Human Rights and Prisons

3.4 The Impact of Increased Prisoner Numbers

Increasing populations represent one of the most significant restraints on attaining human rights standards in prisons. Access to employment, education, health services, treatment programmes, recreation and visitors can all be affected by capacity and staffing pressures. Lack of appropriate facilities may lead to a number of other human rights issues, such as the mixing of remand and sentenced prisoners, age mixing, and increased lock-down periods.

Double-bunking

Initiatives such as ‘crisis management’ double-bunking³ have faced ongoing criticisms on a number of grounds. Local and international academic writers such as Anthony Taylor (2008) and Roberts and Cobb (2008) highlight that such ‘doubling-up’ practices invariably lead to increased stress, anxiety and fear in the prison. In sharing a confined space for extended periods, prisoners lose any right to privacy – in which, for instance, they might relax their prisoner identity – and they must endure the (sometimes disagreeable) habits of fellow prisoners (Taylor, Anthony, 2008). Further, following in-depth (US-based) research on the issue, Franklin et al (2006) proposed that prisoners under the age of 25 are significantly more likely to develop stress and subsequently misbehave in crowded environments.
Double-bunking must, therefore, be undertaken with great care – the size of cells that must accommodate two prisoners is crucial; decision-making processes on the safe placement of prisoners must be stringent; and further emphasis should be placed on rehabilitative initiatives to counter damaging experiences (Taylor, Anthony, 2008).
In New Zealand, Clayton Cosgrove, the Labour Party’s Law and Order Spokesperson has argued that double-bunking would increase attacks against prisoners and officers alike – a point that has reflected anecdotal evidence from its use in English and Welsh prisons. Bevan Hanlon, President of the Corrections Association of New Zealand, has reflected that overcrowding poses a danger for prisoners with mental illness as they are made more vulnerable to harms from other prisoners (NZPA, 2008).
In response to such criticisms, the Department of Corrections points out that double-bunking has been used in New Zealand for around 140 years, and that in New Zealand, there are no indications to date of increased incidents resulting from double-bunking (Department of Corrections, 2011). The Department advises that analysis of incidents in prisons over the period November 2009 to March 2011, when double-bunking was increased, indicates that the rate of incidents remained stable, and in some units slightly decreased (ibid.).
In a bid to mitigate the risks associated with cell sharing, the Department has developed a Shared Accommodation Cell Risk Assessment (SACRA) process.

Impacts of Increased Prisoner Numbers

Increasing prisoner numbers – and the related issues of increased lock-down periods, staff shortages, limited spending per prisoner⁴ and stretched facilities – means that the ability to meet even minimum human rights standards is more likely to be undermined (see National Health Committee, 2008; Office of the Auditor-General, 2008; Ombudsmen’s Office, 2005, 2007; Roberts and Cobb, 2008; Taylor, Anthony, 2008). For example:

• 
  The right to employment and the right to education can be downgraded as lockdown periods mean that activities are compressed into a shorter ‘working day’;
  

• 
  The right to health is relegated as growing numbers of prisoners requiring professional forensic care are made to wait in prisons (with custody-focused rather than therapy-focused staff) until they can access the services they need. Prisoners may struggle to access drug/alcohol programmes or general health care in a timely manner; and prisons may be faced with increases in communicable diseases or sanitation problems;
  

• 
  The right to access exercise, sports, cultural or religious activities, vital components of relieving stress and maintaining good health and order in the prisons, can be weakened;
  

• 
  The right to access others is constrained as programme hours are cut back (as staff are required to work elsewhere or because of lockdown requirements), and visits from counsellors, support persons or volunteers are reduced. In these circumstances, rehabilitative strategies are undermined;
  

• 
  The right to family/whānau is challenged for all sorts of reasons: prisoners find that they cannot have ready access to telephones because there are too many others fighting for the line; family/whānau days become more difficult to organise because staff are too busy with other tasks; prisoners are transferred across regions for logistical reasons, causing massive disruption to their families trying to negotiate visits (as well as impacting on other important activities such as any sentence planning, or access to health care or programmes);
  

• 
  The right to life and security of person can also be tested as overcrowding amplifies stress levels for prisoners and officers alike. Longer periods of lock down, together with increases in prisoner numbers, are related to higher incidences of prisoner depression and anxiety, as well as increased disturbances and attacks – including fatal attacks – against prisoners and staff. Reflecting on the concerns posed by double-bunking to safety in prisons, the Law and Order Committee (2009) noted that ‘We were told that staff will receive an extra three days training on volatile situations and that pepper spray, spit-masks, and stab-proof vests will be available when necessary’.
  

Overcrowding impacts heavily, therefore, on the well-being of prisoners and officers alike. As the Department of Corrections (2008) put it, between 2005-2007, the Department operated under high pressure, with a significant degradation of services. During this period, there were also times when the Department operated ‘at a high risk of failure, and a significant negative impact on staff’ (ibid: 23).

Staff have been placed under significant stress in recent years. In response to rising prisoner populations, the Department has undertaken a major recruitment initiative. In 2008, over 40% of frontline Corrections Officers had less than two years experience (Department of Corrections, 2008); in 2009, this had reduced to 29% of staff (Department of Corrections, 2009c). This new workforce has placed pressure on experienced staff who mentor and train new officers.
In summary, as Lord Chief Justice Woolf, the investigator of the Strangeways riot in England stated, overcrowding ‘debilitates the whole system’ (cited in Taylor, Anthony, 2008:69). Given such conditions, the UN Committee Against Torture (2009:9) has recently recommended that the NZ State ‘should undertake measures to reduce overcrowding, including consideration of noncustodial forms of detention in line with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (The Tokyo Rules)’.