Hard on the heels of a bleak report about the lack of preparation by prisoners for their return to society at the end of their sentence, comes more cause for concern about the management and leadership of the Corradino Correctional Facility. Recent events point to an organisation in need of fundamental reform.
The resignation of the prison director following revelations in The Sunday Times of a notorious prisoner apparently running the show behind bars as an intermediary between prisoners and the director; the resignation three months ago of Mario Felice as chairman of the Prison Board and a tactfully couched, but most revealing, interview which he gave about the culture of abuse in the prison; the alleged beating of a Dutch inmate by prison warders, which has been the catalyst for a lot of what is now being exposed. All these incidents have come together to leave an impression of an organisation in disarray.
The Minister of Justice and Home Affairs has been quick to appoint an independent board to investigate the alleged shortcomings in the prison. The Times has raised questions over the fact that the chairman of the board, Emanuel Cassar, is the immediate predecessor of the recently departed director, and we trust that his earlier involvement in running the prison will not undermine the calibre of the report which the board produces.
The independent board must start by looking into the events which precipitated the resignation of the director and the specific shortcomings which have been uncovered by an alert media. But the report should go further than this if it is to serve any useful long-term purpose.
The board should begin by laying down what they see as the Correctional Service's statement of purpose. This, we suggest, is to keep in custody those committed by the courts. Its duty is to look after them with humanity and help them lead law-abiding and useful lives in custody and after release, to prepare them for their return to the community in a way that makes it less likely that they will re-offend.
The board would do well to measure what it uncovers in the course of its enquiries against the benchmarks set by this statement of purpose. It should examine the quality of leadership in the prison. It needs to confront whether the use of police officers or ex-policemen in the Correctional Service is wise, and whether it produces the best results. Few other professional prison services in Europe are run by police officers who, by their background and training, are ill-suited to the much more nuanced and complex management of a prison.
In the light of these incidents and Dr Felice's remarks, what should be done about improving the discipline and training of individual correctional officers so that they show responsibility not only for the custody but also for the care of prisoners? If an informal culture of deferring to powerful prisoners in Corradino exists, what is to be done to change such an anarchic system? How can the programme of rehabilitation and preparation for resettlement of prisoners in society be markedly improved?
These and other aspects should be covered by the board's report if a fresh start in the management of the Corradino Correctional Facility is to be made.