Editorial: Innovative Approaches in Community and Institutional Rehabilitation of Offenders

This special issue on “Innovative Approaches in Community and Institutional Rehabilitation of Offenders” is an offshoot from a conference of the same name held in the National University of Singapore on 27 July 2017. Co-organized by the Social Service Research Centre and the Next Age Institute and in partnership with the Singapore Prison Service, the conference brought together multi-disciplinary presentations from Singapore and overseas.

Mr Desmond Lee, Singapore’s Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office and Second Minister of Home Affairs and National Development, was the Guest-of-Honour. In his speech, he emphasized the importance of strengthening family support and addressing issues such as income and stigma in more effective rehabilitation. Professor Paul Cheung of the Social Service Research Centre drew attention to elderly prisoners in his welcome speech. In fast ageing societies, a different approach to rehabilitation of inmates older than 60 years of age is needed.

These two opening speeches in the conference show how far offender work has come. From highly punitive systems focused on desistence and prevention (sending a strong signal against crime), the cumulative evidence today is that strong rehabilitative programs have shown greater effectiveness at decreasing crime through reduced recidivism. They also highlight the new challenges as society changes. For example, demographic shifts, labour market insecurities and stressed families are factors central to effective re-integration of ex-offenders.

This special issue contains six articles on a variety of innovations. It comprises articles from presentations made at the conference and from an open call for papers. They show how far-reaching true rehabilitation can and should be. From the judicial system to in-prison work to diversionary or aftercare programs, the innovations are increasingly taking into account the circumstances of the ex-offender and his/her ecosystem. “Court Processes and Orders for Positive Outcomes” by Judge Lim Keng Yeow analyzes how court processes can be more rehabilitative. It gives as example two initiatives in the Singapore court system, post-sentencing judicial monitoring and a pre-sentencing protocol, aimed at better supporting rehabilitation.

“Enhancing corrections, transforming lives: a Singapore Perspective” by Desmond K.T. Chin and Neeti Iyer is excerpted from the keynote speech by Desmond Chin, the Commissioner of Prisons in Singapore. It gives a historical account of how the Singapore Prison System has become more rehabilitative, with positive outcomes: “the period of transformation coincided with a dramatic reduction in the prison population and recidivism rate”. It also looks forward to the future, outlining the ways that the Singapore Prison System will move upstream towards prevention and downstream towards re-integration. This article is a good documentation of the Singapore story in rehabilitative prison services.

“Rehabilitation, reintegration and recidivism: a theoretical and methodological reflection” by co-editor Ganapathy Narayana provocatively questions long-standing understanding, e.g. how recidivism is measured and practices such as the risk-needs-responsivity model, thereby critiquing the tensions and contradictions in offender rehabilitation.

Of the six articles, three are from Singapore and one each are from Hong Kong, China and South Korea. The articles show the challenges of adopting non-traditional rehabilitative models in Asia in the midst of attempts at experimentation. “Jean Valjean Bank in Korea: an innovative approach to poor defendants sentenced to pay fines” by Chang-Keun Han showcases a program by a non-government organization to prevent imprisonment of minor offenders who cannot pay the fines for their offenses. While addressing the unfairness and inequality of the poor being imprisoned because of the inability to pay, it appears that advocacy work still has some way to go. This is because the state system is based on a traditional economic model by Becker (1968), that payment by monetary means or by incarceration are substitutes as compensation to crime.

“Restorative justice for delinquents in Hong Kong: current practices and challenges” by Dennis Wong suggests that restorative justice, “an innovative justice practice….(that)…..emphasises repairing the harm caused by criminal acts through cooperative processes…”, has limited application in Hong Kong despite evidence of its effectiveness and adoption elsewhere. “Rehabilitation policy for drug addicted offenders in China: current trends, patterns, and practice implications” by Liu Liu and Wing Hong Chui argue that the criminal approach to drug use through incarceration in China has not been effective. It also argues for more treatment and social work interventions as alternatives.

Together, the articles in this issue cover a rich set of examples at innovations and analyses of the issues around rehabilitation. In Asia, much as been learned; much more is to be tried.