“There’s a misconception that places are either rigorous or they’re sort of nurturing and cuddly and that you make a choice. You should be both. You should be ‘loving strict’.”
That is what a young headmaster of a West London school with problem children told a newly appointed minister responsible for prisons in the UK.
The minister realised he was swimming against the current when he resolved to do his utmost to address in a meaningful way the problem of drugs and violence in British prisons. But he was determined to give it his best shot.
Whether the politician succeeded, why and/or why not and to what extent is another matter.
The point being made here is that a resolute person, able and willing to take the bull by the horns, can and usually does make a difference.
It underscores why making the right appointment is crucial. And why lighting a candle rather than just cursing the dark can be more than a mere cliché.
That is why prison director Christopher Siegersma – a psychiatric nurse by profession, not a politician – deserves all the support he can get as he strives to convert Corradino prison from a retribution to a reform/rehabilitation facility.
He was the first commissioner for inmates’ welfare and development, a post only created in late 2021, and things started to improve immediately. In fact, in his latest report on Corradino Correctional Facility, the ombudsman reports “very cordial” relations between the commissioner and his office. Also, many complaints by inmates to the ombudsman were “rapidly solved” by the commissioner without the ombudsman having to investigate.
If that was a clear indication that Siegersma means business, his bold decision to allow Times of Malta inside the ‘thick’ prison walls speaks volumes. It was a bold decision not because it is unprecedented elsewhere but because one prison director after another and one minister after another would have nothing of the sort.
He even let it be known publicly that, were it up to him, solitary confinement would be abolished altogether, whether from the prison regulations or the law.
The law empowers courts to order solitary confinement together with imprisonment, and the prison director can order it as a disciplinary measure. Solitary confinement imposed by the judiciary is rare. Not so when it comes to former prison directors.
Siegersma follows modern thinking when he declares solitary confinement serves no purpose whatsoever in the reform efforts of a rehabilitation facility.
It is, indeed, a breath of fresh air hearing him speak of encouraging inmates to enrol in education courses or work while serving time. That is the way to go, and not nurture, whether by omission or by commission, a “factory of evil”.
As social well-being experts observed four years ago, what this country needs are rehabilitative structures and social care services that ensure inmates are, at the end of their term, better positioned to behave as active and responsible citizens.
Of course many disagree with this philosophy and demand harsh penalties based on an ‘eye-for-an-eye’ approach. But history teaches us that a punitive prison system, focused solely on retribution rather than rehabilitation, ultimately backfires by fostering higher recidivism rates and failing to reduce crime in the long run.
Siegersma appears to be on the right track even if the very nature of his job means the prisons will inevitably sometimes make the headlines for the wrong reasons.