Our ever increasing inmate population is a major contributor to problems, including reduced staff morale, security and control difficulties, increased health and wellbeing problems for staff and inmates, increased levels of conflict and violence, and failure of rehabilitation resulting in increased re-offending.

While building or expanding correctional facilities capacity can reduce overcrowding there are things that can be done to improve conditions in the overcrowded Corradino Correctional Facilities.

Actually solving overcrowding at our Correctional Facilities requires a firm commitment from the government and cooperation within the justice system.

The ever expanding inmate population at the Facility has made it more difficult to manage humanely and effectively. As need for living space increases, the space available for educational, recreational, cultural, and religious activities is often reduced or entirely eliminated. Running the Facility is becoming harder and is frequently plagued by increased incidents of conflict and violence. Often the movement of inmates is restricted as a means of controlling the situation. Unfortunately this adds to the stress and hostility felt by inmates. It cannot be excluded that such a situation might easily be one of the causes of the recent spate of suicide committed by inmates and attempted suicide by others.

Inmate idleness can be decreased by increasing opportunities for exercise, sports, cultural and religious activities. Active inmates are less likely to feel stressed and hostile.

Running costs and expenses for Corradino are always on the increase, and, in spite of an increase in budget spending year after year, toilet, sanitation, and cooking facilities are becoming inadequate to serve a growing inmate population, the health of staff and inmates is at risk, making it more difficult to control contagious diseases. A small compensating measure to improve sanitation could well be to organize and train inmates in preventative health care including basic sanitation, food preparation and personal hygiene.

A number of important pieces of legislation passed by the last two legislatures have gone a long way to contribute to the task of somehow reducing the inmate population. Examples that spring to mind are those decriminalizing a number of offences and other meaningful alternatives for punishment. Other creative measures taken to address the overcrowding problem have included the use of probation and community service as an alternative to detention, legislators adopting sentencing reforms to reduce the length of sentences, and Parole boards being given authority to release and supervise inmates early who pose little danger to society.

Such alternatives could easily be increased by convening a meeting with judges, politicians, community leaders, lawyers and other relevant groups to discuss the use of alternative community-based punishments rather than detention for non-dangerous offenders. One could consider holding the meeting at the Corradino Facilities to expand awareness of existing conditions.

Unless there are legal obstacles, ways could be found to permit trustworthy inmates, whether convicted or not, to leave during the day or weekends for employment, family visitation or community service activities. There should be an increase in the involvement of volunteers, community groups and NGOs to provide meaningful programmes for inmates. Even where space is limited the involvement of volunteers contributes to improved morale and reduces inmate idleness.

One should hope that staff members are continuously trained in basic relational skills including effective communication, building respectful and humane relationships, anger management and conflict mediation. This will improve both staff and inmate morale.

Answers to correctional facility overcrowding are complicated by the politics that surrounds crime and punishment, as each party tries to prove it is ‘tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.’ There is, however, a danger that being ‘tough on crime’ means, simply, more use of imprisonment. There is a wide-spread belief that there is a connection between the rate of crime and the sentencing structure i.e. that the criminal justice system (and sentencing policy) is a means of controlling the crime rate. There is little evidence to support this view, but it leads to a public demand for tough sentences.

Those who believe that the solution to the problem of street crime and correctional facility overcrowding is just to build more facilities need to consider that this response is in danger of ignoring one of the most vital humanitarian questions: how can we make the punishments we impose instructive rather than damagingly dehumanising? Insisting only that crime should be punished may mean that there is a failure to see that the wrong sort of punishment does nothing to correct antisocial behaviour and may well be degrading, so making re-offending more likely.

There needs to be an informed campaign about the huge social and financial burden of detention as a form of punishment. A cost-benefit analysis would show it is not always worthwhile to keep people locked up for extended sentences.

Finally, as a last resort, it should not be of a tall order for the authorities that be to eventually consider the privatisation of correctional facilities. Such a game changer would somehow decrease the costs of holding inmates and increase positive relationships between inmates and correctional workers. Outsourcing detention services to private companies could easily allow for costs to be drastically cut, with guard and security functions being exceptionally left to the State. A good number of other countries have resorted to this measure.

From whichever angle one views the problem, correction at our Correctional Facility is needed at the earliest possible.