, such as drug-induced psychosis.

Each of the categories raises rather different issues and would be worthy of discussion in its own right but, for present purposes, they are discussed together. All of the papers which discussed this topic expressed concern about the difficulties associated with the management and treatment of such people, including the following:

· Identification, Assessment and Treatment of Offenders

Prisoners may have disabilities which have not previously been identified by other government agencies. This means that prison systems may have to arrange for detailed psychiatric and/or other assessments to be undertaken. It may be necessary for specific management regimes to be put in place whilst these assessments are undertaken and for the remaining period of incarceration. It will also be necessary to ensure that suitable supports are in place for the prisoner upon release. As with other special groups of offenders, this may require careful inter-agency collaboration. The Australian paper noted that particular problems arise where the offender is in the 'borderline' area, and especially where that person has certain deficits but does not qualify for full support from government agencies concerned with intellectual disability.

· Prison Management and Specialist Units

When mentally impaired people are housed in mainstream prisons, a number of management issues arise. At one end of the spectrum, there will be prisoners who are particularly vulnerable and who therefore require special protection in the institution. At the other end of the scale, some may pose a risk of violence towards staff and other inmates. The New Zealand delegation noted that traditional prisons are not effectively organized to meet the needs of those with intellectual impairments and there appears to be an increasing emphasis, across the region, on the establishment of special units or special institutions. Japan has a number of 'medical prisons' which cater for those with mental illness and other disabilities. The paper from Hong Kong (China) provided a valuable and detailed analysis of the operation of the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre. This Centre adopts the philosophy that 'offenders with mental disabilities, having lost their liberty, are deserving consumers of quality treatment.'

· Access to Treatment Programs

One of the most intractable problems is that people with an intellectual impairment are often unable to undertake mainstream programs to address their offending behaviour. This may be because they lack the intellectual capacity to absorb the content of such programs or because their behaviour renders them unsuitable for group treatment. There are no easy solutions to this problem, though a number of jurisdictions have developed and trialed programs which are designed to meet the needs of such offenders.

· Co-ordinated Inter-Agency Approaches

There was general agreement that a co-ordinated, multi-agency approach is essential with this group of offenders. As mentioned earlier, this can be difficult to achieve but effective long term management should not be regarded as solely, or primarily, the responsibility of correctional services.

Gang Members

The papers revealed some interesting differences in the extent to which gangs are seen as a problem within the prison system, the types of gangs and the management responses.

· The Nature and Extent of Gangs

There are wide regional variations in the extent to which gangs are seen to present a problem and in the type of gangs which operate. For example, Tonga reported that there are no gangs in that nation. On the other hand, in much of the region, gangs are said to pose a very significant threat.

In part, these differences reflect different historical and societal arrangements which are themselves reflected in the different nature of gangs. The papers revealed that gangs sometimes represent highly organised criminal activity, involving activities such as corruption, drug dealing and extortion rackets. These professional groupings often have an established history and a clear hierarchy and structure. However, other so-called 'gangs' are far less structured and more transient groupings, often consisting of younger people who are primarily involved in more petty street crime.

There are also clearly differences of perception and definition. For example, most Australian jurisdictions did not identify gang activity as a serious issue within the prison system. However, Western Australia, managed to identify '29 different gangs operating within the prison system' - a remarkably high number given that its total prison population is only around 3000 people - and saw gangs as a real management problem.

Given these definitional problems and the secret nature of many gang activities, it is therefore very difficult to measure the extent of the gang problem or to generalise across the region. However, New Zealand estimated that around 8% of male inmates are gang 'patch members' (ie full gang members). Another 8% have gang affiliations. Around 14% of female prisoners have gang affiliations. Canada estimates around 7.5% of the prison population are gang members. Japan stated that organised crime members constitute over 20% of the prison population. Korea put the proportion of gang members at less than 3%.

· Types of Gangs

The papers revealed four main categories of gangs. Most jurisdictions have organised crime groups and street gangs and a large number have 'bikers'. Some (especially Canada and New Zealand) also have gangs drawn from Indigenous groups. The proportion of people from different gang groups who are in prison will differ from the proportion in the community at large. For example, organised crime groups tend to be under-represented in prison compared with their general level of activity in the community. On the other hand, the more visible activities of street gang members tend to lead to their apprehension and imprisonment.

· Prison Management Issues

The papers showed that gangs can pose serious problems in terms of the management of prisoners. These can include intimidation, extortion and violence; the distribution of drugs and the recruitment of new members. In addition, the presence of organised gangs may result in the intimidation and / or corruption of correctional staff. A number of techniques have been developed to attempt to limit these influences and problems. First, all jurisdictions seek to dissipate the influence of gangs by spreading prisoners around institutions rather than allowing them to be concentrated. This can be assisted by intelligence gathering and computerised tracking of prisoner placements. Secondly, where gangs adopt certain regalia (eg the 'patches' favoured by Bikers) the wearing of such regalia is banned. Thirdly, gang membership may be a factor which influences decisions about security ratings, work placements and prison leave. The paper from Korea noted that gang members are less likely to be granted parole. In addition, some jurisdictions endeavour to provide counseling and other services for prisoners in order to encourage and support them in severing their gang affiliations. Japan reported that 17% of gang members had participated in such programs and that 60% of these participants had decided not to return to their organisation.

Conclusion

Special groups will continue to pose a range of difficult issues for prison management. It would appear that, in most jurisdictions, almost all prisoners fall into one 'special group' or another. It is therefore important to continue to develop appropriate regimes for all prisoners. It appears likely that there will be an increasing focus, in the foreseeable future, on separate institutions or separate units for some groups of offenders.