Pubdate: Mon, 03 Sep 2012
Source: Canberra Times (Australia)
Copyright: 2012 Canberra Times
Contact:  http://www.canberratimes.com.au/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/71
Author: David Biles
Note: David Biles is a Canberra-based consultant criminologist. The 
advice of corrections consultant, Dr John Paget, is acknowledged.

NO DRUGS IN PRISON A BIG ASK

A harsh regime to prevent contraband from entering would be worse 
than the existing problem, DAVID BILES writes

One hesitates to publicly disagree with such a distinguished scholar 
as Clive Williams, but his opinion piece in this journal ("How to 
make jail drug-free", August 29, p17) which suggested that a jail 
could be made drug-free by making a few simple changes to management 
practices is simply naive. His proposal ignores the fundamental 
reality of correctional management in Australia.

Of course it is technically possible for this goal to be achieved by 
imposing a management regime which is so strict that it would not be 
possible for any contraband to ever find its way inside the walls or 
external fence of the jail. The consequence of installing such a 
regime, however, could be harm that is much more serious than the 
harm done by the occasional drug-taking by prisoners.

The first step suggested by Williams in achieving a drug-free status 
would be to ban all smoking and he cites the fact that New Zealand 
made its prisons non-smoking environments from June 2011 because of 
concerns about the health effects of tobacco on inmates and prison 
officers. This major policy change has, he claims, led to no major 
incidents and in fact has created a calmer environment and fewer 
"standover" incidents.

This approach has been tried in Australia, when in April 1967 a major 
riot occurred in the Woodford Correctional Centre, north of Brisbane, 
following the announcement of a new non-smoking policy. Following 
that announcement 120 prisoners managed to escape from the security 
unit by "melting" the lexen walls with toasters and by starting 
fires. These prisoners then joined hundreds of other angry 
low-security prisoners who were also protesting the new policy.

I happened to visit the Woodford facility a few weeks after the riot 
and destruction, and it was clear that the non-smoking policy had 
been the trigger for the negative consequences and the many hundreds 
of thousands of dollars required for the repairs to the facility. 
Predictably, the non-smoking policy was quietly forgotten when the 
prison was reopened for normal use some months later, and similar 
approaches have not been tried in Australian jails since then.

It has to be said that it is obvious that the New Zealand policy was 
much more carefully planned (over a 12-month period) than was the 
case in Queensland, and it is also true that public and political 
attitudes to smoking have changed significantly in the past 50 years, 
but the major point that must be made here is that there is a major 
difference between creating a smoke-free prison and one which is drug-free.

Williams is quite right to observe that the most likely avenue for 
drugs to enter the Canberra prison is through visitors, but he goes 
on to suggest that this "avenue could be blocked by physically 
separating prisoners and visitors, or strip and body-cavity searching 
prisoners leaving the visiting area".

Here I have to decisively part company from Williams as I regard 
strip searching and the searching of body cavities as equivalent to 
major sexual assault, certainly a major breech of human rights.

He then describes a Japanese prison that he visited which allowed one 
15-minute visit a day, one visitor per visit, with physical 
separation of the prisoner by a glass panel, and a prison officer 
with each prisoner during the visit.

I too have visited many Japanese prisons but I have never seen 
anything as blatantly inhumane as the scenario that he described and 
which he clearly sees as a model for us to follow.

It seems that Williams puts all his eggs in the supply-reduction 
basket without any acknowledgment of the need for demand-reduction 
and harm-reduction, to say nothing of his apparent belief that what 
may be acceptable in Japanese culture should also be acceptable in Australia.

Williams can be forgiven for not having read the lengthy report by 
the Australian Nation Council on Drugs which appeared just one day 
before his own article was published under the title "Supply", demand 
and harm reduction strategies in Australian prisons, an update.

Even a quick reading of this report reveals the complexity of the 
subject and the need for very careful consideration of the adequacy 
of the resources that would be required to even approach the goal of 
a drug-free jail.

For example, the report makes it clear that enormous numbers of 
professional personnel are required to provide sufficient support for 
offenders undergoing detoxification.

Also at a more mundane level, it must be recognised that to operate a 
methadone maintenance program in a prison (as is currently the case 
in all Australian states except Queensland) is extraordinarily 
labour-intensive as far as prison officers and nurses are concerned.

Similarly, the seemingly simple task of conducting urine testing for 
drugs in a prison, on either a random or targeted basis, is a much 
more complex, controversial and demanding subject than is generally recognised.

Finally, it must be said that the reason that all Australian 
jurisdictions make provision for contact visiting for prisoners is 
the belief that rehabilitation or return to a normal life after 
prison is more likely if family bonds are strengthened rather than weakened.

It is already the case that most Australian jurisdictions require 
prisoners to wear pocketless clothing for visits and to subject 
themselves to pat-down searching by prison officers after each visit.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom