The Process of Coding

Contemporary and recent opinion takes reformation and rehabilitation goal into recognisance as a justification for correction. This is because if the crime and the reason for the commission of the crime are addressed, the offender may come out a better person and the society will be better for it.

Reid is of the opinion that, the reformative or the rehabilitation approach justifies punishment as a way of bringing about a change in the character and behaviour of the offender, which will make him a better citizen in the future, or upon re-integration into the

443 A Ogunleye, The Nigerian Prison System (Lagos: Specific Computers Limited, 2007) p7.

179 society. It prevents future commission of crime by changing an offender‟s behavior. Reid identified that, rehabilitations measures include, educational and vocational programs, treatment and counseling programs, and faith-based approaches. He pointed out that since the 19^th Century, there are emphasis on reformation and rehabilitation as a basis for imprisonment. Moreover in the works of Alexander Moonachie and Walter Crofton people‟s consciousness was awakened for the need for reformation to be the theoretical framework for institutional corrections.⁴⁴⁴

Imishua and Obilade are of the view that people are sent to prison to be reformed.

Reformation requires encouraging the prisoner to abstain from anti-social behavior, by providing educational, social, and vocational facilities to enable the prisoner conform to generally acceptable societal values and standards. They advocated that the prisons be run in a progressive spirit with a view to ensuring not only custody of the prisoners, but also the ultimate reformation and social re-integration⁴⁴⁵. Igbo is of the view that:

Reformatory or rehabilitative sentence operate through learning process which make the criminal aware and appreciative of the fact that it is wrong to commit crime. The awareness of the wrongness of the criminal‟s act rather than the fear of punishment (as in the case of deterrence) is the factor that reforms the offender. The court here awards a sentence with treatment of the offender in mind rather than his punishment.⁴⁴⁶

From the above view, it is believed that through a lot of process of reformation, the mentality of the offender is changed and the offender is appreciative of the fact that commission of

444 S T Reid, Criminal Justice(4^th edn, Florida: Brown& Benchmark Publishers, 1999) p 330.

445 R W Imishua, M O Obilade, „The Aims and Philosophy of Imprisonment: How Far These are Realised by Discipline and Treatment‟ in T O Elias(ed) The Prison System in Nigeria: National Conference on the Prison System July 1-5 , 1996) p153.

446 I M Igbo, Criminology: A Basic Introduction (Enugu: Jock Ken Publishers, 2006) p92.

180 crime is wrong and should not be continued. Thus, rehabilitation as it were, brings out the justification of punishment as it seeks to showcase the essential changes in offenders and in their mentality and character. Here the key factors are the fact that first the offender changes his mentality as a result of his new orientation of the wrongness of his actions, and not that he is deterred by the weight of the punishment; and second the court would now bear treatment in mind while sentencing the offender. The prisons will adopt progressive measures in dealing with offenders.

Reformative goal as summarized by Tarhule is to the effect that it assumes that criminal behavior is the result of social or psychological disorders, and that the treatment of such disorders should be the primary target of corrections. Success to this school means assessing the needs of the individual and providing a programme to meet those needs. He noted that, as is the case with deterrence, the ultimate aim of rehabilitation is a reduction in the number of criminal activities. Whereas deterrence relies on the fear of the consequence of violating the law, rehabilitation generally works through education and psychological treatment to reduce the likelihood of future criminality. Ultimate therefore, offenders are not being punished but treated, not only for their good but for the benefit of society at large.⁴⁴⁷

Rehabilitation and reformation is the anchor of Child justice administration. It is usually applicable in cases concerning the child, and the courts ought to accept the notion of reformation and rehabilitation as a basic objective in dealing with child offenders and children in need of care and protection. The Child Rights Act and other child related laws have made elaborative provisions on the importance of rehabilitation for the child. This is because commission of crime could be consequent upon several factors which include his or her dependency and vulnerability, due to immaturity and lack of mental capacity. Thus, there is a great likelihood that rehabilitation will go a long way in restoring many child offenders to

447V V Tarhule, op cit, p22.

181 normalcy. Thus, when child offenders are not presented to child justice administration, rehabilitation may elude the child. This is worrisome considering the incessant cases of children charged before regular adult courts and imprisoned.

In summary, Retribution prevents crime by making a person get equal punishment for his acts, while the victims and the society at large get the fulfillment that the criminal gets what he deserves. Specific deterrence prevents the commission of crime by startling an individual offender with severe punishment. On the other hand, general deterrence prevents the commission of crime by alarming the public with the punishment given to an offender for the crime he committed. Incapacitation prevents crime by taking the offender away from the society, such that if such an offender is in prison, he cannot terrify members of the society with his criminal acts, and the society will be safe. Rehabilitation prevents crime through changing an offender‟s behavior and mentality to positive attitudes.

A combination of these goals in varying cases may be very productive as focusing on one alone may not make the notion of corrections complete, especially in cases of adults.

However, rehabilitation as a goal is highly recommended for children and first offenders that are more likely disposed to change in mentality and focus if put in the right direction. There is thus need for several measures and commitment to be put in place for the actualization of this goal in the interest of the child, as without these measures, the mandate may not be feasible. A K Ahmed‟s view buttressed this submission: that beyond a general political rhetoric and declaration in government publications about the corrections which involves reformation and rehabilitation of the child offender, there are no explicit legal and institutional framework and commitment towards the realization of the goals.⁴⁴⁸

448 A K Ahmed, The Law and Childs Rights in Nigeria (Lagos: Malthhouse Press Limited, 2015) p161.

182 4.3 Classifications of Corrections

Corrections can be classified into two. They include: institutional or non-custodial corrections and institutional or non-custodial corrections.

4. 3.1 Non-Institutional Corrections

Non- Institutional corrections have been said to be the first disposition method to be considered for child offenders under the law by the court, and it is only when it is found not appropriate for the situation that institutional correction would be adopted. The ultimate focus should be on the best interest of the child offender or children in need of care and protection as the case may be. This is based on the belief that some community approaches may better suit the problem of the child, and more relevant and impactful to the child in the cure of his mental perception of crime or the situation at hand rather than institutional corrections.

Thus, despite the benefits of institutional corrections which will be discussed hereafter, the law stipulates that it should be used as a disposition of last resort and not ordered unless there is no other way of dealing with the child.⁴⁴⁹

This is supported by the commentary on rule 19⁴⁵⁰ of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice⁴⁵¹ which is as follows:

Progress has been found in terms of the success of institutionalisation as compared to non-institutionalization. The many adverse influences on an individual that seem unavoidable within any institutional setting evidently cannot be outbalanced by treatment efforts. This is especially the case for juveniles, who are vulnerable to negative influences.

449Child Rights Act, 2003, s 223 (2).

450 Which states that the placement of a juvenile in an institution shall always be a disposition of last resort and for the minimum necessary period.

451 The Beijing Rules, adopted by the General Assembly resolution 40/33 of 29^th November, 1985.

183 Moreover, the negative effects, not only of loss of liberty but also of

separation from the usual social environment, are certainly more acute for juveniles than for adults because of their early stage of development.

Rule 19 aims at restricting institutionalisation in two regards: in quality (last resort) and in time (minimum necessary period). Rule 19 reflects one of the basic guiding principles of Resolution 4 of the Sixth United Nations Congress: a juvenile offender should not be incarcerated unless there is no other appropriate response. The rule, therefore, makes the appeal that if a juvenile must be institutionalised, the loss of liberty should be restricted to the least possible degree, with special institutional arrangements for confinement and bearing in mind the differences in kinds of offenders, offences and institutions. In fact, priority should be given to „open‟ over „closed‟ institutions.

Furthermore, any facility should be of a correctional or educational rather than of a prison type.

The above stated reasons are cogent, since it is not in all cases that institutional corrections may be the appropriate measure to be taken in the interest of the child. If the child can be conveniently corrected by adopting measures outside the approved institutions, the court should be minded to adopt it. Again, the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty⁴⁵²provides that juveniles should only be deprived of their liberty in accordance with the law, and the deprivation of the liberty of a juvenile should be limited to exceptional cases.

In non-institutional correction, the offender is not confined in an institution but is allowed to remain in the community while undergoing his punishment and treatment. This

452 Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 45/113 of 14 December 1990. Article 1.

184 community service approach to offender treatment within the community is anchored on the premise that crime and delinquency are failures not only of the individual offenders, but of the society or community as a whole. The task of corrections, therefore, must be one of offender re-integration into the community, restoring family ties, assisting the offender to get an education and by extension, employment and securing for the offender a place in the normal functioning of society.⁴⁵³In furtherance to that, Tarhule reasoned that jurisprudentially, by undergoing his punishment within the society, the individual has higher potential of being corrected and re-integrated to the community as opposed to the prison offender, who sometimes turns into a recidivist.⁴⁵⁴

It is submitted that, though community based correction is good for the child, institutional correction may be necessary in cases where the environment is unfavourable for the child, or where the child is a threat or a bad influence to other children and people.

In some jurisdictions, placing children in a residential facility is usually the last resort, because juvenile court judges believe that the most effective interventions come about in the local community. An example is the Ohio Department of Youth Services in 1993 which created the Reclaim Ohio (Reasoned and Equitable Community and Local Alternatives to the Incarceration of Minors) programs; a funding initiative to encourage juvenile courts to develop or contract for the range of community-based options for juvenile offenders that would keep them in the community and avoid incarceration in state juvenile facilities.⁴⁵⁵

The Child Rights Act provides for non-institutional correctional measures such as, placing a child under care order, guidance order and supervision under a supervision officer, guardian, relative, or any other fit person. It also provides that the child can also be ordered to

453 V.V. Tarhule, Corrections under Nigerian law (Lagos: innovative communications, 2014) p 8.

454Ibid.

455Ibid, p278.

185 participate in group counselling and similar activities; pay, a fine, damages, compensation or costs or undertake community service under supervision or the court may order the parents or guardian of the child offender to pay a fine, damages, compensation or costs, or give security of his good behaviour or enter into a recognisance to take proper care of him and exercise proper control over him or making an order concerning foster care, guardianship, living in a community or other educational settings.⁴⁵⁶

Generally, the Nigerian criminal justice system provides a reasonable number of options of non-institutional treatments including but not limited to: fines, caning, probation, binding over orders, forfeiture of assets, plea bargaining, compensation, undertaking to be of good behaviour, and condonation. These options especially fines, compensation, forfeiture of assets, caning and condonation, have their roots buried deep in law of Jurisprudence.⁴⁵⁷