Explore publications.

The parole system in South Africa is an essential component of the correctional framework, aimed at reconciling the dual goals of criminal rehabilitation and public safety. Although rooted in the Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998, the White Paper on Corrections (2005), and international human rights norms, its efficacy is still debated. This article aims to critically assess the degree to which the South African parole system facilitates rehabilitation while ensuring community safety. The research employs a qualitative, doctrinal methodology, focussing on the examination of statutory provisions, policy frameworks, judicial rulings, and contemporary academic literature regarding parole and criminal reintegration. Additional insights are derived from comparative penological viewpoints and reports from oversight entities like the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services. Research demonstrates that while parole theoretically aligns with rehabilitative and restorative justice principles, its execution is compromised by prison overcrowding, resource constraints, insufficient post-release assistance, and erratic risk evaluations. These elements foster public distrust and occasional shortcomings in preventing recidivism, particularly in prominent cases. However, evidence indicates that structured monitoring and rehabilitative programs under parole can diminish recidivism when sufficiently resourced and supported. The paper asserts that the South African parole system necessitates comprehensive reform, incorporating the use of evidence-based risk assessment instruments, fortified community corrections, and improved reintegration assistance. Its contribution to penological studies emphasises the dichotomy of parole as both a rehabilitative instrument and a contentious arena of public safety, providing avenues for realigning parole practices with constitutional and restorative justice objectives.

This study examines the ideological impact of international prison inspectorates on national correctional systems, concentrating on how these bodies influence the balance between rehabilitative and retributive penological philosophies. While their primary mandate is to monitor prison conditions and prevent ill-treatment, inspectorates such as the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (OPCAT) National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs), and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) subtly shape penal ideologies through their engagement and recommendations. The research sets out three objectives: to identify the penological philosophies promoted by selected international inspectorates, to analyse their rhetorical and strategic approaches in influencing prison systems, and to assess the tangible impact of these efforts on national policies and prison practices. A qualitative, comparative case study method is used, incorporating content analysis of inspectorate reports and communications, national legislation, and interviews with key stakeholders. Preliminary findings reveal a consistent promotion of rehabilitative and human rights-based approaches by these bodies. The CPT emphasizes normalization and reintegration, OPCAT NPMs focus increasingly on conditions supporting rehabilitation, and the ICRC advocates humane treatment, which underpins rehabilitative ideals. Impacts include legislative reforms, the introduction of rehabilitation programs, and shifts in official discourse. However, these changes vary across countries and are often limited by political, economic, and cultural barriers. The study concludes that international inspectorates, though often operating subtly, contribute significantly to shifting correctional ideologies toward more balanced, rehabilitative models. It adds to penological scholarship by illuminating the mechanisms through which global oversight fosters internal penal reform.

Correctional officers’ attitudes and perceptions about the treatment of offenders can affect an inmate’s experience within a correctional institution. Correctional officers meet offenders daily, and their influence on how offenders experience their detention cannot be overestimated. The perception of correctional officers towards the rehabilitation of offenders needs to be investigated for the benefit of the department, community, and offenders. The study aimed to determine correctional officers' perceptions toward rehabilitating offenders. The study used a quantitative research approach. A probability purposive sampling approach was used to select the participants. The study found that correctional officers are key in communicating with offenders and providing trustworthy advice to improve their lives. Correctional officers working in correctional centres may assist in rehabilitating offenders by communicating needs and risks to parole officers, parole boards, judges, or probation officers. Offenders should be punished for the crime/s they have committed. Increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime. The study recommends that basic training of correctional officers should include issues of the rehabilitation of offenders. Correctional officers who engage offenders in rehabilitation should receive performance management bonuses. Moreover, correctional officers should be briefed on the content of the programmes offered by custodial therapists.