Over a year ago, I wrote an article on the need for second chances.
I mentioned that when we as a society put inmates behind bars, we do so with the hope they will learn from their mistakes and become good citizens when they come out.
I wish to remind readers of some of the things I shared then.
Many inmates within our corrections facilities will re-enter into the society whose laws they broke.
Sometimes this re-entry can be successful and they will become responsible members of the community they live in.
They may reunite with their families, find jobs or pursue a career and move on with life.
Sometimes, their re-entry will be unsuccessful.
Truth be told, when this happens, they are not alone in the world because the reality is most ex-inmates will find it a hurdle to make a smooth transition in the free world outside prison walls.
This is why many will re-offend and return to a life of incarceration.
Serving a term and leaving behind a cell block for a free life is not straightforward as opening a door and stepping out.
For the newly released man, this could mean encountering a range of problems and if unsupported, life as a free citizen can be more challenging than life within prison walls.
Sometimes, one of the reasons why inmates may come across a barrier when released is because of the host of problems they faced before incarceration.
These include low confidence, family problems, poverty, unemployment, shame, substance abuse and other factors.
Encountering these problems all over again upon release can make release pointless and to some, recidivism may seem the less complicated option.
Another reason is because of the many obstacles they faced during their incarceration.
With ineffective rehabilitation prison programs and an over-emphasis on “shutting lawbreakers out”, many inmates may turn out much worse than what they were like when they first entered the “system”.
Family and community ostracism also affect a released person’s ability to re-integrate, find gainful employment and continue with life.
If they do not receive proper rehabilitative assistance to face challenges on the outside, they are likely to get caught up in the vicious cycle of recidivism.
Furthermore, rehabilitation programs provided inside prison can change individuals while still inside prison walls but in the real world outside, authorities and prison programs no longer have control over the rehabilitated person’s choices and desires.
This means that even the best intervention strategies, implemented with the best intentions, cannot guarantee there will be no repeat offenders.
At the end of the day, it is up to the individual whether or not he or she will embrace change and become a productive and law-abiding citizen or continue with breaking the law.
This week, we heard and read comments in the mainstream and on social media, about the appearance of former national rugby sevens rep Amenoni Nasilasila at the recent Fun Flavour Super 7s Series.
His participation in a similar 7s outing in July 2020 also received overwhelming public uproar.
In October 2019, Nasilasila was sentenced to eight years in jail for rape, non-parole for six years.
He appealed the sentence and lost his conviction appeal.
This was not the first time a prisoner has been allowed into public spaces.
I remember in 2012, after negotiations with the Fiji Corrections Service, I invited a female inmate to participate in a poetry recital event that I organised in Suva.
The said inmate was sent to prison for a corruption-related charge so I thought that her writing a poem on how corruption had led her to prison and reciting it on National Youth Day in front of young people might help advocate and create awareness for anticorruption work in Fiji.
She captivated the audience that evening with her poem, shed a few tears and owned up to her mistake, saying she promised to be a good citizen.
Like Nasilasila, she was still serving her sentence.
The difference was, she wasn’t a rapist, just an offender who had broken the law.
The outcry over Nasilasila is understandable.
Rape and other sexual offences against women and children are prevalent in Fiji and rape is an indictable offence.
Also, there is a general high level of community hostility and intolerance towards sex offenders.
Researches have attributed the latter to the public’s abhorrence of sex crimes and the media’s portrayal of sex offenders as the ultimate demons, if not animals of prey.
There are two sides to this issue.
We must talk about them although they may be uncomfortable.
On one hand, Nasilasila has the right to take part in the FCS’ rehabilitation programs, provided his participation has been given due diligence and followed proper policy processes.
On the other hand, the victim, her family and members of society have the right to feel safe and protected.
They also have a right to feel angry, provided they express this displeasure responsibly and reasonably.
We cannot ignore these two sides of the coin.
We must balance out these competing arguments.
For the FCS, there will need to be a right balance between their corrective rehabilitation initiatives and their management of risks associated with sexual offenders’ public reintegration and exposure.
This is not a simple and straightforward job.
It may require more than just encouraging Nasilasila to play rugby and giving him the space and opportunity to
take part in yellow ribbon activities.
It will require pre-release assistance for Nasilasila and follow-up support for him once released.
An equal amount of support will have to be rendered to the grieving party in the free world.
Because of overriding public emotions associated with sexual offences, especially those committed against innocent children and women, authorities might have to relook at how they can better communicate rehabilitation and awareness initiatives to enable our citizens to be more accepting towards sex offenders.
Through consistent and repeated civic education and awareness programs, the public can be assisted to handle stereotypical public thinking and behaviour and challenge ingrained societal presumptions against sexual offenders.
In 2020, some argued that all inmates and sex offenders who want to play rugby should be given equal opportunities as Nasilasila.
Others think he should not have been given preferential treatment just because he was a local rugby icon.
These arguments have merit, however, it should be understood that each inmate need an intervention program that suits him or her while in custody, and this should be decided after careful professional analysis and proper fact-checking to assess his/her suitability.
While we must respect the community’s right to feel safe and free from sexual violence, as citizens, we also need to recognise the humanity of sex offenders and their right to getting a second chance.
Allowing them the space to change rather than publicly shaming or disowning them will only confirm and prove that we have a criminal justice system that is correctional and rehabilitative and the work of the FCS is getting somewhere.
Gone are the days of instituting punitive justice solely based on imprisonment, when lawbreakers were just imprisoned and excluded from society and regarded useless and invisible.
Now we are in the age of corrections that upholds human dignity and respects rights, even those who commit wrong against us, including the sex offender in our midst that we think should be locked up and put away from the community.
A community must strongly denounce crimes such as rape, but at the same time it must demonstrate its readiness to support and accept an offender who desires to reform, has undergone rehabilitation and is ready to “come home”.
We must note that the community a sex offender wrongs and brings disgrace to is also the very community that will need to enable him or her to enjoy social inclusion and undergo moral transformation upon release.
Sexual offences including rape are a major concern in Fiji.
However, treating those who commit these offences with indifference will only make them hardened criminals.
We have changed our laws and put them away for a long time so that the sentences they get to become a deterrent, but we cannot have a hue and cry every time they are part of a public event whose main objective is only to encourage acceptance, reintegration and rehabilitation.
We – you and I – can help dismantle the barriers that breed negative public mindsets and impede the reintegration of offenders.
Without that, our justice system fails and our inability to forgive means we have become less human, with no capacity to give those who have wronged us second chances.
Until next week, stay blessed, stay healthy and stay safe!
