WITH construction of a state-of-the-art correctional facility set to begin this fiscal year, a former corrections boss and a veteran trade unionist have expressed regret that Jamaica’s two political parties dithered over Britain’s 2015 offer to help build a modern prison here.

The British Government had committed £25 million to the building of the new prison, which would also see people convicted in the United Kingdom being sent to Jamaica to serve their sentences.

At the time, more than 300 existing offenders were expected to be sent back under the prison scheme, which covered those sentenced to at least four years and had 18 months or more left to serve in custody.

The offer to build the prison also came against the background that the inmates could not be sent to Jamaica because of fears that incarceration here, under the conditions in the penal institutions, could be successfully challenged under human rights law. Those discussions, however, ended in deadlock with fingers still being pointed as to which administration refused the offer.

In March this year, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Security Dr Horace Chang said the Government has identified land in St Catherine to construct a state-of-the-art correctional facility. Work is slated to start in fiscal year 2022/23, Chang said, noting that the prison is intended to house high-security inmates. That announcement followed on his indications last August that an $8-billion prison would be erected to replace the Tower Street Adult Correctional Centre, formerly the General Penitentiary, which was built in the 1840s to accommodate 650 male inmates but has held over 1,700 on occasions.

Speaking with the Jamaica Observer in a recent interview, former Commissioner of Corrections Major Richard Reese said the proposal made by the British, though “controversial from several standpoints”, should have been accepted.

“I am not political. From my perspective, I just look at it as what’s best for Jamaica. Had we taken up that offer, we would have been able to build a new facility, we would have to modify our legislation, but people would be able to complete their sentence here. It would have cost the British less than holding them overseas,” Major Reese said.

“It would have afforded us more time for assessment before releasing them here and it would have afforded us better integration strategies because that was part of the proposal, and by the time those persons would have been released, and the population declined, we would have that new facility that could gradually have local intake with modern more humane facilities and would have been more efficient to operate,” he explained further.

According to Major Reese, the arrangement, which would in essence function as “a managed re-entry programme”, would counter the security issues which arise from “having the person released from custody overseas, put on a flight, landing without any connection” and re-engaging in crime in some instances.

Senior trade unionist Vincent Morrison, who said he was taken aback by the recent announcement, argued that successive governments had not thought through their initial responses.

“I hear the Government has finally agreed to build a new prison and I am surprised because we were offered money by the British to build a new prison and we rejected it. We should have gone back to the British and said the money was not enough,” Morrison told the Observer.

“…The unions had a meeting with then [National Security Minister Peter] Bunting and based on what was presented to us, it would have reduced considerably the inhumane situations that exist in the prisons, not only for the inmates but for the workers. Remember, our prisons, some of them are as old as slavery. Some of the prisons don’t have proper sanitary conveniences. We should be building new state-of-the-art prisons. We wouldn’t have to be packing inmates into a truck and driving 60 miles per hour to get to court,” Morrison contended.

According to Morrison, who heads the Union of Clerical, Administrative and Supervisory Employees, “I think it was just sheer politics why it was rejected. I don’t think the government gave much thought. So now they have to find money to do it.”

According to the trade unionist, the Government had made a huge “blunder” by rejecting the offer.

“It would have reduced considerably the number of deportees coming from the United Kingdom because they would have had to go through special court proceedings. In fact, my research tells me that Nigeria accepted the offer and in 10 years they had less than 20 persons being deported from Britain. I think on the altar of raw Jamaican politics it was thrown out and we have paid for it. And I think some of our crime problem has to do with our deportees coming back to Jamaica,” Morrison said.