IN the wake of the report of Public Defender Arlene Harrison Henry on the deplorable conditions in which detainees of the state of emergency are being held, there have been some inaccurate statements about action taken to deal with the conditions in lock-ups and prisons. The kernel of the statements is that prisons and lock-ups have been this way for a long time, so “what’s the big deal?” Some people have gone as far as to say that those who are expressing alarm are hypocritical.

While we are each entitled to our own opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts, though we may select the facts we wish to take into account and ignore others. But ignoring relevant facts amounts to bad faith, at best. I wish to advance some facts and do so from the perspective of having had some responsibility for the actions which produce these facts.

Some readers may recall that in 2015 the Ministry of National Security was forced to stoutly defend a decision to seek to invest in the upgrading of correctional facilities. This decision was rooted not only in the common sense factor of efficiency, but more broadly in the recognition that the conditions in which inmates were being held were inconsistent with the right to humane treatment that must be afforded to all citizens, as well as being inconsistent with the ministry’s view of human well-being. In keeping with these considerations, the ministry took the following steps:

(1) In 2013/2014 the decision was taken to cease spending millions of dollars doing patching up work on the two most deplorable and dilapidated major correctional facilities — Tower Street and St Catherine adult correctional centres. Instead, the funds available would be used to commence work constructing a new medium -security facility at Tamarind Farm.

(2) In implementing the foregoing decision, work was started in the following year. The funds for this construction were garnered from the would-be allocations for repairs for two fiscal years. This new block was near completion by the end of 2015 and is the first major correctional facility constructed in several decades. That block was intended to house medium-risk inmates from Tower Street and St Catherine, and in the process reduce overcrowding as well as reduce the risk of unstable structures collapsing on inmates.

(3) During the same period approval was given by the minister for negotiations to be held with the British High Commission in relation to their interest in a Prisoner Transfer Agreement. The parameters of the minister’s mandate were specific: He would be prepared to take a proposal to Cabinet only if the offer from the British ccame with a substantial commitment to provide funding towards the construction of the facility.

(4) A grant of £25 million was secured by mid-2015 and a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the Government and the UK in October 2015. The matter became a political hot button, as then UK Prime Minister David Cameron made an announcement on the matter during his visit that was inconsistent with the stage and terms of the negotiations.

(5) With the grant of approximately $5 billion, the Government would be expected to find a further $5 billion to complete the construction of an 1,800 – 2,000 bed facility. The overall plan, which took account of the medium-security facility that was already nearing completion by October 2015, involved a comprehensive reuse and rationalisation programme.

(6) The reuse and rationalisation programme which was being undertaken achieved the complete removal of female juveniles from adult institutions by renovating the South Camp facility and establishing a section as a female juvenile correctional facility. All female juveniles were removed from Fort Augusta and Horizon.

(7) The juvenile population in the correctional system was significantly reduced through various diversion programmes.

(8) A central pillar of the argument of the Ministry of National Security then, was based on the analysis that 70 per cent of the inmate population consisted of medium-risk inmates, and more specifically persons who had received sentences ranging from three to 36 months. In many cases a man who was convicted of having a ‘spliff’ or some other minor offence and was given three months could end up side by side with hardened criminals and living in deplorable conditions, such as three grown men sharing a 5×8 cell. Given these conditions, the risk that the less-hardened criminal would become hardened increases, and thus the risk of reoffending. That risk plus the deplorable conditions were deemed by the ministry to be both a national security and public health emergency which had implications for inmates, the correctional system’s employees, as well as the wider society. It was this assessment which led to the various measures that were undertaken. Thus the suggestion that being appalled about the report of the public defender is hypocrisy and that the conditions have been the same for years is simply false.

Dr Canute Thompson is head of the Caribbean Centre for Educational Planning, lecturer in the School of Education, and co-founder and chief consultant for the Caribbean Leadership Re-Imagination Initiative, at The University of the West Indies, Mona. He is also author of four books and several articles on leadership. Send comments to the Observer or canutethompson1@gmail.com.