You are on page 1of 45

A DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM MODEL FOR DECONGESTING

NIGERIAN PRISONS: A CASE STUDY OF THE OKO PRISONS, EDO

STATE.
ABSTRACT

This study focuses on the problem of decongesting the Nigerian prison system, using three
prisons in Edo state: Oko, Ozalla farm prison and Ubiaja prisons as case studies . The aim of the
study was to design a decision support system (DSS) to help recommend and rank inmates based
on an acquittal likelihood factor that should be fast-tracked for speedy trial, bail or
relocation/recommendation for other correctional methods or facilities within the Nigerian legal
framework; apart from the prison. The study outlines a decision support system model, using
three Multi-criteria decision systems : SAW, TOPSIS and AHP and also advances six factors :
Status(awaiting trial, detainee, lifer etc.,) fraction of sentence served, Health
Condition/Pregnancy, Age, Gender and Dependency for ascribing weights to rank the inmates.
To establish the basic criteria weights, experts: 2 magistrates, 10 prison wardens, 5 lawyers, 10
prisoners, 6 Pastors , 9 NGO personnel ; participated in a questionnaire survey to predetermine
weights. The DSS presents two modes of guidance for the decision maker, namely: (a) a novice
mode, and (b) an advanced mode. The novice mode is designed for a decision maker who is
unfamiliar with the Multi-criteria methodology. The advanced mode is used when the decision
maker is familiar with MA methods so that he/she is capable of selecting a specific method using
the predetermined weights. The performance ratings of alternative the inmates with respect to
acquittal criteria are to be determined based on quantitative scaling on the 6 factors from a data
base . An example was described using the SAW method. Applying a DSS for effectively
tackling the prison decongestion problem is not only desirable, but also important, as the DSS
provides the decision maker with effective mechanisms to better understand the decision
problem for prison decongestion . Therefore it is recommended that such a decision system be
implemented in the Nigerian Prison system.
INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND OF STUDY


A Prison, penitentiary, or correctional facility is a place in which individuals are physically

confined or interned and usually deprived of a range of personal freedom. Prisons are

conventionally institutions, which form part of the criminal justice system of a country, such
that imprisonment or incarceration is a legal penalty that may be imposed by the state for the

commission of a crime. In popular parlance of many countries, the term Jail (goal) is

considered synonymous with Prison.


Overcrowding in Nigeria prisons occurs where the numbers of prisoners exceeds prison

capacity to an extent inmates cannot be housed in a humane, healthy and psychological

manner. In Nigeria, overcrowding is generally called congestion. It constitutes a serious

challenge in Nigeria prisons especially in prisons located in the metropolitan cities. In such
prisons, cells in Nigeria, facilities hold as many as twice or thrice their capacity. In such cells

there is hardly enough room for prison inmates to move body and limbs freely. In such state

each prisoner is allocated a “post” which approximately is a space of a foot and a half.

Majority of the prisons in Nigeria are congested and overcrowded and this create enormous

problem in prison management process in terms of reformation, rehabilitation and

reintegration. The capacity of Nigerian prisons has remained virtually the same for the past

two decades not withstanding the alarming increase in prison population. These prisons were

built by the colonial administration and native authority predating to the era Nigeria gain

independence in 1960. The conditions of these prisons are in an alarming state of despair

with no sense of maintenance or renovation reflective of long neglect by the Nigeria

government. In fact, most of the prisons constructed at this period are old, in bad shape and at

the brinks of collapse. However, few prisons have been constructed with most substandard

materials, which are a far cry from modern prisons across the globe. Examples of such new

prisons include, Gusua Medium Prison, Kebbi new Prisons (1991), Medium Security Prisons

Kirikiri (1993), Funtia (2003), Oyo and Eket Prisons (2007) respectively. Considering the

act of imprisonment as the most effective form of sanctions of offenders, nevertheless, in the

last few decades, inmate‟s population in Nigeria have grown substantially, to the extent

leading to overcrowding. The overcrowding tends to alter the psychological, physiological

and behavioural wellbeing of the inmates (Crystal, 2004). The massive influx of inmates that

begun in recent times as a result of delay in judiciary process has produced a rate of growth

in the nation‟s inmates population that scholars and legal commentators have repeatedly

described and characterized as unprecedented. Aduba (2005) reported that the total prison

capacity during the period of 1978 to 1981 was 27,257, but it was revealed that in 1978, the
average monthly population was 32,332; in 1979 it was 34,770; in 1980, it was 35,332; and

in 1981 it was 38,477 (Nigeria prison services, 1978-1981). The percentage of

„overcrowding‟ thus was 18.61 in 1978, 27.56 in 1979, 29.43 in 1980, and 41.16 in 1981.

Currently, Nigeria prisons are housing 49,000 in two hundred and thirty four prisons out of

which 20% are convicts while the rest are awaiting trial inmates (Amnesty International

Report, 2012).This imaginable condition of overcrowding is relatively easy to recognise

when one sees it situations where there is no enough room for prisoners to sleep; no facilities

to provide enough food, health care or any form of constructive activities; insufficient staff to

ensure that prisoners are safe; lack of accommodation to hold separately types of prisoners

who should be kept apart- juveniles from adult; awaiting trails from convicted , or lack of

capacity to admit any more numbers so that emergency measures have to be taken in the

form of amnesty, emergency accommodation or the holding of prisoners in police custody.


In view of the foregoing there is the need for devicing strategies both in the long term and

short term for managing prison capacity.


1.2 PROBLEM OF STUDY
Computer today is one of the most important tools people use. It has helped a lot in

compiling data which used to be in hard records. One of the uses or benefit of computer is

that it enables storage and retrieval of information so quickly that it has decreased

information and work complexity. In devising strategies for prison decongestion in view of

selecting inmates with a greater likelihood for discharge or bail such as awaiting trials,

detainees and pregnant women and the terminally sick, there is a need for decision support

system, which is computer based to implement rules for choosing and recommending an

inmate with a higher probability of acquittal i.e a decision support system (DSS) capable of

facilitating the process of decongesting the prisons.

1.3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES


1.3.1 AIMS
The aim of this study is to develop a DSS that helps prison superintendents and officials

in making lists of those inmates with the greater likelihood of obtaining acquittals, bail,

parole or pardon/mercy.
1.3.2 OBJECTIVES
a). To explore the rules for inmate selection for trial or amnesty programmes.
b) Gathering data on the different categories of prisoners
c) Eliciting perspectives and knowledge from prison stakeholders, such as warders,

prisoners, lawyers , NGO members such as Christian fellowship members.

1.4: SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY

This work will be relevant to prison administrators and other stakeholders in devising

decision support system for the decongestion of Nigerian prisons. Also it will raise additional

concern and awareness on the problem of overcrowding of Nigerian prisons. A decision support

system also ancillary to its development will require the documentation of prison records in a

form that could be made available through computer systems and networks.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 WHO ARE IN THE NIGERIAN PRISONS?

It is important to note that there are three types of persons we find in prison – The Innocent who

were wrongly accused, wrongly detained, wrongly convicted and/or wrongly sentensed; The

Minor Offenders who though have committed offences but those are not of the nature that should

attract incarceration; and the Serious Offenders who though in prison but will someday come

back into the society (unless if the person dies in prison). This work will be done against the

above back drop.

A glance on the Prison Record Chart that adorn most prison (if not all prisons) gates and offices

of the officers in-charge of the prisons includes the following categories of prisoners: ‘Awaiting

Trial Males’ (ATM), ‘Awaiting Trial Femals (ATF), ‘Convicted Males’ (CM), ‘Convicted

Females’ (CF), ‘Detained at His Excellencies Pleasure’ (Underaged detaineed in prison with

special authorization), ‘Debtors’, ‘Criminal Lunatics’ (Mentally ill persons charged with an

offence), and ‘Civil Luinatics’ (Mentally ill person charged with no crime), ‘Condemned

Convicts’ (CC) – Prisoners on Death Row, Lodgers (detainees from other prisons who are

currently in the particular prison for purposes such as attendance to court, hospital or for other

special reasons. It is also argueable whether our prisons should hold all these categories of

persons, especially with respect to the ‘civil lunatic’.

One can therefore argue that the above constitute the inmates population of an average prison in

Nigeria. However, it is important to state that the Nigerian prisons population has a

disproportional high number as awaiting trial / remand prisoners. For example in 2000 out of a

total population of 42,298 inmates nation-wide, 24,953 (59%) were awaiting trial prisoners

(Agomoh et al, 2001)2. This masks some of the really problem. Many of the prisons has a
staggering proportion as awaiting trial, sometimes as high as

80% - 90%.

It has been argued by officials of the Nigerian Prison Service that many of the cases of

congestion occur amongst prisons located in urban area. Analysizing the statistics from 30 (out

of the over 200) Nigerian prisons, it was observed that 30 prisons accounted for 22,609 (about

50%) of the national prison inmates population and 16,422,609 of this number were awaiting

trials (Agomoh U et al 2001).

Of this number, the percentage of awaiting trial for some of the prisons were as follows: Akure

Prisons (98%), Ikoyi prison (92%), Owerri Prison (89%), Kirikiri Medium (86%); Port Harcourt

(83%), Onitsha Prison (83%), Aba (82%), Kaduna Prison (78%), and Madiguri New Prison

(74%).

In a 2008/2009 Baseline and Impact Assessment of the Prison Decongestion and Reentry

Scheme carried out by PRAWA it was observed that in Enugu State that of the four prisons

located in the state, all the three prisons holding awaiting trials had very high proportion of the

above therefore suggest that one need to be careful in assuming that only prisons located in urban

areas are congested in Nigeria. Though it may also be argued that both Nsukka and Oji River are

not rural areas but it is clearly understandable that Enugu is certainly a more cosmopolitian/urban

city than Nsukka and Oji River.

If this is the case, one may then ask why is the proportion of awaiting trials higher in Nsukka

and Oji River than Enugu? This suggest that more rigorous examination need to be undertaken

on other intervening factors such as distance and nature of the court attending to the cases,

availability of vehicles for the transportation of inmates to courts, frequency of adjournments,


frequency of oversight and review mechanisms such as jail delivery process, availability/quality

of legal representation for the inmates, etc.

Also, there are instances where significant number of persons remanded in prison are designated

as ‘civil or criminal lunantic’. For example in 2008, out of a total prison population of 860 in

Enugu Prison, 157 were convicted prisoners, 598 Awaiting Trial Prisoners and 105 Mentally ill

prisoners (PRAWA, 2009). This indicates that mentally ill prisoners accounted for 12.2% of the

total prison population in this particular prison. If One adds the number of mentally ill prisoners

to the awaiting trial figure (given that most of them are awaiting trial/remand prisoners), we will

have a total of 703 out the total population of 860 as awaiting trial persons with mentally ill

persons accounting for 14.9% of the total number of non-convicted persons in the prison. When

one considers the fact that most of the mentally ill persons are ‘civil lunatics’ - who are detained

primarily for the mental state and not because of their commission of any crime, it leaves much

to be desired. This is often because their family members are either ashamed or their state or

unable or unwilling to pay for their proper treatment in a psychiatric hospital/therapeutic setting.

They reason, by incarecrating/detaining them in prison, this consequently gets the

government/Nigerian Prison service to provide free food, accommodation, and (if they are lucky)

even medication for these persons. In addition, this removes the persons from circulation in the

community/public and thus shields their family from shame and stigma. The question therefore is

whether these persons should not be diverted to proper therapeutic settings and decongest the

Nigerian Prisons from this undeserved load/burden. Writing on protecting the human rights of

people with mental health disabilities in african prisons, Agomoh (2008) noted that: ‘The

practice of imprisoning mentally disabled persons raises critical questions. The rationale for
imprisonment comes into question. Such practices also challenges both the human rights posture

and the quality of health care delivery of the state in

2.2 . WHY ARE THE NIGERIAN PRISONS CONGESTED?

Other questions may be as follows: Why are the people in Nigerian Prisons Incarcerated in the

first instance? What are the people in the Nigerian Prisons Incarcerated for? Why are the people

in the Nigerian Prison incarcerated for the length of time they are incarcerated / detained for? As

stated in the Introductory part of this lecture, it will be too naive or simplicitic to assume that all

the people incarecerated in the Nigerian prisons are there because they all committed some

kind(s) of crime/offences - i.e. The ‘Just Desert’ arguement will not suffice. It will also be an

error to believe that because the high number of those in prison are awaiting trial/remand

prisoners, that adhoc interventions to remove these categories of prisoners from prison or any

intervention to quickly convert them as sentensed or convicted prisoners are the only panacea we

need. Doing the above will only result to an unending circle of same problem. No wonder all

past attempts at decongesting the awaiting trial/remand population in Nigeria had been so

unsuccessful.

A close examination of the processing of persons within the Nigerian Criminal Justice System

and the various stages/phases will give some indication as to the reasons why Nigerian Prisons

are congested, namely:

a. Phase One: Pre-Incareration/Imprisonment Phase - What happens before a person gets into

prison – Why the imprisonment and how was the person processed into the prison; What is the

rate of incarceration/reception into the prison?


b. Phase Two: Incarceration/Imprisonment Phase – What determines the length of period a

person is incarcerated in prison either as an awaiting trial / remand or convicted / sentenced

prisoner? What is the crietria for determining whether to utilise prison or other non-custodial

measures in any given case? What are the conditions of imprisonment and the treatment of

persons in prison and what are the effect/consequencies of this?

c. Phase Three: Post Incarceration/Imprisonment Phase – What is the nature of the re-entry

(Rehabilitation, resettlement and reintegration) adopted and how effective are these? What are

the rates of recidivism/re-offending behaviour and the factors that contributes to this and how

does this affect future prison population?

Several factors have been identified as contributing to prison overcrowding else where (Coyle,

2002; Penal Reform International, 2003) and in Nigeria. For example, Agomoh et al (2001)6

listed the following: high remand / awaiting trial population; congestion and lack of speedy trial;

overuse of imprisonment by the courts; Abuse of arrest powers and bail conditions by the police;

Inadequate legal aid facilities; Logistics problem relating to transportation of defendants to court;

Inadequacy in prison structures; Inadequate utilization of non-custodial disposition measure; and

Corruption. Also, the authors discussed the effects of the following on prison population and

reforms: Poor treatment of prisoners (including health and welfare facilities); Lack of adequate

juvenile justice system; Poor treatment of women; Poor treatment of mentally ill prisoners; Lack

of adequate coordination and planning with the justice sector; Inadequate funding and other

administrative set backs; and Inadequate community involvement in the dispesation of justice.
2.3 WHY DECONGEST THE NIGERIAN PRISON POPULATION

One may argue that the problem in Nigeria is not decongestion of the Nigeria prison population

rather the decongestion of the country’s awaiting trial / remand prison population. Justifying this

position, the proponent of this arguement may point to the fact that the statistics seem to be

suggessting that Nigeria is ‘under-imprisoning’ given that the prison population is very small in

relation to the population of the country which is estimated at over 150 million. For some, the

arguement may be to build more prisons or privatize the existing ones or some of the existing

ones. What seem to be often forgotten in these arguements is that there are a significant high

number of persons detained in several police stations and detention facilities accross the country

that are not accounted for in the total prison / detention population’s figure(s). Also, beyond this,

is the fact that a disproportional number of those in prison are awaiting trial persons, an equally

high number of these are detained for long period before the completion of their trial process. In

some instance, this ranges as high as 4 year to 10 years or even more. The situation was worse

pre 1999 (during the military era and its aftermath) with many cases ranging from 10 years to 15

years or more (See Ehonwa and Odinkalu, 1991; Agomoh 2007).

Making a case in support of decongestion of the Nigerian Awaiting Trial / Remand Population,

Agomoh (1996) stated thus:

‘It is important to mention that having a high proportion of remand prisoners leads to several

administrative and practical problems for both the prison establishment, the police, the judiciary,

(the ministry of justice), the prisoners, and their families and the society in general. For the

prison establishment, these include: overcrowding, high cost of maintenance, increased staff

stress and work load, non-qualitative prison regime, poor management and discipline. For the
judiciary (ministry of justice) and the police, it raises a lot of philosophical and credibility

questions. For instance, remand in prison have been linked to poor outcome of trial. Evidence

suggests that the probability of conviction is higher among those remanded in custody than

those remanded on bail. Also, among those convicted, the probability of a custodial sentence is

higher for those remanded in custody than those granted bail. Various reasons have been

attributed to these which include viz: the lower rate of pleading not guilty by defendants who

have been remanded in custody, their disadvantages in preparing their cases for trial and their

higher likelihood of receiving custodial sentence. Furthermore, the problems faced by the

remand prisoners and their families are numerous. In fact, they have been found to suffer the

worst conditions in prisons than any other category of prisoners. Such problems relate to

physical, psychological, medical and economic conditions’7.

The point about awaiting trial prisoners suffering the worst conditions in prisons has been

affirmed by many (See Ehonwa and Odinkalu, 1991)8. Agomoh (1996) further asserts that

‘There is so much that can be gained by reducing our remand population listing the benefits to

the Prison Service and the individual remand prisoners as follows:

Benefits to the Prison Service:

 Reduction in Monetary Expenses


 Reduction of Staff Workload and Stress
 Manageability of the Prisons/Improved Prison Regime
 Reduction in Prison Overcrowding Rate
 Improved Sanitary and Living Conditions in Prisons
 Reduction of lack of discipline, disturbances and aggression inprison

Benefit to the Individual Remand Prisoner:

 Reduction of unnecessary violation of the individual’s right to liberty


 Prevention of the negative effectives of incarteceration such as psychological stress to

the prison; financial, psychological and social stress faced by the families
 Opportunity for better preparation of their cases
 Prevention of criminal socialisation of those innocent by the more serious and

sophisticated offenders

2.4 STRATEGIES FOR DECONGESTING PRISONS

What are the practical, effective and sustainable solutions to the problem of prison (or the

awaiting trial prison) congestion in Nigeria ?

Discussing the remedies that can be adopted at the various stages of the criminal justice delivery

system, Agomoh 1996 listed the following:

1. At the Police Stage: Good Investigating and preventive policing initative including

survelliance, improved criteria and practice of police bail procedure, independent lay visist and

other monitoring mechanisms, improved transportation of suspects to courts, and adoption of

pre-trial diversion measures.

2. At the judiciary stage: improved court bail criteria and practice, efficiency of court/law

officers (including speedy recording of court proceedings, and appointment of more judges and

magistrates) improved legal aid criteria and practice, introduction of bail information scheme to

improve bail decisions, supervision and support scheme for those on bail, use of bail hostels,

alternative to pre-trial detention (including introduction of pre-trial victim-offender mediation,

etc).

3. At the prison stage: improvement of communication and information on awaiting trial/remand

prisoners, independent lay visits and other monitoring mechanisms, regular utilisation of the
decongestion committees at the state level, transportation of defendants to courts. Attempting to

articulate a Draft Nigerian Remand Prisoners Decongestion Declaration and Platform for Action,

the author called for strategic action in the following critical areas of concern, namely:

Indiscriminate Arrest; Inadequate Investigation before Arrest; Abuse of the right to bail and the

bail procedure; Lack of (quality) Legal Representation; Long Detention without Trial, Prison

Congestion and Prolonged Trial; Transportation of defendants from prison/police cells to court;

Over utlization of incarceration (remand in custody; and Under utilization of non-custodial

(alternatives to imprisonment) measures.

Several others have made strong cases for the need to improve the bail criteria and process to

facilitate criminal justice reforms elsewhere (Burrow et al, 1994), and in Nigeria ( Atsenwa,

2007; Ibidapo – Obe and Nwankwo C, 1992; and Ehonwa and Odinkalu, 1991). In a more recent

publication, Agomoh et al (2009) noted that utilisation of the jail delivery process in a more

creative and regular manner will also aid the decongestion of awaiting trial prison population in

Nigeria. This position was further proved by the result/trend observed during the Baseline and

Impact Assessment of the Prison Decongestion and Re-entry Scheme (Nweze et al, 2009). A

similar call was made in the report of the National Needs Assessment for the Justice Sector

where it was states that:

‘The Criminal Justice Committees should be compelled to be more effective in utilising their

powers of jail delivery to at least, a minimum of four times per year’ (Nigeria Bar Association,

2007)10.
Other recommendations contained in the report on prisons and penal institutions includes the

following: Please note the comments in italics are the additional suggestion made in this paper

towards each of the recommendation:

A decision system for Awaiting Trial Prisoners (ATPs) should be facilitated to separate as much

as possible from convicted prisoners by designating certain prisons as either remand or convict

prisons, and high, medium and low security prisons, in those states with more than one prison in

their jurisdiction. In this way, the report argued, their peculiar problems could be addressed more

effectively. The challenges with this is that no operational exigencies, the prison service usually

mix different type of inmate in every given prison as they argue that due to security monitoring

and control needs, the service will for example use only low risk convicted prisoners especially

those about to be released to carryout required prison duties such as ‘water gangs’ (those that will

go out of the prisons to fetch water), cleaning of the environment and other required services

including work carried out on gardens, farms and houses of prison officers, etc.

 Allowances should be made that avail them (ATPs) educational, vocational and

recreational activities in prison, which facilities are not available to them, presently.
 Adequate provision should be made for them (ATPs) to enjoy the minimum comforts that

convicted prisoners currently enjoy, as in mattresses, sufficient space and ventilation in

their cells, and longer ‘open up’ periods.


 An officer of the State High Courts, should be designated as’Prison Coordinating

Officer’, with duties to liaise with the DPP’s office, the Nigerian Police Force and the

Welfare Department of the Prisons should be appointed, with a view to protecting and

promoting the rights of the ATP’s in the Courts, and speeding up their trials, generally.

The term ‘Court – Prison Liaison Officer’ or ‘Court – Prison Link Officer’ rather than
the suggested ‘Prison Coordinating Officer’ may be a more appropriate designation for

such an officer to perform the prescribe role.


 Members of the Nigerian Bar Association, the Legal Aid Council of the Federal Republic

of Nigeria and Members of the Civil Society should be encouraged to actively participate

in offering free legal aid to ATPs.


 The physical structures in prisons and police detention centers should be reconstructed

and theit facilities upgraded with a view to ensuring sufficient ventilation and space for

the inmates.
 Alternatives to imprisonment (non-custodial) measures should be explored and utilized

extensively for the commission of stipulated lesser offences. Though this often

applicable to convicted prisoners, it is recommended that creative application of non-

custodial measures and other diversion measures should be adopted for minor offenders,

first offenders and juveniles where possible. This will off course meet certain

preconditions before being applied/ For example, acceptance of guilt by the offender,

interest and agreement by the victim(s), public safety etc). This recommendation is been

made against the back drop of the current crisis with the awaiting trial population which

requires radical, holistic and sustainable intervention. There has also been similar

diversion measure applied in South Africa with respect to Juveniles (See Muntingh, 1995;

Muntingh and Shapiro, 1994).


 Remand homes and borstal institutions should be rehabilitated, built and equipped, in

every State, to cater for the youth and children who fall foul of the law. These children

should also be afforded access to appropriate and well-trained service providers in many

areas, including reading materials, educational and developmental programmes, and

adequate safeguards should be introduced to protect them from all manner of abuse.
Writing on different ways to reduce prison numbers, OEC DAC Handbook on Security System

Reform states thus:

‘There are several ways of reducing prison numbers. One is to accept only those persons into

detention for whom there is a legal warrant authorising imprisonment. Speeding up the trial

process so that detainees spend less time in pre-trial detention can be effective. Criminal

procedure codes can be adapted, so that judges rather than prosecutors make the decision about

pre-trial detention. Judges or Magistrates can visit prisons and release those held long or

unlawfully’.

Some Examples: In Mozambique: Commissions are established to regularly review the legality

of detention by touring the prisons and checking prisoners’ files. This is similar to the use of the

Jail Delivery Process in Nigeria (See Agomoh et al, 2009).

Time-limits on pre-trial detention can also be introduced by legislation. This need to be

effectively enforced. Section 35 (4) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria

contains specific limits. In practice, this is rarely observed.

As is the case in Malawi, para-legals can visit prisons and help detainees prepare their bail

application. There are instances of similiar initiative carried out by lawyers from the Nigeria

Legal Aid Council and many Nigeria NGOs as well as Ministries of Justice at Federal and State

Levels such as through the Office of Public Defender (Lagos State), Other States such as Rivers

State, Enugu and Plateau State also attempted to establish similar initiatives to promote Citizen’s

Rights and Mediation though each recorded varying degrees of success.

In Bihar, India makeshift courts are held in prisons to deal with minor cases on the spot. In

Nigeria, similar activities are carried out through the use of the Jail Delivery Process. Building of
Court near prison as is the case of Kirikiri Medium Prison Lagos which has a magistrate court

located directly in front of it. Speaking of building/erecting court near prisons, in Sierra Leone, a

court is erected next to the Pademba Road Central Prison with a tunnel connecting the prison and

the court so that prisoners who are taken to court need not leave the prison gate.

It will be an error to be narrow minded in relation to implementing prison decongestion and

reform interventions in Nigeria or any where else. As was argued else where: ‘....the reforms that

are likely to impact criminal justice administration in the specific areas of bail, remand and

sentencing are not necessarily directed at those stages in the criminal process....incidental factors

such as poor state of judges’ welfare, poor infrastructure, corruption, lack of requisite knowledge

and skills, etc all impact the system’ (Atsenuwa, 2007).

What affects the prisons directly or/and indirectly affects other agencies within the criminal

justice system. To redress the problem, remedies need to flow from all the relevant sectors. The

reform of the police, ministry of justice, the judiciary etc will conversely affect the prisons and

vice-versa. Also, intra, inter and multi-agency coordination and cooperation is key to actualising

and sustaining the proposed reforms. It is also important to state here that there are broader

linkages between the justice sector and other sectors. For example, the activities and

effectiveness of the ministeries responsible for health, education, youths, employment etc have

direct and indirect impact on determining the ‘clientele’ of the prisons. These should also play

active role in contributing to the services and treatment conditions of the prisoners while in

prison and the ex-prisoners in the community upon their release. For example, the ministry of

education should be responsible for the establishment and furnishing of schools in all prisons

within their respective jurisdictions and at different levels of education.


The arguement being made here is that there is need for a more systematic approach in

addressing the problem of prison decongestion and any other prison/penal and justice sector

needs. These should including the following steps:

2.5 A DSS SYTEM FOR PRISON DECONGESTION: A MULTI-CRITERIA APPROACH(MA)

The application of DSS for solving structured and semi-structured problems has become

increasingly popular nowadays due to its flexibility and adaptability for tackling various decision

situations in an effective and efficient manner . The attractiveness of the DSS in real world

settings is more enhanced with the provision of a convenient user interfaces and a direct control

of the problem solving process by the decision-maker with the availability of various decision

making methods. With the multi-dimensional nature of the Information system (IS) project

evaluation and selection problem and the availability of various MA methods for addressing this

problem, the development of DSS capable of integrating existing MA methods into a DSS is

obviously an effective means to help the decision maker select specific MA methods in solving a

given IS project selection problem. The application of such a DSS would greatly reduce the

difficulty and the complexity in the process of selecting specific MA methods for solving the IS

project evaluation and selection problem. Much research has been devoted to the development

and application of DSS for solving various decision problems. Archer and Hasemzadeh (2003),

for example, develop a DSS for solving the project portfolio selection problem. Bastos et al

(2004) apply an intelligent DSS for helping the decision maker solve their resource allocation

problem. Ozbayrak and Bell (2006) utilize a rule based DSS for managing manufacturing parts

and tools in a production line. Wen et al (1998) apply an intelligent DSS in analyzing a decision
situation for enterprise mergers and acquisitions that shows promising results. All these efforts

demonstrate that the development and adoption of the DSS for addressing various decision

problems is of great benefits in real world settings. The application of DSS for solving the IS

project evaluation and selection problem, however, is not a straightforward solution. This is due

to the limitations of the existing DSS including the inadequacy in addressing both the

characteristics of the problem and the requirements of the decision maker, the lack of flexibility

and interactivity required by the decision maker to address a wide range of decision making

situations, and the lack of capability to match the most appropriate MA method with the problem

involved.

To address these limitations, it is desirable to have an intelligent DSS capable of (a) matching

the nature of the problem with the requirements of the decision maker, (b) facilitating the

adoption of the most appropriate MA method for a specific IS project selection situation, and (c)

giving the control of the method selection process to the DSS.

The idea of letting the problem to be solved determines the method to be used is incorporated

into the development of the DSS framework. As a result, effective decisions can be made in real

world situations for solving the IS project evaluation and selection problem. In what follows, we

first present the general IS project evaluation and selection problem. We then discuss the DSS

framework for IS projects selection.


CHAPTER THREE

MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the research method adopted in deriving the relevant data required as part

of the input into the decision support system. A quantitative methodology, which incorporates

some aspects of the qualitative approach. An outline of the research methodology is presented in

Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1 An outline of research methodology

This chapter explains the methodology and procedure that was used in this study. The

main focus of the chapter is discussed under the following sub-headings:

 Design of the Study


 Population of the study
 Sample and Sampling Technique
 Research Instrument
 Method of Data Collection
 Method of Data Analysis

3.2 DESIGN OF THE STUDY


. The research design that was adopted is the descriptive survey research design,this

approach attempts to describe such things as possible behaviour, attitudes, values and

characteristics, (Mugenda and Mugenda, 1999). A descriptive survey research technique was

employed to solicit the weight scores of the chosen acquittal likelihood critera for the prison

inmates

3.2.1 Acquittal likelihood Criteria

The following were chosen as a the most appropriate acquittal criteria

a) Status: Awaiting Trial Males’ (ATM), ‘Awaiting Trial Femals (ATF), ‘Convicted

Males’ (CM), ‘Convicted Females’ (CF), ‘Detained at His Excellencies Pleasure’

(Underaged detaineed in prison with special authorization), ‘Debtors’, ‘Criminal

Lunatics’ (Mentally ill persons charged with an offence), and ‘Civil Luinatics’

(Mentally ill person charged with no crime), ‘Condemned Convicts’ (CC) – Prisoners

on Death Row, Lodgers (detainees from other prisons who are currently in the

particular prison for purposes such as attendance to court, hospital or for other special

reasons.
b) Percentage of sentence expired
c) Health ground/ Pregnancy
d) Presence of dependents in prison e.g children of mother inmates
e) Age
f) sex

The descriptive survey research design was conducted through a questionnaire survey.

This design is suitable for this study because it helped to elicit opinions and facts from the

stakeholders.

3.3 TARGET POPULATION OF STUDY


The target population of study of the study are the experts that assisted in the weight criteria

selection and scoring viz;

a) 2 magistrates
b) 10 prison wardens
c) 5 lawyers
d) 10 prisoners
e) 6 Pastors
f) 9 NGO personnel
Total :42

3.4 SAMPLE AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUES

The non –probablistic sampling technique will be employed for the study. Participants or

respondents will be purposively sampled to select the experts.

3.5 RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

The instruments used for data collection is a questionnaire tagged ‘Weighing Criteria for

Acquittal Likelihood( WCAL). The questionnaire consists of two sections A and B . Section A

contains items on personal data of respondents. Section B, is made up of ranking scales using

the likert scale of 1-5 under the categories of the 6 factors chosen.

3.6 METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION

The administration and collection of the Questionnaires was done by the researcher and 2

research assistants who were briefed about the purpose of the study, and on how to administer

the questionnaires. The questionnaires were distributed to the respondents and were retrieved

immediately upon completion.

3.7 METHOD OF DATA ANALYSIS


Data collected were analyzed with descriptive statistics . Decision Point will be based on

a 4 point response scale with a mean value of 2.50 and above regarded as an influencing factor of

High extent while scores below were regarded as Low extent. Partial correlation will be used to

assess the relationship between levels of marital crisis and scores on the study habit

inventory( graded as poor, fair, average, good and very good).

3.7.1 Measuring the importance weightings of the selection attributes for inmates

The first quantitative data set of the questionnaire generated data on the ordinal rating for the

selection attributes of RWH-based water supply system .This is converted to importance rating

(IR) which is the median value of the indexes derived using equation 6.1. The response of the

stakeholders were analysed using SPSS.

IR = j /5 ...................................................................................(3.1)
where:
j is the likert scale integer j.

5 is the number of integers on the Likert scale.

3.7.2 Descriptive statistics: Median index values

In order to maintain the ordering of categories in line with the consideration of Likert data as ordinal,

median values are employed as the measure of central endency. The median values for both

importance rating and importance ranking for the selection attributes.

3.7.3 6.6.1.2 Importance weightings

The importance weightings of the selection attributes were calculated by averaging IR, as shown in

equation 3.2. Researchers in construction management surveys (Jennings and Holt, 1998, Carmichael

et al., 2007) have used this method of combining weightings of two input
perception measures. The importance weightings of the selection attributes were then normalised

by adding them together and dividing each weighting by the total. The normalised weightings

which sum up to 1 form part of the input data of the integrated decision analysis framework

model.

Wi = 0.5(IR) + 0.5(RR)..................................................(6.2)

The IR which is a relative measure of perception ranges from 0.2 (the least rating index i.e. 1/5) to

1.0 (the highest rating index i.e. 5/5). The RR which is also a relative measure of perception ranges

from 0.125 (the least ranking index i.e. 1/8) to 1.0 (the highest ranking index i.e. 8/8).

3.8 DESIGN OF THE DSS FRAMEWORK

The DSS framework will be designed incorporating the weighting criteria from the survey
CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This section presents the results of the survey and an analysis and discussion of the results

4.1 RESULT OF THE SURVEY ANALYSIS

Oko
Awaiting trial

Detainee

Short sentenced
male
long sentenced female
Lifer

Condemned inmate

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350


Number

Figure 4.1: Status of the Inmates at Oko Prisons

Table 4.1 Capacity and list of prisons in prisons in Edo state.

a) Oko prisons

Status Male Female


Condemned inmate 20 5
Lifer 19 8
long sentenced 112 34
Short sentenced 289 87
Detainee 79 23
Awaiting trial 45 17
Table 4.2 Capacity and list of prisons in Oko prison.
b) Ubiaja Prison

Ubiaja prison
Awaiting trial

Detainee

Short sentenced
male
long sentenced female
Lifer

Condemned inmate

0 50 100 150 200 250


Number

Status Male Female


Condemned inmate 14 2
Lifer 11 3
long sentenced 82 14
Short sentenced 209 61
Detainee 29 11
Awaiting trial 32 14
Table 4.3 Capacity and list of prisons in Ubiaja prison.

c) Ozalla Prison Farm


Ozalla farm
Awaiting trial

Detainee

Short sentenced
male
long sentenced female
Lifer

Condemned inmate

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Number

Status Male Female


Condemned inmate 1 0
Lifer 2 1
long sentenced 54 22
Short sentenced 76 32
Detainee - -
Awaiting trial 2 2
Table 4.3 Capacity and list of prisons in Ozalla prison.

4.2 THE DSS FRAMEWORK

Applying a DSS for effectively tackling the the prison decongestion problem is not only

desirable, but also important. The DSS provides the decision maker with effective mechanisms to

better understand the decision problem and the implications of their decision behaviors to the

organization by allowing them to interactively exchange information between the system and

themselves . Due to the diversity and complexity of the selection criteria, their inter-

relationships, and the volume of information, the DSS has to be efficient, effective and flexible

for effectively solving the general IS project selection problem. This section presents a DSS for
solving the prison decongestion problem. The DSS is designed to help the decision maker choose

the appropriate inmate and user-friendly manner by allowing the decision maker to input values

to express his/her requirements and to fully explore the relationships between the criteria, the

alternatives, the methods available and the outcome of the selection process. Through interactive

exchange of information between the decision maker and the DSS, the DSS helps the decision

maker adopt a problem-oriented approach in the problem solving process in which the DSS lets

the problem that it is trying to solve determines the appropriate method it is going to apply . This

problem-oriented approach is vital for effectively and efficiently solving the IS project

evaluation and selection problem in an organization.

The DSS consists of three major subsystems, namely,

(a) the dialogue subsystem,

(b) the input management subsystem and

(c) the knowledge management subsystem which is consistent with the general architecture of

DSS. The dialogue subsystem serves to integrate various other subsystems as well as to be

responsible for user-friendly communications between the DSS and the decision maker. The

subsystem coordinates all functions or commands selected by the decision maker. The interface

allows the decision maker not just to apply one of the available MA methods, but also to edit or

visualize the data.

To provide flexibility for customizing the system by the decision maker, the interface is designed

so that the decision maker can create, modify or eliminate criteria, or even define which criteria

he/she intends to inquire about. A decision maker utilizes the database through the dialogue

subsystem for analyzing different alternatives using the knowledge management subsystem. The
input management subsystem organizes and manages all the inputs for solving the IS project

evaluation and selection problem.

The type and the quantity of data inputs for solving the problem vary typically from one problem

to another. These input data can be classified into primary and secondary types.

The primary input data include the alternatives, the criteria, the decision matrix, and the pairwise

comparison matrices. The secondary data include the criteria weightings. The input data are

entered into the system for processing and they can also be edited after they have been entered

into the system. It should be noted that the system is flexible to allow new data types to be added

to the system due to the possible addition of new MA methods in the DSS. The knowledge

management subsystem manages all the MA methods available in the DSS. For the sake of

describing the proposed DSS, six MA methods have been included in the proposed DSS for

helping assist the decision maker select the most appropriate MA method in solving a specific IS

project evaluation and selection problem.

These three methods include the

a) simple additive weighting (SAW) method,


b) the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) method, the

elimination et choice translation reality method,


c) the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) method, and others.
One of these MA methods can be invoked directly by the decision maker or selected

automatically by the proposed DSS through the knowledge management subsystem. The

proposed DSS consists of six phases, including (a) identification of the decision maker’s

requirements, (b) determination of criteria weights, (c) determination of performance

ratings of alternative IS projects with respect to each criterion, (d) selection of the most

appropriate MA method, (e) evaluation of the IS project, and (f) selection of the
appropriate IS project alternative. Figure 1 shows the overall DSS framework for solving

the problem.

The first phase starts with the identification of the decision maker’s requirements in an IS

projects evaluation and selection problem. Some of these requirements include (a) the

decision maker’s preference of a specific MA method, (b) the availability of time of the

decision maker, (c) the decision maker’s desire to interact with the system, and (d) the

desire to allow the system to select one satisfactory solution or for the decision maker to

select the best solution . The DSS presents two modes of guidance for the decision maker,

namely: (a) a novice mode, and (b) an advanced mode. The novice mode is designed for a

decision maker who is unfamiliar with the MA methodology. In the novice mode, the

knowledge management subsystem first questions the decision maker on the

characteristics of the problem and the type of solution desirable. The advanced mode is

used when the decision maker is familiar with MA methods so that he/she is capable of

selecting a specific method. The second phase continues with the determination of basic

criteria weights in a specific decision situation. To establish the basic criteria weights, the

user interface in the DSS allows the decision maker to use predetermined weights by

experts.

The verbal terms used in the knowledge base are in the universe U = {Very high extent,

high extent, medium extent, low extent, very low extent). The performance ratings of

alternative the inmates with respect to acquittal criteria are to be determined next based

on quantitative scaling on the 6 factors from a data base . In practical situations, the

criteria may include both quantitative and qualitative measures that satisfy the
requirements of the decision maker, which will then give a ranking of the inmates

depending on the MA used.

Figure 4.1: The decision support system for selecting prison inmates with likelihood for

acquittal.

Results of statistical analysis for the expert system of weight criteria


The Relative Rank which is also a relative measure of perception ranges from 0.2 (the least

ranking index ) to 1.0 (the highest ranking index i.e. 1/5). Table 4.4 shows the weightings Wi and

the rankings according to the values of Wi for all the selection attributes, which range from a

minimum value of ([IR = 0.2 + RR = 0.2]/2)=0.2 to the highest level of importance index of 1.

The table shows that status, fraction of sentence served, Dependency (Wi = 0.8), while

Health/Pregnancy (Wi = 0.6), Age (Wi = 0.4), Gender (Wi = 0.3).

Table 4.4: Weights of the different factors

Importanc
Scal Frequenc media e of Weigh Ran
e y n IR criteria RR t k
1 1 4 0.8 4 0.8
2 3
3 3
4 12
Status 5 23 0.8 1
1 0 5 1 3 0.6
2 4
3 7
4 7
Fraction of sentence 5 24 0.8 1
1 7 3 0.6 3 0.6
2 9
Health 3 10
Condition/Pregnanc 4 12
y 5 4 0.6 2
1 13 2 0.4 2 0.4
2 10
3 4
4 7
Age 5 8 0.4 3
1 11 2 0.4 1 0.2
2 21
3 4
4 3
Gender 5 1 0.3 4
Dependency 1 0 5 1 3 0.6 0.8 1
2 6
3 4
4 10
5 22

Example of ratings for an Inmates using the Simple additive weighing method (SAW): Paul
Osakpamwan and Josephine Amadi
a) Paul Osakpamwan
W i∗Score
value Scale
1
2
3 4.0
4

Status Awaiting trial 5

1 0.8
2
3
4
Fraction of sentence served 3 out of 24 yrs 5

1 0.6
2
3
4
Health Condition/Pregnancy Very Healthy 5
1
2

3 1.2
4
Age 54 5

1 0.3
Gender Male 2
1
2
3
4
Dependency Not applicable 5
Total acquittal likelihood 6.9
factor

b) Josephine Amadi

W i∗Score
value Scale
1

2 1.6
3
4
Status Short sentence 5
1
2
3

4 2.4
Fraction of sentence served 10 out of 15 yrs 5
1

2 1.2
3
4
Health Condition/Pregnancy Healthy 5
1

2 0.8
3
4
Age 42 5
1

Gender Female 2 0.6
1
2
3
4
Dependency Not applicable 5
Total acquittal likelihood
factor 6.6
From the results as given above for two inmates the decision ranking using the SAW method

gives a ranking of acqital likelihood of 6.9 for Paul osakpamwan and a score of 6.6 for Josehine

Amadi, thus Josephine amadi has a lower score in comparison. It should be noted that with time

it is expected that the ratings for a particular inmate will increase.


CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION

5.0 SUMMARY

This study focuses on the problem of decongesting the Nigerian prison system, using three

prisons (Oko, Ozalla farm prison and Ubiaja prisons as case studies) in Edo state, by applying a

decision support system. The aim of the DSS is to recommend and rank according to acquittal

likelihood factor inmates that should be fast-tracked for speedy trial, bail or

relocation/recommendation for other correctional methods or facilities within the Nigerian legal

framework.

The study outlines a decision support system model, using three Multi-criteria decision systems :

SAW, TOPSIS and AHP and advances six factors ( Status,Fraction of sentence expired, Health

Condition/Pregnancy, Age, Gender and Dependency for ascribing weights to rank the inmates.

An example was described using the SAW method. To establish the basic criteria weights, the

user interface in the DSS allows the decision maker to use predetermined weights by experts: 2

magistrates, 10 prison wardens, 5 lawyers, 10 prisoners, 6 Pastors , 9 NGO personnel ;totalling

42 experts. Results of the ranking from the survey were analysed and the weights derived.

The DSS presents two modes of guidance for the decision maker, namely: (a) a novice mode,

and (b) an advanced mode. The novice mode is designed for a decision maker who is unfamiliar
with the MA methodology. In the novice mode, the knowledge management subsystem first

questions the decision maker on the characteristics of the problem and the type of solution

desirable. The advanced mode is used when the decision maker is familiar with MA methods so

that he/she is capable of selecting a specific method using the predetermined weights. The

performance ratings of alternative the inmates with respect to acquittal criteria are to be

determined next based on quantitative scaling on the 6 factors from a data base . In practical

situations, the criteria may include both quantitative and qualitative measures that satisfy the

requirements of the decision maker, which will then give a ranking of the inmates depending on

the MA used.

5.2 RECOMMENDATION

Applying a DSS for effectively tackling the the prison decongestion problem is not only

desirable, but also important, as the DSS provides the decision maker with effective mechanisms

to better understand the decision problem and the implications of their decision behaviors to the

the prison system by allowing them to interactively exchange information between the system

and themselves . Therefore it is recommended that such a decision system be implemented in the

Nigerian Prison system.

This problem-oriented approach is vital for effectively and efficiently solving the IS project

evaluation and selection problem in an organization.

The DSS consists of three major subsystems, namely,

(a) the dialogue subsystem,

(b) the input management subsystem and


(c) the knowledge management subsystem which is consistent with the general architecture of

DSS. The dialogue subsystem serves to integrate various other subsystems as well as to be

responsible for user-friendly communications between the DSS and the decision maker. The

subsystem coordinates all functions or commands selected by the decision maker. The interface

allows the decision maker not just to apply one of the available MA methods, but also to edit or

visualize the data.

To provide flexibility for customizing the system by the decision maker, the interface is designed

so that the decision maker can create, modify or eliminate criteria, or even define which criteria

he/she intends to inquire about.


REFERENCES

Aduba , J. N (2005). Overcrowding in Nigeria Prisons: a Critical Appraisal. Retrieved from;

http://dspace.unijos.edu.ng/bitstream/10485/186/1/21%2OVERCROWDING.pdf.on 10/01/2012

Agomoh U, Onyia L and Nwankwo N (2009), Jail Delivery Exercise practice Manual, PRAWA:

Enugu

Agomoh U (2008), ‘Protecting the Human Rights of People with Mental Health Disabilities in

African Prisons’, (Chapter 16, pages 267 -292), In: Viviane Saleh – Hanna, Chris Afor and Uju

Agomoh et al, Colonial Systems of Control: Criminal Justice in Nigeria, Les Presses del’

Universite D’ Ottawa: Ottawa

Agomoh U (2007), ‘Prisons and Penal Reforms in Nigeria’ In: Reforming for Justice: A Review

of Justice Sector Reforms in Nigeria 1999 – 2007, Access to Justice: Lagos at pages 108 – 124

Agomoh U, Adeyemi A and Ogbebor V (2001) , The Prison Service And Penal Reform in

Nigeria: A Synthesis Study For the Safety, Security And Access to Justice Programme of the

Department for International Development (DFID), PRAWA

Agomoh U (1996), Decongersting The Nigerian Prisons And Police Cells: Handbook of

Practical Strategies for the Remand Population, PRAWA: Lagos

Archer, A and Hasemzadeh,(2000) “Project portfolio selection through decision support”,

Decision Support Systems, vol. 26, pp. 73-88.

Atsenwa A (2007), ‘Criminal Justice Reforms in Areas of Bail, Remand and Sentencing’, In:

Reforming for Justice: A Review of Justice Sector Reforms in Nigeria 1999 – 2007, Access to

Justice: Lagos at pages 75 – 107


Ayade, E. A. (2010). Problems of Prisons Overcrowding in Nigeria: Some lessons from South

Africa and America. LLM, Human Rights, Unpublished Thesis, Central European University,

Legal Studies Department, Budapest, Hungary

Bastos, F. M. deOliveira, and J. P. M. deOliveira,(2005); “Autonomic computing approach for

resource allocation”, Expert Systems with Applications vol. 28, no. 1, 2005, pp. 9-19.

Burrow J, Henderson P and Morgan P (1994), Improving Bail Decisions: The Bail Process

Project Phase 1, (Research and Planning Unit, Paper 90) Home Office: London

Chen, J and C. L. Hwang,(1992); Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and

Applications. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1992.

Coyle A. (2002), Human Rights Approach to Prison Management, International Centre for

Prisons Studies: London (www.prisonstudies.org)

Cox, V., Paulus, P., & McCain, G. (2004). Prison Crowding Research: The Relevance of Prison

Housing Standards and a General Approach Regarding Crowding Phenomena. American

Psychologist, 39, 1148-1160.

Crystal, A. B. (2004). Overcrowding and Violence in federal correctional institution: An

Empirical Analysis. Ph.D. Thesis, Drexel University.

Deng, W (2005);“A fuzzy approach to selecting information systems projects”, International

Journal of Computers and Information Sciences, vol. 6, no. 1, 2005, pp.13-21.


Ehonwa O.L and Odinkalu A.C (1991), Behind the Wall: A Report on Prison Conditions in

Nigeria and the Nigerian Prison System, CLO: Lagos

Ibidapo – Obe A and Nwankwo C (1992), The Bail Process and Human Rights in Nigeria,

Constitutional Rights Project: Lagos

Johnson, J.C. (2001). A Psychological perspective on the new design concepts for William Head

Institution (British Columbia). Forum on Corrections Research, 3, 14-21.

Nigeria Bar Association (2007), National Needs Assessment for the Justice Sector, Nigeria

BarAssociation: Lagos

Nweze A, Ogbozor E, Ukachukwu J and Nwafor C (2009), Baseline and Impact Assessment of

the Prison Decongestion and re-entry Scheme (PDRS), PRAWA: Enugu

Muntingh L (ed) (1995), Perspectives on Diversion, (Research Series No.2, 1995), Nicro: Cape

Town

Muntingh L and Shapiro R (eds) (1994), Diversions: An Introduction to Diversion from the

Criminal Justice System, Nicro: Cape Town

OECD (2007), OECD DAC Handbook on Security System Reform – Supporting Security and

Justice, OECD: Paris, www.oecd.org/dac/conflict/if-ssr

Omoni, G. E & Ijeh, S. U. (2009). Qualitative education for prisoners: A panacea to effective

rehabilitation and integration into the society. Edo Journal of Counselling. Vol 2, no 1, pp 28-37
Penal Reform International (2003), Good Practices in Reducing Pre-Trial Detention, Penal

Reform International: London

Rhode, L. (2004). What is wrong with prison? Heart and Minds Network, Inc.

www.employeradvisorsnetwork.com/documents/21stcenturyfirm.pde

You might also like