Prisoner's Contact with Their Families

TABLE OF CONTENTS Topic Page No. List of Tables ii The Research Team iii Acknowledgments iv Glossary of Terms used in Prisons v Chapter I: Introduction 1 Chapter II: Review of Literature 5 Chapter III: Research Methodology 9 Chapter IV: Procedure and Practice for Prisoners’ Communication 14 with the Outside Chapter V: Communication Facilities: Processes, 35 Experiences and Perceptions Chapter VI: Good Practices and Recommendations 68 References 80 Appendix 81 End Notes 88 i List of Tables Title Page No. Table 3.1 Research Sites 10 Table 3.2. Number of Respondents (State-wise) 10 Table 4.1: Procedures for Prisoners’ Meetings with Visitors 14 Table 4.2. Facilities for Telephonic Communication 27 Table 4.3: Facilities for Communication through Inland-letters and Postcards 28 Table 4.4: Feedback and Concerns Shared about Practice and Procedure 29 ii The Research Team Researcher Ms. Subhadra Nair Data Collection Team Ms. Subhadra Nair Ms. Surekha Sale Ms. Pradnya Shinde Ms. Meenal Kolatkar Ms. Priyanka Kamble Ms. Karuna Sangare Ms. Komal Phadtare Report Writing Team Ms. Subhadra Nair Prof. Vijay Raghavan Dr. Sharon Menezes Ms. Devayani Tumma Ms. Krupa Shah Cover-page, Report Design and Layout Tabish Ahsan Administration Support Team Mr. Rajesh Gajbiye Ms. Shital Sakharkar Ms. Harshada Sawant Project Directors Prof. Vijay Raghavan Dr. Sharon Menezes iii Acknowledgements This study has reached its completion due to the support received from the Prison Departments of different states. We especially wish to thank the following persons for facilitating the study. 1. Shri S.N. Pandey, Director General (Prisons & Correctional Services), Mumbai, Maharashtra. 2. Shri Sunil Ramanand, Addl. Director General of Police & Inspector General (Prisons & Correctional Services), Pune, Maharashtra. 3. Shri Sandeep Goel, Director General (Prisons), Tihar Prisons, Delhi. 4. Shri Abhash Kumar, Addl. Director General/Inspector General (Prisons), Tamil Nadu. 5. Shri Ajay Bhatia, Dy. Inspector General (Prisons), Tihar Prisons, Delhi. 6. Shri Jai Kishan Chillar, Superintendent, Gurugram District Prison, Haryana. 7. Shri U.T. Pawar, Superintendent, Yerawada Central Prisons, Maharashtra. 8. Shri Harshad Ahirrao, Superintendent, Thane Central Prison, Maharashtra. 9. Shri Bharat Bhosale, Superintendent, Kalyan District Prison, Maharashtra. 10. Shri Sadanand Gaikwad, Superintendent, Byculla District Prison and Additional Superintendent, Mumbai Central Prison, Maharashtra. 11. Shri Dnyaneshwar Kharat, Addl. Senior Jailor, Yerawada Central Prison, Maharashtra. 12. Smt. Swati Pawar, Senior Jailor, Yerawada Central Prison, Maharashtra. 13. Thiru. G. B. Senthamaraikkannan, Superintendent, Puzhal Central Prison-II, Tamil Nadu. 14. Thiru. A. S. Abdul Rahuman, Jailor, Puzhal Central Prison-II, Tamil Nadu. 15. Thiru. K. Elangovan, Jailor, Puzhal Central Prison-II, Tamil Nadu. 16. Thiru. M. Senthil Kumar, Superintendent, Puzhal Central Prison-I, Tamil Nadu. 17. Thiru. P. K. R. G. Ramesh, Jailor, Central Prison-I, Tamil Nadu. 18. Thiru. P. Dharmaraj, Jailor, Puzhal Central Prison-I, Tamil Nadu. 19. Thiru. K. Shankar, Superintendent, Thiruchirappali Central Prison, Tamil Nadu. 20. Tmt. Rajalakshmi, Superintendent, Special Women Prison, Thiruchirappali, Tamil Nadu. 21. Thiru. Shamshad Khan, Welfare Officer, Thiruchirappali Central Prison, Tamil Nadu. 22. Thiru. R. Krishna Raj, Superintendent, Coimbatore Central Prison, Tamil Nadu. 23. Tmt. A. Uvarani, Warder, Special Women Prison, Puzhal, Tamil Nadu. 24. Tmt. Helen Thraisrani, Grade-I, Head Warden, Special Women Prison Thiruchirappali, Tamil Nadu. We are also grateful to the prisoners and their families who have shared their experiences and stories with us, at a juncture when they were themselves grappling with the consequences of incarceration. We cannot acknowledge them by name, so as to protect their identities. We do hope that their voices lead us to improved pathways in criminal justice and social re- integration. iv GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN PRISONS Wired net/mesh. Here it refers to the iron net that is placed to Jali separate the visitor from the prisoner during the interview Mulakat (Hindi/Urdu) Interview/meeting between prisoner and visitor Manu (Tamil) Literally, Petition. However, it is used colloquially to refer to interview Manu porul (Tamil) Things brought by the family during the interview for the prisoner Manu seettu (Tamil) Interview slip. This contains details of the family visiting the prisoner, the details of the prisoner and the things that they have brought for the prisoner Parchee (Hindi) Paper slip which is used as token for registration Vakeel Advocate Vakeel mulakat The interviews that the prisoner have with their advocates -. v Chapter I INTRODUCTION Reformation and rehabilitation in society are important objectives of the Criminal Justice System (CJS). A large percentage of persons processed by the CJS are from socially and economically disadvantaged backgrounds. For instance, 40.2 per cent of prisoners were reported to have educational qualifications less that Standard X, and 28.9 per cent prisoners had no education. Out of 139488 convict prisoners, 96827 convict prisoners belonged to oppressed and disadvantaged caste communities. Out of 32, 3537 undertrial prisoners, 20,9629 undertrial prisoners were from these communities (NCRB, 2018).1 Thus, along with criminal and victim justice; social justice becomes a crucial component of justice delivery systems. Subsequently, social work intervention within CJS has a two-pronged approach, each feeding into the other. Firstly, it seeks to bring systemic change, to help people access criminal, victim and social justice. Secondly, it attempts to create pathways for people’s social re-entry – in a way that enables them to break trajectories of deprivation and social exclusion, and contribute to family and community. The CJS carries a responsibility to address social and economic disadvantages of prisoners in order to meet its objective of reformation, corrections and social and criminal justice. Social workers located within the CJS are aligned to work with the system to meet its objectives. Over the last thirty years, Prayas has worked persons accused of crime, towards bringing them back into social mainstream. Such intervention begins inside prison, with the social worker attempting to communicate to the person society’s intention to have the person return to family and community, and develop capacities for safe futures outside crime and exploitation. Thus, Prayas’s services are structured to address vocational training, education, employment, income generation, access to health and medical support, crisis support and safe and healthy relationships (Menezes and Raghavan, 2017). Meanwhile, Prayas’s experience indicates that during imprisonment, a large percentage of prisoners are anxious not so much about their futures, but the immediate – that is, their families and relationships. At one level, challenges faced by families get compounded after arrest and imprisonment of their relative. At another level, the hope of coming out of prison depends upon the case and the families’ capacities to facilitate release. At yet another level, arrest and imprisonment compromises family relationships. Sometimes crimes are committed to provide for and take care of the family, sometime as a result of strained relationship within family, or 1 sometimes relationships with the family is strained because of act of committing crime. In any case, family is a significant player in the mind of the prisoner. Thus, even where relationships are strained, prisoners’ preoccupation with their families leads them to request social workers to enhance connection with families. Social workers heed to this request, to extend support to family, or to connect the family with the prisoner, or to explore potential for repairing relationships if the prisoner and/ or the family desire it. In the process of meeting its objective of corrections, the prison space invites trauma, anxiety and loss of control. For the rehabilitation agenda to set in, it must be influenced as such. Thus, awareness, recreational, educational and vocational training programmes, emotional and psychological support, and facilitating connections with families are integral to rehabilitation of prisoners. Positive, stable relationships of the prisoner with the family is very crucial for their well-being while in prison and also for their better adjustment in the custodial situation. To amend the strained relationship between the prisoner and the family and/or to maintain, develop and strengthen prisoner-family relationship, it is important that there are frequent, ongoing and successful contact between prisoners and their families. Prayas’s experiences while working in the prisons show that those prisoners who have good relationships with the family or at least have some minimum contact with the family have a better chance of staying away from negative or harmful relationships while in prison, stand greater chances to get family support on their release, and they have support during the process of rehabilitation. In India, family contact of prisoners is maintained through rules that allow writing letters to family members,2 visits of family to prison to have face-to-face meetings (called mulakat), telephone calls and meetings through video conferencing facility. The type of contact facility given to prisoner and their family differs from state to state. It also varies from prison to prison in a particular state, depending

Load more