University of Nairobi

Faculty of Arts

ANALYSIS OF THE LINKAGE BETWEEN PUNISHMENT AND

RECIDIVISM AMONG PRISONERS IN NAIROBI COUNTY, KENYA

OMBOTO, JOHN ONYANGO

C80/94529/2014

A Thesis Submitted in Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in Criminology in the Department of Sociology and
Social Work, University of Nairobi

March, 2019

i
 DECLARATION

I declare that this thesis is my original work and has not been presented for an award of a Degree
or any other academic credit elsewhere. Where other people’s work or my own work has been
used, this has properly been acknowledged and referenced in accordance with the University of
Nairobi’s requirements.

Signed………………. Date…………..

Omboto, John Onyango

C80/94529/2014
Department of Sociology and Social Work
University of Nairobi

This thesis is submitted with our approval as research Supervisors:

Signature Date

Name: Dr. Gidraph. G. Wairire ………………… ……….......

Department of Sociology and Social Work
University of Nairobi
P.O. Box 30197-00100
Nairobi-Kenya

Name: Dr. Mike Chepkong’a ………………… .…………..

Department of Sociology and Social Work
University of Nairobi
P.O. Box 30197-00100
Nairobi-Kenya

i
 DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to my parents, the Late Mwalimu Andrew Omboto Abong’o and Mama
Dusillah Akelo Omboto. To Dad for instilling the value of higher education, hard work, and
determination before he died in 1989 when I was a teenager in secondary school, and to Mum for
taking care of us, particularly, as a single parent after the death of our father. Her prayers and
wise counsel have been of immeasurable value to me. Without these great people in my life, I
would not have reached this far.

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study would not have been accomplished without the extraordinary support of several
individuals and institutions. First, I wish to express my profound gratitude to my supervisors Dr.
Gidraph, G. Wairire and Dr. Mike Chepkong’a for their conscientious guidance from the time of
writing the proposal to the completion of the thesis. Their critique and meticulous attention to
detail contributed greatly to the success of the study.

For the permission to conduct this study, special recognition goes to the National Council for
Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI) and Kenya Prisons Service. In particular, I
wish to distinguish Madam Lilian Goreti of NACOSTI and Senior Deputy Commissioner of
Prisons (SDCP) Benjamin Njoga of Prisons Headquarters for processing the respective
authorization within a reasonable time period. No doubt, conducting a successful study in a
prison institution requires goodwill, co-operation and support which I was accorded at the two
institutions. My gratitude in this regard goes to the Officer in Charge of Kamiti Maximum
Security Prison, Assistant Commissioner Prisons (ACP) Henry Kisingu and his Deputy, ACP
George Diang’a, the officer in charge of education at the prison, Superintendent of Prisons (SP)
Vincent Ochola Gumbi and the Deputy Documentation Officer, Amos Okuthe. At Langata
Women Prison, I am similarly obliged to the Officer in Charge, ACP Olivia Obell, the
Documentation Officer, SP Emily Momanyi and the Social Welfare Officer, Vane Kerubo. To all
other staff members and the inmates at the two institutions who participated in the study, I am
very thankful to you.

To my friend and senior colleague at Egerton University Dr. Elisha Ogada of Mathematics
Department who for the purpose of this study accompanied me to Kamiti and Langata prisons,
especially for acting on various occasions as my research assistant and chauffer, I am profoundly
indebted to you for your humility and kindness. Similarly, I am thankful to all my friends and
colleagues from whom I sought helpful scholarly consultations in relation to this study.

iii
This study demanded frequent and erratic travels as well as singular focus and attention for
which I received essential support and tolerance from my family members. For this, I am
appreciative to my wife Caroline Akoth, daughter Lynn Akelo and sons Stanley Omboto and
Larry Okoth. Throughout my academic life I have always looked up to my uncle Prof. Peter
Amolo Odhiambo of University of Nairobi Medical School; a Thoracic and Cardiovascular
Surgeon. I greatly thank him for being my academic role model. Finally and most importantly, I
will forever remain beholden to God Almighty for this far I have reached in my pursuit of
academic excellence. I completely would not have managed this without His grace and
protection.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ............................................................................................................................. i
DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................ ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ x
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... xi
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. xiii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the study ........................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Problem Statement .................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Key Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Objectives of the Study ............................................................................................................. 4
1.4.1 Overall Objective ....................................................................................................... 5
1.4.2 Specific objectives ..................................................................................................... 5
1.5 Justification of the Study .......................................................................................................... 5
1.6 Scope and Limitations of the Study .......................................................................................... 6
1.7 Definition of Key Terms and Concepts .....................................................................................7
1.8 Thesis Outline ........................................................................................................................... 9

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................10
2.1.1 Conceptualization of first-time Convicts, Initial punishment and Recidivism ........ 10
2.1.2 Evolution of Penology from Punishment to Corrections ......................................... 12
2.1.3 Relationship between Punishment and Recidivism ................................................. 14
2.1.4 The Police, Offender trials and Recidivism in Kenya ............................................. 17
2.1.5 The Impact of Judiciary on Recidivism in Kenya ................................................... 21
2.1.6 Legal instruments for Rehabilitation of Offenders in Kenya................................... 25
2.1.7 Contemporary Forms of Judicial Punishment ..................................................................... 32
2.1.8 Rehabilitation requirements for Different offenders............................................................ 64

v
2.1.9 Factors that Influence Recidivism among the Convicts ...................................................... 76
2.1.10 Challenges facing Rehabilitation of Convicts.................................................................... 79
2.1.11 Typology of Crimes and Recidivism ................................................................................. 79
2.1.12 Socio-demographic and Personality Traits of Recidivists ................................................. 82
2.1.13 Prevention and Control of Recidivism ............................................................................... 83
2.1.14 Ethical Considerations in the Treatment and Punishment of Convicts.............................. 85
2.1.15 Summary of Literature Review ...............................................................................87
2.2 Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................................... 88
2.2.1 Deterrence Theory of punishment ....................................................................................... 88
2.2.2 Strain Theory of Crime ........................................................................................................ 90
2.2.3 Labeling Theory of Crime ................................................................................................... 90
2.3 Operationalization of Key Variables .......................................................................................93

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................95
3.2 Site Selection and Description .................................................................................................95
3.3 Research Design ....................................................................................................................97
3.4 Target Population ....................................................................................................................98
3.5 Unit of Observation and Analysis ............................................................................................98
3.6 Sampling Procedure .................................................................................................................98
3.7 Sample Size ....................................................................................................................99
3.8 Nature and Sources of Data ...................................................................................................100
3.9 Techniques of Data Collection...............................................................................................100
3.9.1 Use of Questionnaires ........................................................................................................ 100
3.9.2 Key Informant Interviews .................................................................................................. 101
3.9.3 Focus Group Discussions................................................................................................... 102
3.10 Data Collection Tools ..........................................................................................................102
3.11 Data Processing and Analysis ..............................................................................................103
3.12 Ethical Considerations .........................................................................................................103
3.13 Problems Encountered in the Field ......................................................................................104

vi
 CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................108
4.2 Socio-Economic Characteristics of Recidivists .....................................................................108
4.2.1 Respondents’ Gender ..............................................................................................108
4.2.2 Respondents’ Age ...................................................................................................109
4.2.3 Marital Status of Respondents ................................................................................110
4.2.4 Education Level of Respondents ............................................................................111
4.2.5 Respondents’ Socio-economic status ......................................................................111
4.3Relationship between Initial Punishments and Subsequent Reoffending ...............................119
4.3.1 Number of times convicted .....................................................................................119
4.3.2 Duration taken before arrest by police after committing first crime ......................120
4.3.3 Duration taken before court sentencing for the initial crime ..................................120
4.3.4 Type of punishment for first convictions ................................................................121
4.3.5 Type of punishment awarded for the second and subsequent convictions .............122
4.3.6 Punishment and prevention of Recidivism ...........................................................126
4.3.7 Reasons for Recidivism ..........................................................................................127
4.3.8 Prior Awareness of punishments ...........................................................................131
4.3.9 Duration before Arrest for the Second Offence .....................................................132
4.3.10 Relationship between recidivism and the initial punishment ...............................133
4.4 Relationship between Recidivism and Key Variables ...........................................................135
4.4.1 Regression Analysis of Socio-Demographic Characteristics and Recidivism .......135
4.4.2 Duration before Arrest and Reoffending Counts ....................................................136
4.4.3 Duration before Sentence by the courts and Reoffending ......................................136
4.4.4 Crime committed at first conviction and subsequent recidivism ............................137
4.4.5 Relationship between crimes committed at subsequent convictions and reoffending138
4.4.6 Relationship between subsequent punishments and Recidivism ............................139
4.5 Typology and Severity of Crimes at Subsequent Convictions .............................................140
4.5.1 Typology of crimes by male recidivists ..................................................................140
4.5.2 Types of crime committed by female recidivists ....................................................141
4.5.3 Crime progression by Male recidivists at Kamiti prison ........................................142
4.5.4 Crime progression by Female recidivists at Langata prison ...................................143

vii
4.6 Intervention Measures Against Recidivism ...........................................................................144
4.6.1 Strategies against Reoffending by First time convicts ............................................144
4.6.2 Measures against Reoffending by Recidivists ........................................................145
4.7 Respondents on Psychosocial Appraisal and Recidivism ......................................................148
4.7.1Information on personality.......................................................................................148
4.7.2Information on peer influence and drug and alcohol abuse .....................................150
4.7.3Information on family relations ...............................................................................152
4.7.4Information on upbringing during childhood ..........................................................153
4.7.5 Information on marital relationships .................................................................................. 154
4.7.6 Involvement in community affairs and acceptance by members ....................................... 155
4.8 Regression Analysis on the effects of psycho-social factors on recidivism ......................... 157

CHAPTER FIVE : SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................159
5.2 Summary of Key Findings .....................................................................................................159
5.3 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................161
5.4 Recommendations on Recidivism control .............................................................................162
5. Recommendation for further studies ........................................................................................169

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................... 190

APPENDIX I: RESPONDENTS’ QUESTIONNAIRE ON RE-CONVICTIONS ...................190
APPENDIX II: RESPONDENTS’ PSYCHO-SOCIAL APPRAISAL INVENTORY .............193
APPENDIX III: KEY INFORMANTS INTERVIEW GUIDE .................................................196
APPENDIX IV: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE ........................................................197
APPENDIX V: UNIVERSITY RESEARCH PERMISSION LETTER ...................................198
APPENDIX VI: RESEARCH AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM NACOSTI ....................199
APPENDIX VII: RESEARCH CLEARANCE PERMIT ..........................................................200
APPENDIX VIII: LETTER TO PRISONS ON RESEARCH PERMISSION ..........................201
APPENDIX IX: PRISONS’ RESEARCH APPROVAL LETTER ...........................................202
APPENDIX X: CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION TABLE .......................................................203
APPENDIX XI: KREJCIE & MORGAN TABLE FOR DETERMINING SAMPLE SIZE ...204

viii
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Sample Size................................................................................................................. 99
Table 3.2: Types of recidivists in the study ............................................................................... 100
Table 3.3: The Key Informants .................................................................................................. 100
Table 4.1: Respondents’ Age ......................................................................................................109
Table 4.2: Cross Tabulations of Gender and Education Level of Respondents .........................111
Table 4.3: Cross Tabulation of Occupation and Gender of Respondents ...................................114
Table 4.4: Distribution of Respondents Based on the Income ....................................................115
Table 4.5: Distribution of Respondents Based on the Sizes of Land Owned .............................116
Table 4.6: Respondents Conviction Rate ....................................................................................119
Table 4.7: Duration before Arrest for Second Offence after Initial Punishment ........................132
Table 4.8: Regression Analysis on Socio-Demographic Characteristics and Recidivism ..........135
Table 4.9: Relationship between duration before arrest by police and reoffending ..................136
Table 4.10: Relationship between duration before sentence by court and Reoffending.............137
Table 4.11: Relationship between crimes committed at first conviction and reoffending .........138
Table 4.12:Crimes committed at Subsequent convictions and reoffending................................138
Table 4.13: Relationship between subsequent punishments and Recidivism .............................139
Table 4:14: Typology of Crimes Committed by Male Recidivists .............................................140
Table 4.15: Typology of Crimes Committed by Female Recidivists .........................................141
Table 4.16:Comparison of first and subsequent offences by male respondents .........................142
Table 4.17: Crimes progression by female respondents .............................................................144
Table 4.18: Key informants’ strategies for preventing first time convicts from reoffending .....145
Table 4.19: Key informants’ proposed measures against recidivists’ reoffending .....................146
Table 4.20: Percentage distribution of Information on personality ........................................... 149
Table 4.21: Percentage distribution of information on drug and alcohol abuse ........................ 151
Table 4.22: Percentage distribution of information on family relations .....................................152
Table 4.23: Percentage distribution on upbringing during childhood ....................................... 153
Table 4.24: Percentage distribution on marital relationships ..................................................... 154
Table 4.25: Percentage distribution on involvement in community affairs and acceptance by
members .................................................................................................................. 156
Table 4. 26: Variables in Equation..............................................................................................157

ix
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................. 92
Figure 3.1: Maps of Kenya and Nairobi County showing the study sites ................................... 97
Figure 4.1: Gender of the Respondents .............................................................................................. 108
Figure 4.2: Marital Status of Respondents................................................................................. 110
Figure 4.3: Description of house lived in ................................................................................... 112
Figure 4.4: Ownership of house lived in ............................................................................................ 113
Figure 4.5: Land Ownership ................................................................................................................ 115
Figure 4.6: Duration taken before arrest by police after committing first crime .......................... 120
Figure 4.7: Duration taken before court sentencing ......................................................................... 121
Figure 4.8: Punishment Categories for first conviction ................................................................... 122
Figure 4.9: Punishment Categories for second and subsequent convictions ................................. 123
Figure 4.10: Punishment effect on Recidivism ................................................................................. 127
Figure 4.11: Reasons for Recidivism ................................................................................................. 128
Figure 4.12: Prior awareness on prescribed punishments................................................................ 131
Figure 4.13: Relationship between recidivism and initial punishment .......................................... 133

x
 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ABA : American Bar Association.

ACP : Assistant Commissioner of Prisons.
AG : Attorney General.
ANPPCAN : African Network for Prevention and Protection of Child Abuse and
Neglect.
BMJ : British Medical Journal.
CAP : Chapter.
CBD : Central Business District.
CBG : Centre for Security Governance.
CIP : Chief Inspector of Prisons.
CJS : Criminal Justice System.
CPC : Criminal Procedure Code.
CSG : Centre for Security Governance.
CSO : Community Service Order.
EM : Electronic Monitoring.
EU : European Union.
GOK : Government of Kenya.
IED : Institute for Education in Democracy.
IT : Information Technology.
KHRC : Kenya Human Rights Commission.
KNBS : Kenya National Bureau of Statistics.
KNCHR : Kenya National Commission on Human Rights.
KPFGDM : Kamiti Prison Focus Group Discussion Member.
KPKI : Kamiti Prison Key Informant.
KPR : Kamiti Prison Respondent.
KPS : Kenya Prisons Service.
LPFGDM : Langata Prison Focus Group Discussion Member.
LPR : Langata Prison Respondent.
NACOSTI : National Council for Science, Technology and Innovation.

xi
NCLR : National Council of Law Review.
Nd : No date.
NGO : Non-Governmental Organizations.
NOMS : National Offender Management Service.
OVP & MOHA: Office of the Vice President and Ministry of Home Affairs.
PHQ : Prison Headquarters.
PKI : Police Key Informant.
PRI : Penal Reforms International.
PSR : Pre-Sentence investigation Reports.
SDCP : Senior Deputy Commissioner Prisons
SP : Superintendent of Prisons.
SSP : Senior Superintendent of Prisons.
UoN : University of Nairobi.
UK : United Kingdom.
UN : United Nations.
UNDP : United Nations Development Programme.
UNIAFRI : United Nations African Institute for Crime Prevention and Treatment of
Offenders.
UNICRI : United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute.
UNODC : United Nations Office on Crime and Drugs.
USA : United States of America.

xii
 ABSTRACT
Recidivism is a global problem which directly influences crime levels in several countries with
the attendant negative effects. Plenty of studies have been conducted on various aspects of this
phenomenon particularly on its causes and effects, however, not many such studies, particularly
in Kenya, have focused on the possible influence of the first punishment recidivists receive
during the initial conviction. This study was therefore designed to establish if there is a
connection between the initial punishment and recidivism from the viewpoint of the concerned
convicts and professionals. Its specific objectives were to ascertain the profiles of recidivists,
investigate the typology and severity of recidivists’ crimes with reconviction, and prescribe the
treatment which would suit first time convicts and the recidivists as a control strategy for the
vice. The study reviewed literature based on fundamental themes on recidivism, and punishment;
among the many areas covered are evolution of penology from punishment to corrections,
rehabilitation requirements for various types of offenders, challenges facing rehabilitation of
convicts, personal traits of recidivists, and ethical considerations in treatment and punishment of
convicts. The theoretical framework is anchored on the deterrence theory of punishment, as well
as strain and labeling theories of crime.

The study respondents were drawn from Kamiti Maximum Security Prison and Langata Women
Prison. It utilized purposive sampling of 167 respondents, 17 of whom participated in focus
group discussions (FGDs), and 27 key informants who comprised of 19 prison officers, 4
probation officers and another 4 police officers. Quantitative and qualitative data collection
techniques and analysis were utilized in the study. The primary sources of data were
questionnaires, FGDs, and key informant interviews. Secondary data was also collected from the
recidivists’ records at the prison institutions and the courts.

The study found out that the extent of recidivism in Kenya cannot be easily ascertained due to
the presence of non-documented recidivists in prison institutions. The study also established that
there is no significant link between the initial punishment and recidivism since other factors such
as poverty and peer pressure are responsible for the vice. It also established that recidivists are
members of the lower social class, young adults and individuals under 40 years, illiterate or
semi-illiterate, and mostly in non-marital relationships. In addition to these characteristics, the

xiii
study established that convicts who abuse alcohol and drugs have a higher propensity to
reoffend. It was also established that criminal severity increases with reconviction among male
recidivists who graduate from petty crimes to felonies unlike their female counterparts who
generally commit the same petty offences with reconvictions.

The study, therefore, recommends that the best strategy of controlling recidivism is by ensuring
that petty first-time offenders are awarded community based punishments instead of
imprisonment to curtail contamination and institutionalization. For reformation and rehabilitation
of known recidivists, it is essential to put in place individual based strategies to take care of their
unique needs before the beginning of any intervention. Further to this, for their effective
resettlement after incarceration, a pre-discharge investigation should be conducted on the needs
of each recidivist before the actual release into the community. Community acceptance of ex-
convicts is also vital to diminish the possibility of recidivism. Finally, the study suggests that
researches be conducted on the factors responsible for the presence of non-documented
recidivists in Kenya, and the impact of non-documented recidivism on trial and rehabilitation of
offenders.

xiv
 CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the study

The term recidivism originates from the Latin word recidere, which means to fall back (Payne,
2007). It refers to a return to crime after a convict had been punished for the first time. The term
is often used interchangeably with ‘repeat offending’, ‘reoffending’ and ‘reconviction’. Thus,
recidivists are described as ‘chronic’, ‘multiple’ or ‘prolific’ offenders since they continue to
commit crimes despite punishment (Payne 2007; Maltz 2001).

Etymologically, the word ‘punishment’ is derived from Old French word ‘punir’ and two Latin
words ‘punier, which means ‘to punish’ and ‘poena’ which means ‘penalty’. As an English verb
‘punish’ means ‘to cause to suffer for an offence’ (Okon, 2013). Punishment therefore refers to
the authoritative imposition of a penalty for criminal wrong doing to prevent criminal conduct
and to provide retribution (Bohm & Halley, 1997). The authority may be an individual, group of
people, an institution or a set of institutions. Punishment can be formal or informal. While the
former is normally carried out under a system of laws, the latter occurs in social settings such as
the family, kinship group, community and workplace, among others.

In the case of a convict, punishment is formal, as it is guided by the constitution, penal code, and
the criminal procedure code, among other laws. In the contemporary society, punishment of
convicts is the monopoly of the criminal justice agencies, namely; the police, judiciary, and
corrections. The three play different but complementary roles. The penalties awarded by the
courts include the death penalty, imprisonment, fines, forfeiture of property, suspended sentence,
compensation, restitution, probation service and community service orders, among others
(Musyoka, 2013).

Ideally, punishment should control recidivism either due to its capacity to deter, incapacitate, or
rehabilitate the convict. However, despite the anticipation, empirical studies have invariably
shown that all over the world punishments have limited deterrence on recidivists. For instance in
Argentina, Tella and Schargrodsky (2013) established that annual prison recidivism rates was at
22.37% for the ex-prisoners, and 13.21% for those released after being placed under the
Electronic Monitoring device. In Singapore, according to Hussain (2015), the number of former

1
prisoners who returned to prison in 2012 increased by 27.5% compared to 23.3% in 2010, while
in Britain, the level of reoffending was as high as 70% in some prison institutions (UNODC,
2012). This problem is also immense in several countries in Africa. For example, in Nigeria, in
the year 2010 and 2011, more than 50% of the 25,380 offenders who were on trial were
recidivists (Osayi, 2015). Uganda’s recidivism rate among Community Service offenders in
Kampala rose from 9% to 12% between the year 2004 and 2010 (Ssebuggwawo, 2010). In
Kenya, despite the fact that the government has put measures in place such as prison reforms,
and expansion of Probation and Community Service Orders to improve on the effectiveness of
these main forms of punishment, recidivism has remained a serious problem as indicated in a
recent study conducted by the Government which revealed that the number of recidivists in
Kenyan prisons in the year 2012 increased by 76.9% in 2013 (KNBS, 2014).

Thus, given the persistent problem of recidivism both internationally and nationally, it is vital to
conduct a study on the problem so as to have an elaborate understanding of the vice that would
inform instituting effective mitigation strategies.

1.2 Problem Statement

Empirical evidence dating back to as early as late 1960s showing accumulative recidivism rate of
19.08% for the years 1966 to 1970 (Muga, 1975) suggests that recidivism has for a long time
been a major problem in Kenya. In fact, a more recent study by the Kenyan government which
indicated that the number of recidivists in prisons increased by 76.9% from 12,949 in the year
2012 to 22,910 in 2013 (KNBS 2014) confirms that the problem of recidivism in Kenya is large
and on the increase – thus it requires attention given its many negative social effects on the
society in general, and on the individual offenders in particular.

To the society, recidivism may lead to the presence of hardened offenders, who because they
have not been reformed and rehabilitated during previous convictions and punishments, and are
familiar with the going-on within the criminal justice system, may be undeterred from further
criminal activities. The recidivists may therefore be responsible for a backlog in court cases due
to their involvement in several criminal activities. They can also cause congestion in the penal
institutions because they are always arrested and rearrested for their serial involvement in
criminal activities. Recidivism can also lead to increased costs of crime management by the

2
government and exacerbated crime rates accruing from the high number of repeat offenders in
police custody, remand homes, and prison institutions that are maintained by the government. On
increased crime rate for example, Mednick, Gabrielli and Hutchings (2008) reported that chronic
recidivists who were merely 4.09% of the male offenders in the US, were responsible for 64.4%
of all the court convictions for male convicts.

Recidivism can also have a negative impact on the correction institutions personnel such as the
probation and prison officers who may be disillusioned when they realize that their efforts to
reform and rehabilitate such convicts do not bear fruits. On the individual recidivists, recurrent
incarcerations may interrupt their family life with devastating social, economic and emotional
impacts on their marriage and parenthood as they are always deficient. For the convicts who may
have gotten into crime before starting families, they may fail to marry altogether thus may fail in
their procreation and other roles as expected by the society.

In an attempt to ensure that convicts are reformed and rehabilitated in order to control
recidivism, the Kenyan government, like most governments across the globe, has, since the year
2000, sought to improve the effectiveness of imprisonment by expanding existing prison
facilities and building of new ones to enhance prisoners’ welfare (KNCHR, 2005). It has also
expanded the use of community rehabilitation approaches such as probation to mitigate on the
possible negative impacts of institutional rehabilitation of convicts such as institutionalization
(GOK 1998, GOK 2009).

However, despite these efforts to control recidivism, the menace still persists in Kenya and
around the world. This has been attributed to several factors. For instance, it has been argued that
recidivism is related to the type of treatment the offender received for his/her initial criminal act
(Paranjape, 2005). Some studies such as Kagendo (2003), Gendreau, Goggin and Cullen (1999),
Odegi-Awuondo (2003), Goodstein (1993), Venter, Hoffman and Goudine (2006), and Bohm &
Halley (1997) have also attributed recidivism to the weaknesses, and ineffectiveness of
imprisonment. The extent of fines and forfeiture of property as punishments to deter all convicts
have also been questioned (Bwononga, 1998, Musyoka, 2013).This is particularly true where
somebody else assists the convict to pay the fine, in which case the offender does not suffer the
economic loss, and may therefore not be deterred from future crime commission.

3
In spite of these observations, there is a paucity of studies trying to establish an empirical link
between the initial punishment and recidivism as majority of studies conducted on the problem
both locally and internationally have focused on different issues. For example, Bourke,
Boduszek and Hyland (2013), Laisa (2013), Nally, Lockwood, Taping and Knutson (2012),
Grieger, Hosser and Schmidt (2012), Odhiambo, (2010) and Kagendo, (2003), focused on
causes, predictors and other risk factors. Other studies focussed on the recidivism rate and types
of offences of recidivists (McNeil, 2010; Prinsloo 1996), the involvement of juveniles (Mbuba,
2004), the role of religion on its control in women (Thorn, 2009), and the effect of prison
sentences (Gendreau, Goggin and Cullen, 1999).

Therefore, given the persistence of the problem, there is a need to ascertain the relationships
between the initial punishment and recidivism from the perspective of the concerned offenders
and informed persons. Equally important is the need to have an in-depth understanding of the
profiles of recidivists, and to investigate whether or not they commit the same crimes in terms of
typology and severity after the initial punishment. Addressing these concerns is vital in
developing effective control and management strategies for recidivism in Kenya. Finally, the
punishment(s) which best suit rehabilitation of first-time convicts on one hand, and recidivists on
the other hand is also of great interest in this study.

1.3 Key Research Questions

The following questions were adopted so as to guide the study.
1. Is there a relationship between the initial punishment and recidivism in an offender?
2. What is the typical profile of the recidivists at Kamiti Maximum Security Prison and
Langata Women Prison?
3. Do the typology and severity of crimes recidivists commit change with reconvictions?
4. What makes a first-time offender to recidivate, and how should the Kenyan society
manage serial recidivists?

1.4 Objectives of the Study

The study was guided by the following objectives:

4
1.4.1 Overall Objective
The overall objective of this study was to establish the relationship between the initial
punishment and re-offending among the inmates at Kamiti Maximum Security Prison and
Langata Women Prison, as well as to identify strategies for controlling the problem in the
country.

1.4.2 Specific objectives

The specific objectives of this study were:-
1. To examine if there is any link between the initial punishments offenders receive for their
first convictions, and subsequent re-offending.
2. To analyze the profiles of recidivists at Kamiti Maximum Security Prison and Langata
Women prison.
3. To investigate whether the crimes committed by recidivists vary in terms of typology and
severity with subsequent reconvictions.
4. To establish what makes offenders to recidivate, and how punishment of recidivists can
be enhanced to control the problem.

1.5 Justification of the Study

Majority of empirical studies on recidivism tend to focus on areas other than the connection
between the initial punishment and recidivism by an offender which the present study focuses
on. It is therefore hoped that this study will contribute to knowledge and thus serve as a reference
material on the factors that influence reconviction of offenders, more specifically on the
influence of the initial punishment on recidivism.

It is also envisaged that the findings of the study will be an important source of information for
the judges and magistrates in guiding their discretion in awarding punishment for first-time
convicts, and the serial offenders who may not benefit from particular treatments. The study will
also be vital in enhancing policy on correction and rehabilitation of offenders in Kenya. It will
therefore improve the welfare of the society by helping to reduce recidivism, and crime levels.
The offenders also stand to benefit because when they are assisted to get out of crime, they will
lead more productive lives as free members of the society, as opposed to their circumstances
during the perennial court trials and incarcerations.

5
If the findings and recommendations of this study are given serious considerations by correction
services such as probation and prisons, the study shall have been helpful in enhancing
reformation and rehabilitation of convicts thus playing a role in reduction of congestion and
crowding in correction institutions.

1.6 Scope and Limitations of the Study

This study was conducted in Nairobi County at Kamiti Maximum Security Prison and Langata
Women Prison. It mainly investigated the relationship between the initial punishment and
recidivism among the male and female offenders serving prison sentences at the respective
institutions following reconviction, irrespective of the types of crime committed, the number of
reconvictions, the year of conviction and the kinds of punishment awarded during the initial
convictions. Specifically, the study investigated the socio-demographic and personal profiles of
the recidivists, and sought to establish how the crimes they engage in differ. The treatment first-
time convicts require to prevent them from reoffending, and the punishment(s) that would be
most effective for serial recidivists as a measure to control recidivism in Kenya were also of
great interest to the study.

One limitation of this study is that it did not involve the judicial staffs who are also engaged in
the processes of trial and punishment of the recidivists. Arguably, the views and opinions of
these important players in the criminal justice system would have enriched the study, thus
facilitating a deeper understanding of recidivism. Another limitation concerns the effect of death
penalty as a punishment. Whereas the study is averse to the general and specific deterrent
capacity of this form of punishment on re-offending, it did not seek to establish the respondents’
view on its effect on them, given that capital punishment does not seek to reform and rehabilitate
the convicts. Thus, the study majorly engaged the recidivists about other forms of punishment
other than the death penalty. Based on the foregoing, the study did not review literature on death
sentence though some recidivists involved in the study were awaiting execution. Finally, given
that study focused on the recidivists, its findings cannot be generalized to non-repeat offenders.

6
1.7 Definition of Key Terms and Concepts
In this study the following terms have the indicated meanings:

Felonies: These are capital crimes that attract very severe punishments such as long
imprisonment terms of over 10 years, life imprisonment, and death penalty. The
offences include rape, defilement, robbery, and robbery with violence, grievous
harm, malicious damage to property, arson, murder, manslaughter among others.

Documented recidivists: These are convicts whom the prisons authorities have identified to
have been reconvicted either based on self-confession or because prison officers are
able to identify them based on the fact that they have gone back to prison institutions
after completing previous sentence/s.

Initial punishment: This refers to the punishment a recidivist was awarded by the court during
his/her first conviction.

Middle level crimes: In this study these are serious offences such as ordinary theft, petty
corruption offences, stealing by servant, ordinary assault, burglary, and house
breaking. The offences attract severe punishments such as imprisonment terms of
between 3 to 10 years.

Non-documented Recidivists: Refers to offenders who for a fact have been re-convicted but are
not captured by the government records as recidivists.

Petty offences: These are misdemeanors or minor deviations such as prostitution, pick
pocketing, trespass, hawking, petty theft, drunkard and disorderly, brewing alcohol,
creating disturbance, affray, operating business without license, handling stolen
property, abetting crime, obtaining money by false pretences, loitering, giving false
information and impersonation. The offences attract lenient punishments such as
fines, community service order, probation service, and short term prison sentences
lasting days, months or less than two years.

7
Recidivist Profile: The socio-economic, demographic and personality characteristics of the
recidivist offenders.

Reformation: This is the application of various strategies of punishment aimed at changing the
character and personality of convicts so that they become law abiding individuals.

Rehabilitation: Refers to the ability of the ex-convicts to fit back into the society as law abiding
citizens after undertaking various punishments aimed at reforming them.

Serial recidivist: This is a chronic recidivist; an offender with three or more convictions.

Severity of crime: The seriousness of a crime in terms of the injury caused and punishment
prescribed in the penal code.

Typology of crimes: This refers to the broad categories of crimes that offenders commit. They
include violent crimes, crimes against property, organizational crimes, inchoate
crimes, drugs and alcohol related crimes, and moralitistic/public order crimes among
others.

8
1.8 Thesis Outline

The first chapter of this thesis introduces the study and the specific aspects that define the study
and its focus including its background information, problem statement, research questions, study
objectives, and scope and limitations of the study and definition of key terms and concepts.
Chapter two provides a review of literature with specific reference to the key themes relevant to
the study as derived from the study objectives. It also covers the theories that guided the study,
conceptual framework and operational definition of key variables. Chapter three focuses on the
study methodology. It describes the study site, research design, target population, sample size,
nature of the data used and their sources, and data collection tools and techniques. Chapter four
is on data presentation and analysis while in chapter five empirical results are presented and
analyzed. Chapter six presents the summary, conclusions and recommendations of the study.

9
 CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Introduction

This chapter presents a critical exposition of the key thematic areas under which the literature
review for the study was done. These include conceptualization of first-time convicts, initial
punishment and recidivism, evolution of penology from punishment to corrections, the police,
offender trials and recidivism in Kenya, the impact of judiciary on recidivism in Kenya, legal
instruments for rehabilitation of offenders in Kenya, contemporary forms of judicial punishment,
rehabilitation requirements for different offenders, factors that influence recidivism among
convicts, challenges facing the rehabilitation of convicts, typology of crimes and recidivism,
socio-demographic and personality traits of recidivists, prevention and control of recidivism, and
finally ethical considerations in the treatment and punishment of convicts. It also presents the
theories that guided the study namely; deterrence theory of punishment, and strain and labeling
theories of crime. The chapter also presents the study’s conceptual framework, operationalizes
the study variables and gives a summary of literature review.

2.1.1 Conceptualization of first-time Convicts, Initial punishment and Recidivism

The initial punishment refers to the penalty awarded by the courts to a convict for his or her very
first conviction for a criminal act. The first conviction viewpoint in punishment argues for
lenience when punishing the petty offenders who do not have previous criminal conduct. This is
because such offenders are considered to be less likely to reoffend after they have been punished
for the crimes committed. First time-convicts are offenders who had never been convicted
previously.

According to Castillo et.al (2004), there are three categories of first convicts. The first category
comprises of convicts who have zero criminal history. They have completely no previous contact
with the criminal justice system such as the police, the courts, probation and prisons. In the
second category are those offenders with prior police arrest but no convictions by the courts of
law; either because they were found innocent or there were no incriminating evidence against
them. The third category under these guidelines also deserving of reduced punishment are those

10
who had only been convicted of misdemeanors; offences that are not criminal. The sentences
mostly awarded to these first time convicts under the US sentencing guidelines are normally
probation and other prison alternatives.

Nevertheless, it is vital to point out that, in the above categories, some offenders considered to be
first convicts may have committed some crimes previously that were not detected thus neither
punished nor recorded within the criminal justice system but they still remain first convicts since
they were never tried and position of guilt established. Based on this argument, not all first
convicts may in actual sense be first offenders.

Recidivism refers to committing crime again after conviction and correction (reformation).
However, real recidivism is looked at in terms of conviction by a court of law and not a mere
arrest by the police. This is because it is only conviction that proves guilt. However, a discussion
of recidivism as a social problem elicits various debates. First, there is a school of thought which
argues that one is not a recidivist if he or she undertakes a reformation programme for a given
offence or crime but upon completion later commits a completely different crime from the one
they were punished of (Maltz, 2001). Though, in general terms because the offender has
committed a crime he or she is a recidivist. Another source of debate is whether violators of
probation terms when arrested and imprisoned should be considered as recidivists. The duration
between the time of release and time of recidivating is also a source of debate (Castillo et al.
,2004).For instance, there is a debate on whether or not a reconviction after longer time durations
such as 10 years after the initial punishment should be considered as recidivism (Maltz, 2001).

Another problem with understanding recidivism lies in pointing out it cause; where the problem
lies. Whereas it is true that recidivism is a symptom of failure, opinion is divided on whether it is
as a result of the failure of the individual recidivists to live up to the expectation of the society
after the initial punishment, or it results from the failure of the society to support the reformed
offender well enough to keep away from criminal behaviour. In this regard there are concerns
that ex-prisoners always suffer serious stigma and discrimination after the completion of their
sentences, and release into the society which may influence their reoffending (Osayi, 2015).
However, recidivism may also be caused by the failure of the corrections to provide programmes
that reform the offenders (Maltz, 2001).

11
2.1.2 Evolution of Penology from Punishment to Corrections
The changes that have taken place in penology were basically influenced by the classical and
positive schools of criminology. Guided by the philosophy of hedonism, the classical school
postulated that human beings are governed by the desire for pleasure and the fear of pain; thus,
people consciously or intentionally commit crimes after a careful cost-benefit analysis. To
control criminality, this school posited that punishment had to be very severe to deter offenders.
The positivists, on the other hand, argue that individual responsibility in crimes they commit is
not obvious. The school questioned the position of classical theorists based on the fact that
severe punishment to the convicts could not deter crime. The positivists therefore postulate that
there are other factors beyond the individuals’ control that compel them to commit crimes. These
factors, they argued, can be social, political, economic, and or psychological in nature (Wright,
2010).

Punishment of offenders has therefore evolved over a period of time from the practices that put
greater emphasis on retaliation through physical and psychological torture, banishment, seclusion
and even death to the contemporary efforts that seek to reform and rehabilitate the offenders.
Influenced by the classical theorists for instance, early societies tortured offenders in public, and
or put to death to inflict psychological and or physical pain (Mushanga, 1976). The evolution of
punishment has also been steered by various philosophies such as retribution, incapacitation,
deterrence, reformation and rehabilitation.

Under the retributive theory, convicts have been punished to revenge against them for their
criminal activities. Thus the punishment awarded to a convict is expected to be commensurable
to the severity of the offence committed (Paranjape, 2005, Adler, Mueller & Laufer, 2004). The
convicts have also been punished to incapacitate them. This is making it impossible for an
offender to commit further crime by removing him/her from the society. In the modern societies,
this is always achieved through imprisonment and death penalty. However, in some countries
like Kenya; the function of prisons in incapacitation has not been successful because the convicts
have continued to commit crimes such as extortion behind bars due to weaknesses in the prison
system (Adler, Mueller & Laufer, 2004).

12
The philosophy of deterrence argues that any treatment towards the offenders should make them
and others stop committing crime in future based on fear. The former is specific, while the latter
is general deterrence. Specific deterrence seeks to make it unpleasant for the convicted offender
to repeat similar or other crimes, while the general deterrence targets other individuals who are
supposed to be discouraged from committing crime by the punishment of the convict (Wright,
2010).

Reformation and Rehabilitation of convicts is currently the main reason behind punishment of
offenders within the Criminal Justice Systems around the world. Adler, Mueller & Laufer,
(2007) for example, postulate that one of the general purposes of sentencing offenders by the
courts is their correction and rehabilitation. The desire to rehabilitate offenders is a paradigm
shift from the harsh and severe punishments which typically involved public torture and
humiliation of convicts. The desire to reform and rehabilitate the offenders began with the
changes that brought in the Criminal Justice System which took place in the mid-1700s
(Mushanga, 1976).

Globally, the most common penalties currently in place for the convicts include community
service order, probation service, fines, capital punishment and imprisonment. Imprisonment of
offenders began in Europe between 1600 and 1700. In Kenya and other parts of Africa, this form
of punishment was imported by the colonialists (KNCHR, 2005). Prisons employ educational,
vocational or therapeutic measures in reformation and rehabilitation of offenders, which it is
hoped would control recidivism (Playfair & Sington, 1965; Bohm & Halley, 1997).

Nevertheless, the existence of the various forms of punishment and strategies for reformation and
rehabilitation of the convicts has not stopped recidivism, which is a major social problem
globally. For instance, on the global recidivism rates, a study established that 40.8% of convicts
in the USA in 1987 were rearrested after three years (Bohm & Halley, 1997). In India, according
to Paranjape (2005), the rate of recidivism in 1998 was 7.7% with 73.4% of the total recidivists
having been convicted once before while 18.1% twice before. Similarly, in Australia, Leach,
Burgess and Holmwood (2008) found that recidivism was as high as 77%.

13
The problem of recidivism is also common in Africa. For instance, the level of recidivism in
South Africa was estimated to be between 53.3% and 95% (Marelize, 2003). In Nigeria, in the
years 2010 and 2011, more than 50% of 25,380 offenders who were on trial were recidivists
(Osayi, 2013) while in Uganda, according to Ssebuggwawo (2010), recidivism rate among
Community Service offenders in Kampala rose from 9% to 12% between the year 2004 and
2010. In Kenya, the recidivism rate between 2012 and 2013 increased by 76.9% (KNBS, 2014).

2.1.3 Relationship between Punishment and Recidivism

There are various punishments applicable based on the severity of the crime. In the Kenyan
situation punishments awarded to the convicts include death penalty, imprisonment, fines,
forfeiture of property, compensation, restitution, probation service and community service order
(Musyoka, 2013). In the order of severity, Bwononga (1998) observed that death sentence, which
ranks top, is passed upon the convicts of felonies such as murder, treason, capital robbery, and
attempted robbery. This is because this class of convicts is considered to be very dangerous;
thus, should be permanently put away from the society through death. Life imprisonment and
imprisonment in that order are the next in severity after the death penalty. Imprisonment is
usually imposed on offenders who commit crimes such as grievous harm, manslaughter, arson
and rape. In practice, the courts have the discretion to impose a specific number of years.
Another punitive sentence is fine. A fine of a specific amount of money may be imposed either
solely or in addition to any other punishment or as an alternative to imprisonment.

There are also non-custodial sentences where the convicts serve punishments in the community.
The advantage of these sentences is that they ease congestion in prison institutions. In Kenya, the
first community based sentence was Community Service Order which was previously called
Extra Mural Penal Employment. Under it petty offenders performed communal work in public
places (Senna & Siegel, 1993). Another form of noncustodial sentence is probation. While on
probation, an offender must comply with all the terms of the probation order which include not
committing any offence (Stuckey & Garland, 2000).

However, whereas there are several factors that influence whether a convict will reoffend or not
after punishment, it has also been observed that there is a correlation between recidivism and the
punishment a convict received on his or her first conviction (Paranjape, 2005). In agreement,
Castillo et al., (2004) states that the first offender groups have consistent patterns of lower

14
recidivism rates. These are offenders with neither prior convictions nor criminal conduct; thus,
had never been punished previously.

For instance, on recidivism and imprisonment, McNeil (2010) observes that among the factors
that influence the likelihood of a convict to recidivate is whether or not he or she had been
committed to prisons previously. He postulates that more prior prison terms lead to greater
chances of recidivism. However, McNeil’s study also noted that the inmates who are more
monitored by supervision after release from prisons are more likely to recidivate. This is
probably because any crime they commit will be detected and lead to arrest and conviction. The
study further observed that the younger the age of the prisoner at the time of release, the higher
the chances of recidivism.

The other factors which influences whether or not prisoners will recidivate rests on the prisoners’
personality and socio-demographics that include indiscipline and infractions while in prison by
an inmate. In this regard, the prisoners who have more disciplinary reports record higher
recidivism rates (McNeil 2010). This trend may be influenced by the fact that indiscipline
negates on the ex-convicts participation in reformation programmes. Still on the influence of
imprisonment based the individual factors, Bohm &Halley (1997) posit that recidivism rates are
highest for the ex-prisoners during the first year of release from prison, in younger prisoners,
prisoners with less education, among prisoners who were unemployed before imprisonment,
those who were drug and alcohol addicts before imprisonment, those who had higher rates of
misconduct in prisons, and the ex-prisoners who did not participate in education programmes
while in prison.

These scholars, however, concur that recidivism is not in any way related to gender or the length
of the prison term. On education, the finding of these scholars is corroborated by Kagendo
(2003) who confirmed that 82% of the 207 recidivists in Kenyan prison institutions had very few
years of formal education. That a majority of those with lower level of education reoffend after
imprisonment is probably due to the fact that the well-educated are more likely to be employed
after reformation and discharge compared to their fellow inmates with poor education.

15
Recidivism has also been blamed on the failure of imprisonment as a form of punishment. For
instance, several scholars have observed that prisoners get hardened and, on release, continue
with criminal tendencies. This thought has led to the arguments to the effect that prisons are
‘schools of crime’ where the inmates only learn to engage in more serious crimes than the ones
they were convicted of because of contamination of petty offenders by hard core criminals
(Kagendo, 2003; Gendreau, Goggin & Cullen1999). In terms of their conditions, prison
institutions have also been termed as ‘criminogenic’ (Odegi-Awuondo 2003; Mushanga, 1976).
Those who belong to this school of thought argue that the social and physical prison environment
encourages criminal tendencies rather than reformation and rehabilitation of offenders. For
instance, in regard to prison conditions in Kenya, Odera-Oruka (1976) observed that
imprisonment only embitters the convicts into revenge against the general society due to the
suffering experienced in jail.

Goodstein (1993) concurs that prison might be to blame for recidivism because they instil
acquiescent and compliant behaviour which causes institutional dependence. This is confirmed
by the findings of Jonson and Nagin (2015) that, after the strict routine life in prison, the
discharged prisoner finds it hard to stand on his or her feet in the free man’s world. Some who
have been in prison for very long, they observed, lose the habit of making their own
decisions.However, Venter, Hoffman and Goudine (2006) argue that whereas recidivism is
attributed to imprisonment, it is due to the fact that rehabilitation interventions are provided too
late and many of the programmes are focused on the process rather than result. The scholar
recommends that halfway houses should be provided in good time, and that prison rehabilitation
should focus on the prisoner empowerment. This advice is important to the Kenyan Government
given that Halfway Homes, just like parole, have never been established yet they are vital for
rehabilitation of the offenders released from prison institutions.

Nevertheless, to ensure that rehabilitation of offenders through imprisonment is fully

accomplished, Tewkbury (1997) opines that it is the responsibility of prison authorities to
provide treatment for the inmates, and contain them in favourable environments. For the same
purpose, Briggs (1975) proposes that prison institutions must put up measures to preserve and
enhance a man’s dignity and self-respect. On their part, Playfair and Sington (1965) emphasize

16
that correctional institutions must strive to train the inmates so as to counter any possible
contamination by fellow felons.

Community Based Punishments have equally been blamed for convicts’ recidivism. For instance,
Reifen (1972) blames juvenile recidivism on the insufficiency and inadequacy of Community
Services. In support of this observation, Crouch (1993) observed that law breakers in the low
social class fear the supervision of probation thus prefer imprisonment of two (2) or three (3)
years instead. The extent of fines and forfeiture of property as punishments to deter all convicts
have also been questioned (Bwononga, 1998; Musyoka, 2013). This is more so for the offenders
who are not economically deficient, and where a third party comes in to assist in the payment of
fines, thus excusing the offender from the financial loss.

2.1.4 The Police, Offender trials and Recidivism in Kenya

The Criminal Justice System (CJS) refers to the agencies or institutions that deal with the
management of crime through the arrest of offenders, investigation of cases, and determination
of the cases to ascertain the guilt or innocence of suspects, and finally reformation and
rehabilitation of the convicts through various punishments (Bohm & Halley, 1997). In Kenya,
the CJS comprises of the police, the courts and correction institutions which are prisons and the
probation. These institutions are separately organized but are closely interrelated parts that
perform distinct tasks which have a direct effect on the work of each other. Their main objective
is delivery of justice and crime control which includes prevention of recidivism. To achieve
these mandates, this legal system should operate with maximum efficiency which ensures that
only the guilty offenders are convicted and punished.

However, according to Omuya (2015), the police in Kenya are faced with various challenges
which in the end negate on the work of the judiciary of ensuring that only the guilty offenders are
punished while the innocent set free. The impacts of such challenges have a multiplier effect on
the correction institutions as they strive to reform the offenders so as to curtail recidivism. To
begin with, among the many duties of the police service are investigation of criminal cases,
apprehension of offenders, and their production and prosecution in courts of law within a
prescribed time period. However, the police in Kenya have not fully succeeded in these duties.

17
For instance suspected criminals get away with crimes as a result of incompetence of the police
(Mageka 2015).

Some police officers are also not professional in their work (Mageka, 2015). For instance, at the
crime report level, there are complaints that individuals who report cases at the police stations or
those who approach individual police officers with reports face a lot of difficulties because some
officers at the report office receive crime reports with bias. For example, domestic violence or
rape against women is trivialized by male officers thus the victims find it embarrassing to report
such cases to male officers because the questions they ask are discomforting and expose the
victim to ridicule. The victims of such crimes are thus in most cases scared away and never
report these grievous offences making the suspects to continue with the same crimes.

To control these biases at reporting, the police reforms in Kenya have seen the introduction of
gender and children reporting desks at the police stations to assist in professional handling of
cases and reports that involve children and those that have gender sensitive issues such as
gender-based violence (Omuya, 2015). In investigations, some police officers also approach their
work with formed opinions which negates on tenets of fair and independent investigations. This
in some cases has seen innocent suspects punished and the guilty left un-convicted. Where an
innocent person has been sentenced to prisons, for example, they become bitter and may end up
committing retaliatory crimes after discharge thus may become recidivists.

Limited resources also hinder the police operations; these include lack of necessary equipment
(Nyongesa, 2013). For instance, investigation of crimes such as murder and rape is a specialized
field which requires up-to-date technologies. However, the problem in Kenya is that forensic
laboratories that would enable the police to test and analyze evidences to prove the cases beyond
reasonable doubt are unavailable (Mageka, 2015). A case in point is the analyses of DNA, blood
samples, and finger prints which yield important evidence during investigation to implicate
suspects, yet due to absence of forensic laboratories owned by the police, they are dependent on
the Government Chemist, which is an independent outfit with several other responsibilities, thus,
may not analyze the specimens as fast as needed even in situations where police are required to
produce evidences in courts to prove the culpability of suspects within a specific time. In short,

18
even if criminal investigators are well-trained, they lack the much needed technology that would
enable them to resolve crimes with remarkable success. Added to this, the police in Kenya also
lack other basic equipment such as vehicles needed for their effective facilitation in the fight
against crime.

The professionalism of the Kenya police in terms of respect for human rights has also been
questioned. For instance, the police have been accused of violating the rights of individuals
during arrests and detention in custody (Omeje & Githigaro, 2010).Though the law requires that
suspects should communicate with their lawyers, be informed of the reason for arrest, involve
their lawyers during interrogation, and be treated in a humane manner among others, there have
been complaints that these rights are always violated by the police. Another complaint in regard
to human rights relates to the use of force. It has been observed that whereas the police are
empowered to use necessary force to effect the arrests and ensure order, there are no
determinants in various particular situations of how much is necessary force. As a result
individual police officers end up being brutal, yet find justification in this clause. The police
have also been accused of taking the law in their hands by torturing and killing the suspects
(Omboto, 2015). Where suspects are killed, they are denied the opportunity to defend themselves
as provided for in law.

The conditions, under which the police hold suspects, are also deplorable (Omeje & Githigaro,
2010). The cells are congested, poorly ventilated and dirty. Some do not even have lavatory
facilities, thus the accused are forced to use buckets. The suspects in most cases do not even
access bathing or drinking water for the duration of time they are in custody, this leads to
infection and the spread contagious of diseases, and bribery of the police by suspects in search
for favours. Some suspects can therefore plead guilty in courts of law even though innocent to be
sentenced fast enough so as to escape the misery of police remand cells. Such offenders may not
benefit from reformation and rehabilitation mechanisms of the corrections because they would
feel they were wrongly convicted.

External interference particularly from the political class is another problem that the police in
Kenya are faced with (Kivoi & Mbae, 2013). Because in Kenya the appointment and vetting of

19
the Inspector General of Police and the deputies is done by apolitical authority, the force has
never been independent to investigate and prosecute matters that involve people with the correct
political connections with the appointing authorities.This has been made possible by the fact that
while the constitution promulgated in the year 2010 insulated the appointment of Inspector
General of Police and his deputies from the executive influence by vesting the powers on the
National Police Commission with the approval of parliament, a government bill that gave the
president power to remove, retire and re-deploy a deputy inspector general before the age of
retirement was presented and passed in parliament in the year 2015.The bill also removed the
security of tenure of the police oversight authority chairman and board members (The Daily
Nation Newspaper 6/10/2015). The changes have seriously watered down the independence of
National Police Service.

The junior police officers also receive undue pressure or coercion from their seniors in cases the
latter have vested interests. In some cases their seniors do not also accord them the much needed
cooperation in matters of strategy implementation (Nyongesa, 2013). Under these circumstances,
the investigations, prosecution and punishment of the offenders are interfered with.

Because of bribery, the police department in Kenya has been ranked top nationally in corruption
on several occasions with Amnesty International in the year 2014 describing the service as a
bribe factory with a leading corruption score of 81% (Mageka, 2015). This implies that the law
is enforced with a lot of partiality hence denying justice to the public. For instance, a person
accused of an offence may evade arrest by corrupting the police or, if arrested, will win cases in
courts of law by bribing the investigating officers and police prosecutors. This scenario creates
situations where justice will go to the highest bidder. It would also lead to the guilty people
evading punishment, as the innocent are wrongly punished – something against the principle of
criminal justice. When such innocent people end up in prison or under any form of punishment,
they would be a bitter lot, who, on release, may decide to get into crime because they had been
wrongly punished. Another problem is that at the police stations, due to the inadequacy of the
cells, suspects are mixed up - juveniles and adults, males and females - this leads to the juveniles
learning capital crimes from adults which may lead them to recidivism (Mageka, 2015).

20
Finally the number of police officers is another major impediment to successful operations of the
police in Kenya. Their number compared to the country’s population has in the past been way
below the internationally recommended ratio of 1: 400. The poor terms and conditions of work
also affect the police in Kenya (Nyongesa, 2013). These include poor housing, low salaries,
unfavaourable scheme of service, and poor recruitment and promotion procedures among others
which compel the police to have bad attitude towards their work, and low morale as they execute
their duties. These poor terms and conditions have been used to justify corruption within the
police department, which as discussed in the foregoing, affect arrest of suspects, investigation of
cases, prosecution and determination of guilt or innocence.

2.1.5 The Impact of Judiciary on Recidivism in Kenya

The Judiciary in any government is entrusted with the responsibility of determining the guilt or
innocence of a party charged with violation of civil or criminal law. This involves hearing cases,
calling witnesses, listening to mitigation, and entering judgments based on the facts and
evidences adduced. A magistrate or a judge either acquits or awards punishments, which can
either be harsh or lenient depending on the severity of the offence. Where the accused person is
not satisfied with the verdict he or she can appeal to a higher court (Bosire, 2012).

However, according to Mnjama (2013), the process of determining a case is complex and may be
frightening for those who stand accused particularly for the first time suspects. The fear and
confusion are more compounded for defendants who are poor and illiterate, more so if they have
limited command of English and Kiswahili. This is because of the fact that though there is
provision for interpreters, fairness demands that everyone who enters the courts should
understand well the proceedings, of which this category of offenders are disadvantaged, yet they
cannot seek the assistance of lawyers. For this category of offenders, therefore, the attainment of
fairness from the judicial processes may always be limited, and where they are unfairly
convicted and punished, they may become bitter and turn into recidivists.

According to Muneeni (2011), in Kenya, a number of problems have also hindered the delivery
of justice by the judiciary which may lead to unfair conviction and punishment or acquittal of the
guilty suspects, both of which can influence reoffending by such convicts. First, some
magistrates and judges do not act impartially due to various biases which may be based on

21
having a set opinion about a particular individual or case. For instance, personal experiences with
criminals may make a magistrate or judge to be unduly harsh in sentencing the convicts. Added
to this, personal disposition, mood and personality of the judge or magistrate and other
qualifications such as practical legal knowledge and exposure to the culture of the people
involved in a case can also influence the final judgments entered by the courts. The magistrates
and judges biases may also be influenced by his/her acquaintance with the defense attorney or
prosecutor involved in a case in question. When these influences lead to unfair award of
punishments, the convicts involved may reoffend.

However, one of the greatest causes of biases in the judiciary in Kenya is corruption (Gathu,
2014).This is a serious menace that has touched even senior members of the bench and thus
affected public confidence in the Kenyan judiciary. For instance, a judicial perception survey
conducted in the year 2012 established that out of 1222 respondents, 44% disliked the Kenyan
courts because they are easily corruptible (Infotrak, 2012). Corruption in the judiciary takes the
form of judges and magistrates being bought or bribed to enter favaourable rulings and
judgments.

It also refers to situations where the subordinate or support staff in the judiciary are induced to
interfere with cases within the courts by instigating disappearances of court files, and even
altering the statements of witnesses recorded in courts during proceedings. On the court files for
example, Mnjama (2013) established that frequent cases of lost or misplaced case files in the
Kenyan court system impacts negatively on the administration of justice. These cases, the
scholar observed, are linked to corrupt practices. The corrupt practices result into miscarriage of
justice and may lead to recidivism as the guilty offenders who are not punished will not be
deterred while the unfairly punished become bitter and vengeful.

Another impediment in the delivery of justice by the Judiciary in Kenya lies in the delay of
determination of cases. In the year 2012, an Infotrak survey established that 45% of the 1222
respondents detested the Kenyan courts because of delay in handling cases. This delay affects the
memory of facts during trials as some witnesses may die where the cases take several years. The
other possible consequences of delay in cases which may negatively affect the judgments and

22
punishment of suspects include loss of exhibits, frustration of witnesses, wearing down of the
complainants who may lose hope and stop concentrating on the cases altogether. The delays may
be as a result of some lawyers who employ delaying tactics such as unnecessary adjournments in
cases that do not favour their clients (Infotrak, 2012).

The delays may also be occasioned by the high number of cases handled by individual judges
and magistrates. The high number of cases handled by individual judges and magistrates has
been as a result of lack of adequate resources to employ more staffs. For instance, Muneeni,
(2011) argued that lack of resources, absence of well documented strategy and lack of leadership
and direction were the main challenges facing the Judiciary in Kenya. In the delay of cases for
whatever causes, the aggrieved party is disadvantaged since justice delayed is justice denied.
Added to this, a delayed punishment in itself has a negative impact in deterring an offender,
while punishment of the innocent party, may embitter such offenders to a point of recidivating.

Legal technicalities have also denied several individuals justice in cases where the charges are
defective. Whereas the magistrates are supposed to immediately order for amendments, some
may not do this until the matter is knocked out (Muneeni, 2011). The defective charges in most
cases arise from the fact that some police officers who draw the charge sheets lack the legal
knowledge thus end up preferring wrong charges which may be technically knocked out by the
more educated and experienced lawyers. For instance use of the term “carnal knowledge’’
instead of penetration in rape cases may be disputed in rape cases. A police officer may also
prefer a lesser charge for a suspect if compromised, for example charging a suspect with robbery
instead of robbery with violence.

All these may lead to a discharge of a guilty offender or an award of a lenient punishment
lacking in deterrence which may lead to reoffending. Other legal technicalities include going
against the 24-hour rule. This is where the police hold suspects in their custody for more than 24
hours before presenting them in court. Such a breach may lead to termination of the cases based
on the argument that the accused persons’ rights were violated by the police. When this happens,
the victims of such crimes are the losers as they are denied justice while the acquitted

23
perpetrators may turn into undeterred serial recidivists. However, such legal timelines may also
lead to poor investigations caused by a hurry not to be time barred (Mnjama, 2013).

Consequently, due to the technicalities of court procedures which are cumbersome and
complicated, some accused persons do opt for a plea of guilt even when they are innocent
because it is convenient (Mnjama, 2013). For instance in some petty cases such as being drunk
and disorderly, a person who denies the charge is remanded for a month or 14 days whereas
those who plead guilty may be sentenced to a months’ community service or imprisonment or a
fine of a few hundred Kenya shillings. A person who pleads guilty for convenience may not
benefit from the resultant rehabilitation strategies of the awarded punishment. Other than the
technicalities, few people, particularly the gullible, understand what is expected of them and their
rights while in court. This includes how they should conduct themselves, yet only the rich can
afford legal representation. In such circumstances, the poor people are left under the mercies of
the deity.

Legal provisions such as de novo in section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) which
though are meant to ensure justice are also at times misused (Bosire, 2012).This section, for
instance, allows cases to start a fresh which may not only have the disadvantage of frustrating
witnesses but may also destabilize should the witnesses relocate and fail to be traced. Some
witnesses may also die or become incapable of testifying for one reason or another. Section 87(a)
on withdrawal of charges, which empowers the prosecution to withdraw any criminal matter
from the court with the approval of the presiding magistrate have also been misused especially
where the prosecutor and the magistrate have been compromised. Another section, 215 of the
(CPC) on the benefit of doubt that gives the magistrate power to acquit a suspect on the grounds
that the court has some uncleared doubts regarding certain facts of the matter has also been
misused by compromised judges and magistrates who fix nonexistent doubts so as to release the
suspects hence denying justice to the crime victims.

Other legal provisions that have been misused include the discretion of the Attorney General
(AG) under the ‘nolleproseque’ provision as per section of 85 of the CPC which empowers the
AG to terminate any criminal case without giving any explanation at any time during the

24
proceedings. This section has, however, at times been misused as was the case in the year 2006
Murder case: Republic vs. Thomas Patrick Cholmondeley Criminal Case Number 55 2006
(Kenya Law, 2006), and in the media case against the then first Lady Lucy Kibaki
(Miscellaneous Civil suit Number 5 Otieno Clifford Richard vs. H.E Mrs. Lucy Muthoni Kibaki
-Retrieved from www.kenyalaw.org.) when in both cases the AG registered a ‘nolleproseque’.
When offenders are not tried conclusively, and punished where and when found guilty, they may
turn into recidivists.

The provisions allowing the magistrates to award punishments based on their discretions as per
sections 28, 29(1), 31, 36, of the Penal Code has also seen magistrates issue very lenient
sentences which leave the offenders undeterred. Failure to provide for witness in terms of
subsistence and transport for those who travel from far or who have to spend nights out has also
frustrated the punishment of crime suspects because most witnesses who are never paid do not
appear in courts again. This has also made several individuals reluctant to be witnesses. Poor
witnesses protection in Kenya has similarly made witnesses to refuse to testify in courts due fear
for their safety and life (Kiprono, Ngetich & Mwangi, 2015). All these not only hinder delivery
of justice, but also affect punishment of offenders.

In conclusion, the most common impediments in the punishment of offenders by the Judiciary in
Kenya are corruption and interference with the court process. The powerful elites in the society;
the politicians, businessmen and businesswomen, and the bureaucrats do always try to influence
the court decisions in the matters where they have interests. On its part, corruption normally
takes the form of bribery and other influences towards the prosecutors, magistrates and judges as
well as other judicial support staff. Subsequently, when an offender is wrongly convicted and
punished due to legal technicalities, corruption and or political interference, they cannot benefit
from any reformation and rehabilitation strategy; instead, they become bitter and vengeful
against the society. On the other hand, guilty suspects not punished for the same reasons may
continue with criminal activities un-deterred.

2.1.6 Legal instruments for Rehabilitation of Offenders in Kenya

In Kenya, the main institutions directly mandated to reform and rehabilitate offenders are prisons
and probation service. The probation service is guided by the Probation of Offenders Act CAP 64

25
Laws of Kenya and the Community Service Order Act Number 10 of 1998. The other relevant
laws to probation service include the laws governing prisons, the Mental Health Act CAP 248,
the Children’s Act of 2001, the Penal Code CAP 63, and the Criminal Procedure Code CAP 75
Laws of Kenya.

For Prisons Service, the sources of laws that govern the operation of the department include the
Kenyan Constitution, the prison Standing Orders which are administrative rules, Prison Act CAP
90, the Borstal institutions Act CAP 92, and the Children’s Act CAP 506. The other related laws
that govern the operations of prison officers are the Anti-corruption and Economic Crimes Act,
the Public Officer Ethics Act, the Work Man Compensation Act, the Employment Act, the
Pensions Act, the Official Secrets Act, and the Civil Service Code of Regulations among others.
The other relevant policies that have guided Kenya prisons are the open door policy, remote
parenting policy, open visitation policy, and prisons policy on HIV/AIDS (KPS, IED, 2005). The
reformation and rehabilitative programmes are also governed by the Constitution of Kenya 2010.

There are also international laws that guide the work of prison officers in Kenya. These include
the Standard Minimum Rules, the 1949 Geneva Conventions and additional Protocols,
particularly the third convention on treatment of prisoners, the Convention against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment among others. The Non-Custodial
sentences are guided by the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial
Measures (the Tokyo Rules) of 14th December 1990. Below is a detailed discussion of these
international and local legal instruments.

a) International Laws that are applicable to Rehabilitation of Offenders

The development of most of the international instruments that guide the treatment of offender all
over the world, Kenya included was influenced by the First and Second World Wars of 1914-
1918 and 1939-1945 respectively. These wars were characterized by lawlessness whereby acts of
brutality and unjustifiable destruction of property were experienced. During these two wars
millions of people were killed and others permanently maimed. The captured enemy soldiers
were cruelly treated and their civil rights abused. These harsh treatments were influenced by
racial, religious and political inclinations (Gary, 2010). When the wars ended the nations came

26
together to take stock of their aftermath. This taking of stock is what influenced the development
of international instruments on how prisoners were to be dealt with.

The instruments that resulted from these considerations include the Geneva conventions, the UN
standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners, the United Nations Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, International
covenant on civil and political rights, the European convention for the prevention of torture and
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the convention on the rights of persons with
disabilities. Though all these instruments largely talk about the prisoners of war, they have
globally been accepted as vital guidelines in the treatment of all kinds of prisoners.

In the case of the first three Geneva conventions of 12th August 1949, for example, the first and
second conventions deal with the provision of medical treatment for the wounded and the sick
prisoners. These two conventions outline that medical facilities, equipment and personnel both
fixed and mobile should be established for treatment of sick prisoners. The third convention
guide humane treatment of prisoners. It, for instance, outlaws hostility towards the convicts,
holding convicts in squalid conditions, and it guides documentation of prisoners’ details, and
safe custody of their properties.

The Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners were adopted on 30 August 1955
by the United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders. The
minimum rules together with the recommendations of the United Nations Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment provide several
guidelines on how prisoners and other individuals held in custody should be treated (KPS, IED,
2005). For instance rule 46 of the Standard Minimum rules on the treatment of prisoners’ require
that prison staffs should be professionals and of good conduct, they must also be efficient and
physically fit. Rules 46 to 54 stipulate that prison officers should be of adequate education and
selected carefully based on integrity, humanity, professionalism and personal suitability. This
rule states that prison staff must undergo training and pass both practical and theoretical tests
before beginning their work.

The basic rule illustrated in the standards on how offenders in custody should be treated
proclaims that “there shall be no discrimination on grounds of race, colour, sex, language,

27
religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” It
also calls for respect of religious beliefs of prisoners. There is also a provision that a register for
prisoners must be maintained indicating the identity, reasons for custody and date plus hour of
admission and release. The prisoners should also be separated on the basis of sex, whether they
have been tried or not, age, and seriousness of their offences.

These rules also require that prisoners must be held in hygienic conditions with adequate space,
ventilation, lighting and sanitary facilities. The prisoners must also be provided with adequate
water and toilet articles, and are required to keep themselves clean so as to ensure personal
hygiene. The clothing and beddings must also be clean and adequate while the food should be of
required dietary standards in terms of quantity and quality. On exercise and sport, the regulations
provide that a prisoner shall have at least one hour of exercise in the open air if the weather
permits, and for the health of prisoners, medical doctors of varied specializations including
psychiatry are to be available to treat prisoners in all institutions. The need for every prisoner to
be examined by the medical officer shortly after admission, and segregation of prisoners
suspected of contagious diseases are equally emphasized in the provisions.

In ensuring discipline, these laws prohibit cruel, inhuman and/or degrading punishments,
including corporal punishment and restriction of prisoners in dark cells. Where a prisoner is to be
punished the medical officer must be consulted before implementing any punishment that may
be prejudicial to the physical or mental health of a prisoner. However, in practice this has not
prevented torture of prisoners in prison institutions across the globe. According to Jeremy
(2008), the laws also require that prison authorities in every institution maintain, for the use of
prisoners, a library with recreational and instructional books.

On religious and spiritual wellbeing, authorities should provide religious leaders for each and
every religion that the prisoners profess to hold services with them and conduct pastoral visits.
These laws provide that no prisoner should be denied guidance of a qualified representative of
his or her religion, nor shall he or she be required to observe religious doctrines contrary to his or
her faith. It is also required that the insane and mentally challenged prisoners are not to be

28
detained in prisons but should be treated in specialized institutions to ensure their healing and
rehabilitation.

On the code of conduct for law enforcement officials, the rules require that the officers must
respect and protect human dignity and uphold the human rights of all the prisoners under their
care. They must also protect the health of the prisoners and seek medical attention should an
inmate fall sick. Further to these, they must not solicit any kind of favour including, money, or
sexual intercourse with the offenders in their custody. However, despite these provisions, some
prisons staff in Kenya have conducted illegal businesses with prisoners such as smuggling
mobile telephones and drugs into prison institutions for use by prisoners - these acts in the end
negate on reformation and rehabilitation of convicts (Omboto, 2013a; The Standard Newspaper,
November 6, 2015).

On its part, Article ten (10) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 23rd
March 1976 further demands that any person deprived of their liberty shall be treated with
humanity and dignity. The article further requires that convicted prisoners be separated from the
pre-trial detainees, and the juvenile prisoners from adults. In Kenya, these provisions have not
fully been adhered to due to overcrowding in prison institutions caused by among other factors,
poor funding which has prevented the building of more prison institutions, and/or expansion of
the existing ones. These challenges have jeopardized reformation and rehabilitation of offenders
by prisons.

The European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment was enacted on 1st March 2002. The convention established the European
Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
which was permitted to visit all places of detention within the European Union to ensure that in
such places the human rights of detainees are respected, and the conditions are humane.
However, despite the provisions of the above international legal instruments for humane
treatment of convicts as discussed, the prisoners have continued to suffer in squalid conditions
all over the world, Kenya included. This negates on their reformation and rehabilitation, thus,
may be an influential factor for the high recidivism rates.

29
For rehabilitation of offenders in the communities, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules
for Non-Custodial Measures (the Tokyo Rules) of 14th December 1990 require that the decision
to put an offender on a non-custodial measure should be based on the nature and gravity of the
offence, personality and background of the convict, the purposes of sentencing and the rights of
the victims of crime.

b) Domestic laws that govern Rehabilitation of Offenders in Kenya Prisons

The Prisons Act Cap 90 and the Prison Standing Orders are the two main legal documents that
guide the work of prison officers and rehabilitation of convicts by prisons in Kenya. These laws
empower the officer-in-charge or an officer detailed by him or her to allocate to each prisoner the
labour for which he or she is best suited to enhance his or her rehabilitation. The first
consideration being to give each prisoner the best training which his or her sentence, capacity
and the resources of the prison permit. To fulfill this provision, Cap 90 (3) states that the
technical services’ objective is “to train the inmates in useful skills which can help him or her get
a job or employ her/himself after release from prison.”

On prisoners’ vocational training, the Prison Standing Orders on its part outline that prisoners
should be trained in the following trades in the prison industries: carpentry, masonry, metal work
(blacksmith and tinsmith),tailoring, dress making, welding, spray painting and polishing,
mechanic trades, panel beating, electrical trades, electronic repair, cookery, basket making,
crocheting, leather work (boots, shoes, belts bags making),shoe shine and repair, upholstery
(cushions, sofa, vehicle seats making) ,wood carving, fitting, sign writing, and fine arts.

According to the standing orders, before a particular prisoner is placed on a specific training,
considerations are made based on his or her health, the duration of sentence, the prisoner’s
interest, previous professions, and education level attained before imprisonment. The Prisoner’s
Vocational Training Programmes and farming training activities are meant to equip the convicts
with skills by which they should earn a living by lawful means after imprisonment. These
trainings are offered based on the assumption that most inmates committed crimes because of
poverty occasioned by lack of vocational skills that could enable them to earn a living by honest
and lawful means.

30
To ensure that the environment for reformation and rehabilitation of offenders is conducive,
Prisons Act Cap 90 and the Standing Orders outline stringent regulations to prevent the entry of
contrabands such as illicit drugs and substances. For instance, Prisons Act Cap 90 section 66 (K)
and (J) and section 124 (1) (M), (S) and (V) outlaw trafficking in contrabands by all the members
of the prison community while section 124 (1) (M) forbids prison staff from taking tobacco or
spirituous or fermented liquor or any other prohibited article into prison institutions. Part (S) of
the section further prohibit members of staff from trafficking with inmates whereas part (V) of
the same outlaw prisons staff from accepting any fee or gratuity from, or having any commercial
dealing with a prisoner or discharged prisoner, a friend of prisoner or with visitor to prisoner
(Omboto, 2010).

Concerning the inmates, section 66 (K) outlaws them from having, in their cells, wards or
possessions, unauthorized materials. Part (J) proscribes any inmate from giving to, or receiving
from any person any unauthorized item. In addition, Standing Orders, in chapter 10 section 50
(1)outline that “No prisoner shall under any pretence whatsoever be allowed any spirits, wine,
beer or other intoxicating or stupefying drink, drug or matter, except such, and in such quantities,
as may be directed in particular cases by the medical officer by order in writing. “Part 2 outlaws
prisoners from smoking. The Prison Standing Orders further provide that to reform and
rehabilitate offenders; inmates in need of education should be offered learning opportunity
through formal education and non-formal education. The formal education is conducted as per
the 8:4:4 system of education while the latter is under adult education programme.

c) Kenyan Laws that govern the Probation Service

Probation Service in Kenya mainly draws its mandate from the Probation of Offenders Act Cap
64 Laws of Kenya, and the Community Service Order Act (No. 10 of 1998). However, because
probation officers deal with broad categories of offenders such as juveniles, the mentally sick,
convicted prisoners, and also due to the fact that their work overlaps to other agencies, there are
other relevant laws that guide probation service in Kenya. These laws are the Prisons Act Cap 90
laws of Kenya, the Borstal Institutions Act Cap 92, the Mental Health Act Cap 248, the
Children’s Act of 2001, the Penal Code Cap 63, and the Criminal Procedure Code Cap 75 Laws
of Kenya. The Mental Health Act Cap 248 guide probation officers when dealing with the
offenders that are mentally challenged. In most cases such offenders are normally referred to

31
mental hospitals for free treatment, and medical reports on their progress presented by the
concerned probation officer to the courts.

The Prisons Act Cap 90 is imperative to the probation personnel when handling the convicts who
are remanded in prison custody as the officers write the pre-sentence reports at the request of the
concern courts. The act is also vital in all engagements between the probation and prisons in
Kenya while the Borstal Institutions Act Cap 92 guides the probation officers in handling
juvenile offenders aged between 15 and 18 years. For the offenders below the Borstal Institutions
age, the probation officers use the Children’s Act of 2001 as a guide in handling them. The Penal
Code Cap 63 and the Criminal Procedure Code Cap 75 are important to the probation officers in
advising the courts on the suitable penalties for the various offences and help in directing
criminal procedures respectively.

2.1.7 Contemporary Forms of Judicial Punishment

World over, after an offender has been found guilty as charged, the judge or magistrate can
award an array of sentences depending on the severity and circumstances of the crime (Stuckey
& Garland, 2000). These penalties either require them to serve time in institutions or leave them
in the communities. However, for the punishment awarded to be effective, Grunhut (1948) is of
the view that it must be immediate to convince the offender that crime will not be tolerated.
Though, this requirement is not easy to observe particularly where it takes a long period of time
for cases to be determined. The punishment should also give the offender a fair chance for a
fresh start; and further to these, the state which claims the right of punishment must uphold
superior values which the offender can reasonably be expected to acknowledge. The goals of
criminal punishment are general deterrence, incapacitation, specific deterrence, retribution,
rehabilitation and restitution (Senna & Siegel, 1993).

Bwononga, (1998) maintains that there are two main types of sentences: punitive sentences and
non-custodial sentences. Under the punitive sentences, he outlines death sentence, imprisonment
and imposition of fines while the non-custodial ones include probation, discharge, costs and
forfeitures. The punitive sentences are usually passed upon those who have been convicted of
serious crimes like murder, treason, capital robbery, theft, and causing death by dangerous
driving among others while non-custodial sentences are imposed in less serious crimes.

32
Grunhut (1948) observes that in the early societies, the most common forms of punishment were
death, physical torture, mutilation, branding, public humiliation, fines and forfeiture of property,
banishment, transportation, and imprisonment. He further states that over a period of time, each
of these sentences had several variation and application. For example, death penalty included
hanging, electrocution, crucifixion, and burning. Imprisonment has included incarceration in
dungeons, guardhouses, galleys, jails, workhouses, houses of correction and penitentiaries.
Physical torture and mutilation have also assumed numerous and barbarous forms such as
flogging, burning, dismemberment and disfiguration.

In the present-day Kenya, Bwononga, (1998) gives an exhaustive list of punishments currently in
place. These include death sentence, which he argues, ranks top in order of severity. The
sentence is passed upon those convicted of felonies such as murder, treason, capital robbery and
attempted robbery. This is because this class of convicts is considered to be very dangerous;
thus, should be permanently put away from the society. Life imprisonment and imprisonment in
that order are the next in severity after the death penalty. Imprisonment is usually imposed on
offenders who commit crimes such as grievous harm, manslaughter, arson and rape. In practice
the courts have the discretion to impose a specific number of years. Another punitive sentence is
fine. A fine of a specific amount of money may be imposed either in addition to any other
punishment or solely or as an alternative to imprisonment.

However, in Kenya like in other jurisdictions, there are also non-custodial sentences. Here the
offenders serve their sentences outside prison. Though in the public eye non-custodial sentences
are seen to be very lenient to the accused thus leading to discontentment from the aggrieved, the
sentences are encouraged for non-capital offenders to ease the congestion in the prisons. The first
type of non-custodial sentence in Kenya is Community Service Order where an offender is
required to perform communal work which includes light manual work such as cutting grass and
cleaning public places. It is a punishment usually imposed on offenders convicted of minor
offences such as being drunk and disorderly, trespass, common assaults, affray, and creating
disturbances (Senna & Siegel, 1993).

Probation is also another form of non-custodial sentence geared towards reforming the offenders
and rehabilitating them into the society. Before an offender is sentenced to probation, it must be
established that he or she is remorseful and repentant. While on probation, an offender must

33
comply with all the terms of the probation order which include not committing any offence
(Stuckey & Garland, 2000). The courts may also discharge the offenders. There are two types of
discharges: conditional and absolute discharges. In conditional discharge, the convict is released
on certain conditions and for a specific period for which non-compliance may render the convict
to be returned to court for another sentencing. The punishment options available to the courts are
always dictated by the sentencing guidelines for particular crimes. If prescribed sentencing
guidelines do not exist, the judge has the discretion to award a sentence within the statutory
limits and alternatives (Stuckey & Garland, 2000). The subsequent section is an elaborate
discussion of these types of punishment in the modern societies.

a) Imprisonment and its latent Dysfunctions

Even though there are other non-custodial penalties for convicted offenders such as fines,
community service order, and probation service, imprisonment is the most commonly applied,
particularly for non-petty offences (Dhami, Mandel, Loewenstein & Ayton, 2006). In the last
four decades, this practice has been driven by the belief that incarceration is the best measure of
ensuring protection of the society (Subramanian & Shames, 2013). Imprisonment is also the
most common form of punishment because it is given as an alternative to petty offenders who
cannot afford fines and other financial penalties.

While historical records indicate that custodial confinement of offenders existed in Athens as far
back as 353 BC when it was employed in the Athenian Polis (Allen, 1997), imprisonment of
offenders as it is known today began in Europe between 1600 and 1700 years as a paradigm shift
from the harsh and severe punishments which typically involved public torture and humiliation
of convicts. It originated in the desire to reform and rehabilitate the offenders in private places
which brought in the Criminal Justice System (Mushanga, 1976). In the United States of
America, it became common in 1800s while in Kenya, and other parts of Africa, this form of
punishment was imported by the colonialists (Bohm & Halley, 1997; KNCHR, 2005).

The fact that imprisonment developed as an improvement from the hash and degrading public
torture of real and perceived offenders does not mean that torture does not take place within
prison walls. It was, for example, established that both physical and verbal abuse is common in
correctional institutions worldwide. For instance, according to Silverman and Vega (1996),

34
authorized brutal practices such as whipping inmates were still common in the United States of
America, particularly in Arkansas and Mississippi in the 1960s. In Kenya before the prisons
reforms began in earnest in 2003, torture and degrading treatment of inmates was a common
means of enforcing discipline and compliance in prison institutions (KNCHR, 2005).

To reform and rehabilitate offenders, there are various measures within the prison walls, for
example, there are Prisoner’s Vocational Training Programmes and on-job training such as
training in farming activities meant to equip the convicts with skills by which they should earn a
living through lawful means after imprisonment. These trainings are offered based on the
assumption that most convicts commit crimes because of poverty occasioned by lack of
vocational skills that could enable them to earn a living by honest and lawful means.
Imprisonment also employs recreational and therapeutic techniques such as guidance and
counseling. There is also provision of basic formal education, and behaviour modification
programmes as the offenders are viewed as sick individuals in need of treatment (Tewkbury,
1997).

Though widely employed, imprisonment is marked by several demerits for the prisoners which
negate on their reformation and rehabilitation. For example, there is little freedom characterized
by routine activities with no opportunity of self-direction given that prisoners’ movement is
highly restricted (Haralombos & Holborn, 2007). For instance, the prisoners cannot move around
as they may wish, they also have limited choice on the food they eat, the work they engage in
among other limitations as these are dictated by the prison authorities. Prisoners do not also
make decisions on matters that affect them. At times even simple decisions such as when to take
a bath is made for them. Prisoners may also be expected to perform intolerable roles that they
would not willing accept in a free society.

At times the inmates face unbearable confinement conditions under atrocious prison authorities.
There is also restricted outside social contacts, marked by limited visits that are supervised.
Other negative characteristics of prison life are deterioration of convicts’ vocational and
professional skills, interruption of family life, and heterosexual starvation leading to high number
of cases of homosexuality and lesbianism within prison institutions (Omboto, 2013a; Bohm

35
&Halley, 1997). On the offenders’ professional regression, for instance, Polisky and Shavell
(1999) observed that for the white collar offenders, the negative impact of imprisonment, stigma
and loss of earning does not to a greater extent depend on the length of the prison term.

As a disruption of family life, Murray and Farrington (2008) observed that parental
imprisonment may lead to antisocial behaviour in children such as delinquency, mental
problems, drug abuse, and truancy among others. This is more pronounced if the imprisoned
parent is a mother or if the parent is imprisoned for a long period of time. This observation
underlines the importance of a mother in upbringing of children, and the importance of the
presence of parents to the children’s socialization. Imprisonment also impacts negatively on
child support. For instance, according to Chung (2012), in Wisconsin, USA, the imprisonment of
the fathers increased dependency on government provided stamp food by the affected families.
The study established that the US government provided food work as a safety net when families
face deprivation due to fathers’ imprisonment. This, however, imposes a substantial economic
burden on the tax payers. Imprisonment also leads to poverty among the inmates.

For instance, Crimshaw (2014) established that prisoners reenter their communities poorer than
they left. In America, for example, it was observed that prisons and jails have produced outcasts
whose main characteristics include poverty. The poverty of ex-prisoners can be attributed to the
fact while in prison institutions, inmates are not engaged in economically viable activities, which
are well paying. Thus, the prisoners leave prisons to their communities worse than they left.

In the control of crime which is supposed to be the most important benefit of imprisonment given
its ability to incapacitate the offenders by removing them from the society, incarceration makes it
impossible for such offenders to commit crimes, at least for the time they are held in prison
custody. The expectation is not normally met particularly in Kenya where the prisoners have
continued to commit crimes such as extortion against the society because of management
challenges, and advancement in technology (Omboto, 2013a).

b) Factors antithetical to the attainment of Imprisonment Goals

There are various challenges that can impede the achievement of prison functions in any prison
system in the world; for instance, according to Paranjape, (2005), life in prison was meant to
deter people from committing crime by isolating them from the public, ensuring strict discipline

36
and provision of bare necessities. There is also strict security arrangements and monotonous
routine life. These restrictions are imposed on the inmates’ liberty against their will, which often
makes them to be unwilling to comply with the prison rules and regulations. This in the end leads
to various acts of indiscipline such as fights and fracas between the inmates themselves, and the
inmates and prison officers. Breaking of prison rules, prison riots, among others are also
common in prison institutions. In these kinds of situations, prisons cannot achieve their mandate.
On riots which rocked the English prisons in 1990 for instance, Wolf (1990) recommended the
need for ensuring the correct balance between security, control and justice to achieve an effective
prison management.

Other causes of indiscipline among the inmates are as a result of poor and insufficient diet, poor
sanitations and prisoners’ health provisions. Aware that it is the obligation of the government to
provide for them; these situations provoke disquiet among prisoners. Another factor that makes
inmates to disobey prison rules and regulations include, but are not limited to, mistrust and lack
of faith in prison authorities whom they consider to be forceful and harsh on them. The senior
prison management do also resort to corrupt practices, and often extend preferential treatment to
some inmates in exchange for inducement; this causes antipathy among the other prisoners
which leads to cold wars between the inmates and prisons staff (GOK, 2008; Paranjape,
2005).To alleviate this situation, Coyle (2002) recommends that the prison management must
create an environment where all members of the prison community are treated with fairness and
justice, also, in which prisoners have the prospect to participate in productive activities. The
scholar suggests that, above all, prisons should prepare the prisoners for life outside the prison
walls well in advance.

Compliance to prison rules and regulations by the inmates which adversely affects reformation
and rehabilitation of the inmates is also interfered with by the inmates’ unmet sexual urge. Their
extended absence from the normal society and the detachment from spouses and lovers deny the
inmates sexual gratification which is a vital biological urge of all normal adults. Because they
fail to control their sexual desire, the inmates due to lack of conjugal visits resort to
homosexuality and sodomy inside the prison walls; these can be by force or consented
(UNODC/GOK, 2012 a). Due to lack of protections such as condoms, the prisoners who get
involved in such sexual deviations get infected with and spread diseases such as HIV and AIDS,

37
sexually transmitted diseases, and other infections such as hepatitis B and C, which, in the end,
compel the prison authorities to spend a lot of resources on the inmates’ health rather than on
meeting their core functions of reformation and rehabilitation.

Fights and coercion among the inmates is another factor that negates on the achievement of
prisons’ core functions (Paranjape, 2005; Colvin, 2000). Fights are brought about by the desire
of some individual inmates to control other felons. For instance, prisoners who committed capital
offences normally look down on petty offenders. The conflicts are made worse by the
introduction of prisoners ‘self-governance’. For example, in India, an observation was made that
due to lack of general moral discipline among criminals majority of whom are illiterate and from
the lower class of the society, when allowed to govern themselves in prisons, conflict normally
arises between them (Paranjape, 2005).

Coercion in prison takes the form beatings and/or being denied material needs for instance by
having inmates’ materials or items stolen. There is also indirect coercion where prisoners witness
others being beaten up thus creating a threatening environment in which fear and intimidation
become common aspects of life. This results into psychological distress under which the
achievement of prisons mandates is impossible. Steiner (2008) summarizes the traditional
explanations of prison indiscipline: deprivations suffered by inmates as a result of incarceration,
such as lose of autonomy, freedom of movement, and access to goods and services, heterosexual
relationships among others. He concurs with Paranjape (2005) that other than deprivations,
another source of disorder among inmates is differences that arise between them.

It has also been argued that the physical and social prison conditions have made them unsuitable
for convicts’ reformation. Thus, prisons have been described as ‘schools of crime’ where the
inmates only learn to engage in more serious crimes than the ones they were convicted of
(Kagendo 2003; Gendreau, Goggin & Cullen, 1999). Prison institutions have also been described
as ‘criminogenic’ (Odegi-Awuondo, 2003; Mushanga, 1976); that is, they encourage criminal
tendencies rather than reformation and rehabilitation of offenders. In reference to prisons in
Kenya, for instance, Odera-Oruka (1976) argued that hostile prison conditions make ex-
convictsvengeful against the general society. It has also been observed that prisoners always
become institutionalized, for example, Goodstein (1993) observed that prisons instil acquiescent
and compliant behaviour which causes institutional dependence.

38
Congestion and overcrowding is another factor that has led to the failure of prison institutions to
achieve their mandate across world; for instance, in the US, enormous prison overcrowding
contributed significantly to the increase in prisoners’ rights litigation. By 1992 the populations of
institutions in 29 states exceeded the institutions’ capacity. The National prison project of
American Civil Liberties Union reported that as at January 1, 1992, forty states, including the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Island were under court orders to reduce prison
populations (National Prison Project, Corrections Digest, 1992).In Kenya, it has been established
that overcrowding and congestion is the root cause problems in prisons institutions (Omboto,
2013 a).

However, Venter, Hoffman and Goudine (2006) postulate that where recidivism is attributable to
imprisonment, it is due to the fact that rehabilitation interventions are provided too late and many
of the programmes are focused on the process rather than results. The scholars recommend that
halfway houses should be provided in good time, and that prison rehabilitation should focus on
the prisoner empowerment. This advice is important in the Kenyan situation given that halfway
homes just like Parole have never been established yet they are vital for rehabilitation of the
offenders released from prison institutions. The convicts reformation and rehabilitation through
imprisonment can also be improved on by provision of conducive environment (Tewkbury,
1997).This scholar views offenders as sick individuals in need of treatment achievable by among
others, psychological and substance abuse counseling, provision of basic formal education,
behaviour modification and job training programmes.

Further to these, Briggs (1975) recommended that for reformation and rehabilitation of prisoners
to be achieved, the institutions must put up measures to preserve and enhance a prisoners’
dignity and self-respect that are likely to assist in their rehabilitation, which normally takes place
through training and other activities. Playfair and Sington (1965) emphasize that correctional
institutions must strive to offer intended training to all the offenders that ever gets into the
institutions to counter any possible contamination by fellow felons. They observe that treatment
or reform attempted in these institutions are normally counter balanced by anti-treatment and
confirmation in criminal ways at the hands of fellow inmates since contact between the inmates
is normally more continuous than that of inmates with the prison staff.

39
c) Historical Development of the Kenyan Prisons

Imprisonment is the main form of punishment in Kenya. It is normally awarded to the offenders
that are considered to be a threat to the society based on the crimes they have committed. It also
serves as an option to those who cannot afford fines. Prison as an institution in Kenya was
established by the British colonialists through a Prisons Board circular number 1 of 18th March
1911. By 1912, there were 30 prison institutions with 1,466 prisoners and 300 members of staff
(GOK, 2011 a). Although it operated as an autonomous entity, prisons continued to be
administered by the Inspector General of Police. The first Inspector General of Prisons was only
appointed in 1914 and he doubled up as the secretary of the prisons board. In 1917 the posts of
Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner were created and subsequently held by R. Donald
and T.A. Gray respectively. The first prison in Kenya was Fort Jesus which served as a prison
from 1900 to 1958. In December, 1925, the Detention Camps Ordinance No. 25 was passed to
establish detention camps which were meant for petty offenders thus segregating them from
those who had committed felonies who were kept in prisons to avoid contamination of petty
offenders by hard core criminals (GOK, 2011 a).

To control recidivism, vocational training programmes for prisoners were established in 1927.
This saw posting of five Technical instructors in the protectorate from England to train prisoners
in carpentry and masonry. To improve the prison staff efficiency and discipline, training of more
members of staff was enhanced in 1929 when the training depot in Nairobi was enlarged and
training duration extended to six months instead of the then few weeks. In June the same year,
the Governors’ Vagrancy Ordinance created detention camps for the detention of native
vagrants, who had previously been committed to prisons. This was to avoid contamination of
such category of inmates by hard core criminals (GOK, 2011 a).

In 1931, a system where all sentences of ten years and above were reviewed after five years with
recommendations of the Commissioner of Prisons submitted on each and every case to enable
reformed prisoners to be pardoned. In 1932, a prison service library was established for the
prison staff to learn more about their duties. The reading materials were kept at the Headquarters
for use by all officers in various parts of Kenya. In June 1934 the Juvenile Ordinance was
enacted. This was influenced by the English “Children and Young Persons Act of 1933 which
gave the governor power to establish three categories of approved schools. The first category

40
was meant for the committal of children or young persons not convicted of criminal offences, up
to the age of 18 years. The second was for the committal of children convicted of criminal
offences, up to the age of 16 years, and the third one for the committal of young persons
convicted of criminal offences, up to the age of 18 years. These schools were under the Chief
Inspector of Approved Schools reporting to the Approved Schools Board with the Commissioner
of Prisons as Chief Inspector of the Approved Schools (GOK, 2011 a).

The first Prisoners’ Discharged Board which was run by the Salvation Army was established in
1936 to help discharged prisoners get employment. In May 1940, the first Prisons Standing
Orders was published. And in 1950, prison service was placed under the control of the Attorney
General and Members for Law and Order. In September 1952, a conference of Prison Officers
was held which discussed, among others, the classification of youthful offenders who needed a
special institution other than approved schools; this led to establishment of Shikusa Training
center for youthful first time offenders (GOK, 2011 a).

However, an event that had the greatest impact on the development of prisons in Kenya was the
declaration of a state of emergency in 1952. It resulted into a greater increase in the prison
population, and by 1953, the population rose to 20,251 from 9,954. The training of staff was
also negatively affected with the training period shortened to a few weeks to the serve the
increased population. This need for more staff led to the development of another training camp in
Kamiti in 1954 which was considered spacious for training of a large numbers of officers.

A supplementary training site was set up in Thika for rifle training to cub any uprising. The need
for speedy communication at this time also saw the introduction of radio telephones in prisons.
By the year 1954, there were a total of 176 stations to handle Mau Mau suspects. These were 50
prisons, 40 Prison camps, 54 Detention camps and 32 emergency detention camps. The prisoner
population stood at 28,630 while the staff population was 11,025. A negative impact of this
period in the development of prisons in Kenya was deterioration in prisons conditions (GOK,
2011 a).

In 1959, after the end of the emergency period, prisons department developed programmes that
focused on the treatment and training of prisoners. New prison legislations were drafted to
enhance reformation and rehabilitation of offenders. The additional legislations that came into

41
being by 1959 were those concerned with Borstal Institutions, Extra Mural Penal Employment
and the detention of youthful offenders in Detention camps. Given that the number of female
prisoners increased during the emergency period, efforts were also made to increase the number
and capacity of female officers. Thus in 1960 a Superintendent of Prisons Mrs. M. P. Rochfort
was transferred to Kenya from Uganda to oversee the recruitment and training of women staff.
This led to establishment of separate central prisons for women at Langata (Nairobi) and Nakuru,
with facilities for training of staff, which saw an increase in the number of trained female prisons
staff (GOK,2011 a).

For all this time, prisons in Kenya was in the Ministry of Defence but concerted efforts to make
it reform the offenders saw it moved to the Ministry of Social Services in April, 1962. The other
new changes that were enacted were classification and segregation of prisoners based on age,
history and character. The progressive stage system for inmates’ promotion to higher stages
depending on their good behaviour with each higher stage offering the inmate more privileges
than those in a lower stage; and the prisoners earning scheme were also introduced. In the same
year, the new Prisons Ordinance was passed by Legislative Council in December which provided
for changes such as proper classification, a stage system, an earning scheme, parole, compulsory
supervision, extra mural penal employment, and the establishment of a Youth Corrective
Training Centre. An officer experienced in Borstal Management was also employed to establish
a Borstal institution. More senior prison officers who were Africans were also appointed in the
same year and 23 prisons were under them. For instance, Mrs. Phoebe Asiyo was appointed the
first African woman Assistant Superintendent of Prisons and Mr. Andrew Kisia Saikwa as the
first African officer to take charge of the Rift Valley province (GOK, 2011a).

After independence in 1963, legislations to guide prisons were enacted; these are CAP 90
(Prisons Act), CAP 91 (Detention Camps Act) and CAP 92 (Borstal Act) and Andrew K. Saikwa
was appointed as the first African Commissioner of Prisons in October, 1964 with all but one
African senior officers. In July 1970, five provincial commanders were appointed, all, as
Assistant Commissioners of Prisons to head the five regions. The training of prison officers was
enhanced in 1984 with the establishment of expansive Prisons Staff Training College at Ruiru.
The training emphases were on prison administration and theories of crime (GOK, 2011a).

42
However, major changes occurred in the year 2000 with the open door policy occasioned by
democratization in the country, and the enlightenment on human rights issues in the 1990s. The
members of the public are now privileged to question human rights concerns in prisons and
prisons’ management. This has resulted into building and expanding prison institutions to reduce
congestion, improvement on prisoners’ uniforms, provision of mattresses and blankets to the
inmates, procurement of comfortable buses that transport inmates to courts, improvement of
hospital services and matters of transfers. There is also improvement in diet as the inmates are
provided with rice, and sugared porridge. Also, in place is family bonding opportunities during
open day visitations, and remote parenting (GOK, 2011 a).

Of significance was another incident that brought change in prisons - the strike by members of
staff in 2008, which instigated a change in the top command that saw the two top level managers
brought in from the police. The notable changes brought about by this management include
establishment of dog and horse units in prisons to enhance security, introduction of new staff
uniforms, and enhanced training for staff (GOK, 2011 a).

d) Reformation and Rehabilitation Techniques in Kenyan Prisons

According to GOK (1979), several strategies that aim to reform and rehabilitate offenders in
Kenya prisons have been instigated. For instance, inmates in need of education are offered the
same through formal education and non-formal education as the free citizens. The formal
education is conducted under 8:4:4 system of education while non-formal is under adult
education programme. These two arrangements have seen several prisoners continue with
education and sit for national examinations within the prison walls. Guidance and counseling,
and spiritual programmes are also in place to cater for emotional and spiritual needs of the
inmates. The programmes are offered by trained spiritual leaders employed by the prison
department.

The inmates are also engaged in sports, hobbies, handcrafts and other recreational activities for
leisure and relaxation. The prison standing orders also stipulate that the prisoners should be paid
for their work in prison under Prisoners Earning Scheme, though have not been effected for a
long time and the amount stipulated is too little to support inmates on release. To inculcate good
work ethics, the prisoners are allocated various duties under Prisoners’ Labour Distribution

43
supervised by the prison officers. To encourage good behaviour, convicted offenders are also
offered remission which is a third of their sentence for non-capital crimes that attract more than
one month prison term. Meanwhile, prisoners who do not inhibit good behaviour lose the
remission. The well behaved prisoners who have stayed longer in prison also receive privileges
under the prisoners’ stage system. This involves promotion of long serving and well behaved
prisoners from the lower stages to the special stage. The higher the prisoners’ stage the better the
privileges. These privileges are in form of unrestricted movement within prison institutions,
better clothing and beddings, additional food ratio, and increment in the number of visits to the
prisoner per month (GOK, 1979).

Prisons in Kenya should also ensure that petty offenders do not learn serious crimes from the
hard core criminals; to achieve this, the prisoners should be classified and segregated. However
this has not been implemented as required due to congestion and overcrowding in prison
institutions occasioned by high crime rate in the country and insufficient funding by the
government which has inhibited building of new prison institutions and expanding the existing
ones. Other impediments to the effectiveness of imprisonment in Kenya include availability of
drugs and substances, and other contrabands in prison institutions as well as incidents of
corruption (GoK, 2008).

It has been established, for example, that drugs such as cannabis, heroin and cocaine are readily
available in Kenya prisons. The presence and abuse of such drugs, and other contrabands in
prison institutions have resulted into serious cases of inmates’ indiscipline – a situation in which
no meaningful reformation and rehabilitation can take place (Omboto, 2010). For instance,
according to the Standard Newspaper(November 6, 2015), a Naivasha Maximum Security Prison
Chief Inspector (CIP) was nabbed with 1772 rolls of cannabis sativa hidden in car tyres as he
was just about to supply to the 3000 inmates in that facility. This senior prison officer who was
also found with several mobile phones was remanded at Nakuru Police station.

The presence of these illegal mobile phones has also enabled the inmates to continue committing
crimes such as extortion while in prison. To control these vices, it is high time the government of
Kenya gave serious attention to the Correctional Departments in the Country so as to weed out

44
the individuals lacking in integrity; those who perpetuate the vice. Currently, much of the
government attention on the Criminal Justice Institutions in Kenya is directed to the police and
the judiciary in matters like vetting of the staff.

e) Core Functions of Prisons Service in Kenya

GOK (2013) and KNCHR (2005) outline the goals of Kenya prisons and provide a vision for
helping maintain a just, safe, secure and peaceful society. GOK (2013) outlines the obligation of
the service as ensuring the rule of law, creation of humane condition for inmates, and promotion
of inter-agency collaborations. It emphasizes that the primary role of prison is to prepare
offenders for their rehabilitation into the society as law abiding citizens.

This policy statement gives a broad vision that aims to guide the transformation of Kenya Prison
Service into a modern correctional institution in reformation and rehabilitation of offenders that
will curtail recidivism. According to KNCHR (2005) the key function of Kenya prisons is, first
and foremost, reformation and rehabilitation of prisoners through training and counseling.
Training aims to equip the inmates with skills they would use to earn a living by lawful means
after release from custody; this is normally achieved under prisoners’ vocational training
programme. Counseling targets the inmate’s minds, it appeals to them on the need to discard
criminality on release through creation of awareness on the dangers of crime to the society and
the individual convicts among others.

Prisons in Kenya and all over the world also ensure that inmates are in safe custody. This is all
about ensuring that the inmates do not escape from lawful custody. This concerns both the
remand inmates who are awaiting the conclusion of their cases in various courts, and the
convicted prisoners in for reformation and rehabilitation. The containment and safe custody
functions help in the protection of the society when the dangerous criminals are locked up. They
also ensure that institutional rehabilitation mandate is accomplished as the inmates would be
present for reformation and rehabilitation programmes. However, as these offenders are
contained in prison institutions, Kenya prisons must ensure that their basic human needs are
provided for, and their human rights respected. This has not been fully achieved given that
prisoners live in squalid conditions, and the cases of physical torture and beatings of prisoners by

45
the prison staff in which at times lead to death are common in prison institutions (Standard
Newspaper, October 27, 2015).

Kenya prisons should also facilitate administration of justice through the production of inmates
to various courts for trial. These are normally the remand prisoners whose crimes don’t have bail
and bond terms, and those who are unable to meet such terms thus must attend to their cases
while in custody. It is the responsibility of prisons to ensure that they are produced in courts
when and as required. However, because of transport and other related challenges, there are at
times, delays in meeting this mandate.

Prisons should also reform convicted young offenders in Borstal Institutions for their
rehabilitation function. This function first ensures that young offenders are segregated from
mature and dangerous criminals; this assists in preventing contamination of young offenders.
Borstal institutions should also equip the young offenders with skills which they can use to earn
a living on release. The main challenge in achieving this mandate by Kenya prisons is that there
are only two Borstal Institutions in the country against the increased number of juvenile
offenders. These two institutions are Shimo la tewa in Mombasa and Shikusa in Western Kenya.

It is also the responsibility of Prison Service in Kenya to recruit, train, and develop suitable
personnel for prison work. This is mostly done through field recruitments countrywide by the
Human Resource Department. The training which involves field drills and class work is
undertaken at Prisons Staff Training College (PSTC) in Ruiru. The prison department must also
provide conducive work environment for its personnel for effective service delivery. However,
while there are some notable improvements in training occasioned by collaboration between the
service and Kenyatta University (Daily Nation Newspaper, August 27th 2015), other terms and
conditions of work such as housing, particularly for the junior prisons staff have remained
pathetic, and these affect reformation and rehabilitation of convicts as their morale for the
delicate work remains low.

Kenya prisons also take care of the children aged four years and below who accompany their
mothers in prison. By law a child of four years or less can’t be separated from his/her mother;
therefore, convicted mothers of children of such ages must have these children with them in
prison institutions. Prisons under the supervision of the children’s department ensure that all the

46
needs of such children are met. After the age of four, such children are normally released to their
relatives or to the children’s homes for those who do not have caring relatives. Kenya Prisons
should also provide awareness amongst its staff and inmates on social welfare issues and
HIV/AIDS, co-operative benefits to the staff and other staff development issues. Finally, it
should also conduct research on crime trends in the country.

f) Prisoners’ Vocational Training Programme

The Prisoners’ Vocational Training Programme is one of the interventions directed at ensuring
proper reintegration of convicted inmates in the community after imprisonment. In Hong Kong,
Tam and Heng (2008) observe that the vocational training programme aims at inculcating good
work habits and discipline in the offenders, offering hands on experience through practical
training and acquisition of job skills, giving certificates for the trades acquired, and opening up
opportunities for further training. Thus, the programme should equip the inmates with the skills
and knowledge that they would need on release to do particular jobs.

This training is based on the assumption that most convicts commit crime because of poverty
occasioned by lack of vocational skills that could enable them to earn a living by honest and
lawful means. However, while this assumption is in line with Robert K. Mertons’ Strain Theory
of Crime, it is worth noting that crime, particularly non-property acquisition crimes, and even
some property related crimes such as theft, have several other causes not related to poverty; for
instance, theft by kleptomaniacs, the offenders who steal because of mental sickness.
Nevertheless, Prisoners’ Vocational Training Programme deserves every support because any
initiative geared towards reducing crime and recidivism is a move in the right direction.

Empirical studies attest to the positive impact of this programme in reducing recidivism rates.
For instance, in the US, the inmates who participated in vocational training programmes had
lower recidivism rates (Ward, 2009; Gordon & Weldon 2003). The participants also had fewer
cases of indiscipline during imprisonment. Added to this, participation by inmates in vocational
training and education programmes also led to parole

According to Bohm and Halley (1997), these programmes mostly operate as part of inmates’ job
assignments and are geared towards the traditional blue-collar employments such as welding and

47
auto mechanics. Furthermore, the programmes offered in women prisons in the US have often
been criticized for concentrating excessively on stereotypical women jobs. These scholars have
also confirmed that recidivism rate is high among prisoners who fail to participate in education
and training programmes in prisons.

The success of Prisoners Vocational Programme as a reformation and rehabilitation tool depends
on the kind of personnel who are in charge and the general prison conditions. For instance,
Mushanga (1976) recommends that the prison officers must have higher education and be well
trained for the success in rehabilitation of offenders to be achieved. In concurrence, Klare (1966)
postulates that knowledgeable prison officers, for example in disciplines such as psychology,
counseling, sociology, criminology and other social sciences are important for inmates’
rehabilitation. These are the kind of rehabilitators who can be well versed in criminal etiology.

Emphasizing on the quality of the prisons staff, Coyle (2002) opines that for prisoners’
rehabilitation through training to be a success the men and women who are to work in prisons
need to be carefully chosen to make sure that they have appropriate personal qualities and
educational background apart from the technical skills. The correct attitude of the offenders
towards the vocational training programme is also mandatory for its success. This is because
without the positive attitude, the convicts may not readily acquire the skills, and even if they are
compelled to learn the skills, they may not value the skills enough to make use of them to earn a
living after have been released from prisons.

Bottons & Macclintock (1973) opined that it is also essential for the staff to obtain the co-
operation of the inmates if they are to have any lasting impact on them through the
implementation of training plans. Without this, the scholars warned, that the training would be a
kind of daily ritual, something being done to make custody more desirable. They further
postulate that the staff must strive to obtain appreciation of the offender’s attitude. In Great
Britain, a report presented by the Home Office Department Secretary to Parliament in November
1969 on Prisons Vocational Training stated that the training would in the long run help an
offender only if it is within its capacities, provides skill which will assist in obtaining better

48
employment on release, and if the offender will have the opportunity, the ability and the
determination to find and to retain such employment.

In Kenya, the development of Prisoners Vocational Training Programme started with the
establishment of Prison Industrial Training in 1962 under technical services (GOK, 1982).
Prisons Act Cap 90 (3) states that the objective of technical services is “to train the inmates in
useful skills which can help him or her get a job or employ her/himself after release from
prison.” The Prison Standing Orders, on their part, outline that prisoners should be trained in the
following trades in the Prison Industries: carpentry, masonry, metal work (blacksmith and
tinsmith),tailoring, dress making, welding, spray painting and polishing, mechanic trades, panel
beating, electrical trades, electronic repair, cookery, basket making, crocheting, leather work
(boots, shoes, belts bags making),shoe shine and repair, upholstery (cushions, sofa, vehicle seats
making), wood carving, fitting, sign writing, and fine arts.

According to this document, before a particular prisoner is placed on a specific training,

considerations are made based on his or her health, the duration of sentence, the prisoner’s
interest, previous professions, and the education level attained before imprisonment. GOK
(2008) observed that prison farms and industries are operated under the Revolving Fund
established through legal notices numbers 314 of 22nd July 1988, and 87 of 8th April 1993 to train
and rehabilitate prisoners. This is meant to reduce recidivism. However, corruption by the senior
prison managers, misappropriation, and mismanagement of resources and funds negates on the
attainment of the purposes for which the prison farms and industries were established, the most
essential of which is reduction of recidivism (GOK, 2008).

g) Probation Service Orders as a Punishment

Historically, the probation service as it is known today originated from the efforts of Mr. John
Augustus (1785-1859), a Boston shoemaker who in early 1940s accepted to stand bail for petty
offenders in exchange of the judges postponing prison sentences. He offered to monitor the
offenders and report back to the judges on their behaviour in the community. Charges for the
well behaved were dropped while those who continued to deviate proceeded to prisons.
Augustus’ efforts resulted into enactment of the first formal probation laws in Massachusetts, US

49
in 1878, and by 1957 all states in America had enacted the probation laws (Bohm & Halley,
1997).

In Britain, according to GOK (2009), probation service began in 1943 under the Probation of
Offenders Ordinance of 1943 which was based on the British ordinance of 1907. The first
courses for assistant probation officers were then conducted in 1947 and 1948. By 1954 the
Probation Service in Britain was responsible for approved schools and juvenile remand homes
which previously had been attached to prisons department. This development of Probation
Service was influenced by the need for Juvenile Justice System, and the need to manage
offenders outside the Criminal Justice System (Klus, 1998).

Therefore, after its full development and spread world over, Probation Service is now a court
awarded penalty in which a convict is set free into his or her community under the supervision of
a probation officer who ensures that he or she abides by certain conditions for a specified period
of time. The probation officers are specially trained for their work. Based on their training and
philosophy, they believe in the capacity of the offenders to change for the better thus are able to
facilitate reformation and rehabilitation of such convicts (Robinson, Burke & Millings, 2015).

The Probation Service is one of the Community Based Rehabilitation Strategies whose main
objective is to enable the petty offenders to avoid the negative impacts of imprisonment.
Because of this, it is always seen as an alternative to imprisonment. In placing the offenders on
probation, the court files a probation service order detailing the duration and other conditions of
the probation sentence. It then becomes the duty of the Probation officer to ensure that the
probationer abides by the conditions of his or her probation until the successful completion of the
sentence. One of the most important conditions is the requirement that the offender is not to
commit any crime during the time of the probation (Musyoka, 2013). However, if the
probationer fails to comply with the probation order, the officer applies for revocation by
charging the probationer in court with the offence of violating the probation conditions. If this
happens, the offender is sentenced to prisons.

Whether or not a convict can be sentenced to probation service is based on several factors. One,
it is dependent on the facts of the offenders’ criminal case in question. For instance, in the US,
eligibility for probation or parole is based on facts such as use or possession of a gun when

50
committing a crime (King& Brynn, 2014). The decision is also influenced by the risk a particular
offender poses to the society (Milgram, Holsinger, Vannostrand & Alsdof, 2015). On this risk
principle, the convicts awarded Probation Service Order are those that require minimal
supervision because they are not a danger to public safety, and are less likely to recidivate than
those sentenced to prison.

The convicts’ criminal history also determines their sentence on probation (Cornish & Whetzel,
2014). For instance, the recidivist convicts are normally sentenced to prisons as they are
considered a danger to their society. Further, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for
Non-Custodial Measures (the Tokyo Rules) of 14th December 1990 also provide that the decision
to put an offender on a noncustodial measure should be based on the nature and gravity of the
offence, personality and background of the convict, the purposes of sentencing and the rights of
the victims of crime. However, Starr (2015) posits that the offender’s risk assessment should not
be based on factors such as poverty and other socio-demographic identities of the offenders. The
scholar argues that court judgments have considered risk scores based not only on socio-
economic and family related disadvantages but also on demographic traits like gender and age.
This leads to differential treatment with no merit in reformation and rehabilitation.

The duties of probation officers go beyond Probation Service work of supervising offenders on
court orders to rehabilitate them. GOK (2014 a), probation officers work with the offenders,
communities and victims of crime. They are trained professionals who employ social work and
professional approaches and methods to assess the offenders for court reports and parole boards.
For the courts, they prepare Pre-Sentence Reports (PSR) on the offenders’ criminal history and
other socio-economic details which guide the judges and magistrates before entering rulings and
judgments, thus they greatly assist in delivery of justice (Daly & Peck, 2007). Beyond their
work with probationers, they also supervise offenders on parole. All these services the probation
officers engage in are aimed at reducing recidivism.

The probation officers rehabilitate the convicts through supervision, resettlement, reintegration,
counseling, and, where necessary, reconciliation of the offenders and their victims. Probation
also strives to secure vocational training and employment opportunities for the offenders in need
based on the offenders’ capacities and qualifications respectively. In supervision, the probation
officer acts as a guide and counselor thus helping the convict to get out of criminality. He or she

51
ensures that the probationer adheres to the strict supervision guidelines. The probation officers
also make sure that the probationers abide by the laws, and do not commit crime during the
probation period. In Kenya, this control is achieved by liaising with the area chiefs and the police
officers.

But as probation service imposes control, in Britain, Weaver (2014) argues that regulations
forced on the offenders by the probation as they seek to decriminalize them are not sufficient to
bring about life long change if the officers are not sensitive to the individual offenders’ personal
priorities, values , aspirations and relationships. This scholar observed that the major challenge
facing probation service is staffing. This leads to work overload and delays in commencement in
engagement between the convicts and probation officers. This observation is in concurrence with
earlier findings of UNICJRI (1997) that absence of the needed personnel, support structures and
funds are the greatest impediments to utilization of probation as a noncustodial sentence. Rutter
(2015) further established that there is more intense workload for the probation staff while
important work assessment tools for risk of recidivism are underutilized due to failure to provide
incorporated Information Technology (IT) systems that should be employed for the purpose.

The other technique of enforcement of probation obedience that aims to curtail recidivism is
frequent appointment between the probationer and his or her probation officer. This enables the
professional to detect any negative changes in the convict and take remedial measures. Besides,
in developed countries such as USA and UK, probation surveillance is also conducted by the use
of electronic monitoring gadgets such as biometric reporting where finger printing technology is
employed to enable the probationer to log on, and access and provide information (Travis, 2015).
Nevertheless, it has been observed that the use of such gadgets poses more challenges. For
instance, according to Padmore (2015), electronic gadgets cannot deal with the various complex
human issues of probationers that require the help of trained probation officers. Some of the
problematic issues are occasionally detected by the officers during their face to face interactions
with the offenders under their care and must not be officially reported by them.

Counseling by the probation officers assists the offenders to make conscious decisions to discard
criminality. This is based on the awareness created in them on the negative effects of crime on
themselves and the society in general. Above all, it also assists them to be aware of
opportunities open to them for honest living. Cognitive counseling also assists the offenders to

52
abandon faulty beliefs and attitudes on which criminality may be grounded on. It also empowers
the offender to handle internal feelings such as anger, frustrations, despair, and uncontrolled
desires that may have led them to crime.

On job placement and training, the Probation Officers can recommend the offenders under their
care to potential employers, and for training in government institutes based on their need. This
gesture has the potential to prevent recidivism in the offenders who might have gotten in crime
because of poverty occasioned by lack of capacities to earn a living by honest means. In the case
of the convicts who are drug and substance addicts, the probation officers refer them for
treatment in government hospitals. In Kenya for instance, at Nairobi County the probationers
with drug dependency problems are always referred to Mathari Mental Hospital which is a
government institution for treatment. Finally, reconciliation of the offender with his or her victim
by the probation staff is helpful in ensuring acceptance for the probationer by the society. This is
a key function in ameliorating the chances of revenge against the offenders by the victims and or
their loved ones given that some members of the public do not always consider probation service
to be punitive enough for the convicts.

It is important, at this juncture, to point out that control needs and rehabilitation strategies vary
from one probationer to another; thus, it is the responsibility of the probation officer to determine
what is appropriate. To achieve this, a need and risk assessment is normally conducted to
formulate the supervision and treatment plans for each probationer. In addition, Shaplandet al.
(2012) postulate that for probation service to bear results, there must be a motivating, caring and
encouraging relationship demonstrated by the probation officer to the probationer and not merely
monitoring and surveillance. The offender should also be engaged in identifying the needs and
goals for supervision. The officers must also be in a position to identify what may cause the
probationers to reoffend, and work around such factors. The common factors according to these
scholars are lack of money, employment, skills or qualifications, drugs and substance abuse and
lack of housing. For the offenders’ desistance from further criminal activities, supportive
relationships with spouses, loved ones and other relatives are equally vital.

Generally, probation service has several merits. For instance, as a community based rehabilitation
approach, it assists the offender to avoid the many disadvantages associated with institutional
rehabilitation in prisons such as contamination of petty offenders by the hardcore criminals. In

53
terms of the cost for the government in rehabilitating the convicts, probation is cheaper in
comparison to imprisonment. It also assists the offender to avoid stigmatization and labeling
normally associated with imprisonment that may lead to recidivism. The offenders on probation
also continue with their lives in the community without much interruption. This enables them to
offer socio-economic and emotional support to their families and loved ones. On top of these, by
rehabilitating petty offenders in the society, probation also helps in the decongestion of prison
institutions. Despite these advantages of probation service, O'Beirne, Denney and Gabe (2004)
posit that probation officers fear dealing with probationers who commit violent offences. They
also fear visiting isolated estates to see probationers, and they dread when violent probationers
establish where they live. This fear of danger is a serious challenge in the work of probation
officers.

h) Probation Service in Kenya

According to GOK (2009), the history of Probation in Kenya dates back to 1943 when the
Peterson Commission recommended to the British Colonial Government that probation service
should be established. Kenya Probation Service therefore owes its origin to the Probation
Ordinance in Britain, and it became operational in 1946. It resulted out of a desire to solve the
problem of congestion in prison institutions, and during its formative stages, it was confined to
the then Nairobi Municipality and it only handled juveniles and women offenders.

Administratively, the probation service in Kenya is currently headed by the Director of Probation
Service assisted by two Deputies and several senior Probation officers. The counties are headed
by the Assistant Directors while the sub-counties are under Chief Probation Officers. In total,
there are about six hundred and fifty (650) probation officers and five hundred (500) support
staff (Okech, 2015). Over the years, Probation has been under different ministries with minimal
changes on its statutes. Its services have grown and expanded from Nairobi where it began to all
parts of the country; currently, there is a probation department in all the courts in the country.

Probation Service mainly draws its mandate from the Probation of Offenders Act Cap 64 Laws
of Kenya, and the Community Service Order Act (No. 10 of 1998). However, because probation
officers deal with broad categories of offenders such as juveniles, the mentally sick, convicted
prisoners, and also due to the fact that their work overlaps to other agencies, there are other

54
relevant laws that guide probation service in Kenya. These laws are the Prisons Act Cap 90 laws
of Kenya, the Borstal Institutions Act Cap 92, the Mental Health Act Cap 248, the Children’s Act
of 2001, the Penal Code Cap 63, and the Criminal Procedure Code Cap 75 Laws of Kenya.

In Kenya, like in other jurisdictions, the duties of probation officers include conducting
investigations on the background of offenders, and compiling and submitting of reports on the
same in courts of law. These reports guide the judges and magistrates in their rulings and
judgments in the cases over the convicts. However, the core function of probation in Kenya is in
reformation and rehabilitation of convicts. As a punishment, the law in Kenya allows the courts
to sentence offenders to serve a minimum of six months and a maximum of three years after
considering salient issues in the pre-sentence investigation reports prepared by the probation
staff, and the evidence adduced in courts. This process of rehabilitation involves supervision of
offenders serving noncustodial sentences, reconciliation of the convicts and the victims of their
crimes, and integration of an offender in the community. The offenders occasionally interact
with the probation officer who ensures compliance with the probation conditions, and
implements the rehabilitation plan.

According to Okwara (2013), in Kenya, Probation as a government agency involved in the

administration of criminal justice, is specifically charged with the responsibility of implementing
correctional services within the community. To this end, it ensures crime prevention, peace
building and conflict resolution. She postulates that Probation rehabilitates offenders through
social modeling, problem solving, counseling and functional family therapy. GOK (2011 b) posit
that the success in rehabilitation depends heavily on the ability to consistently and reliably
categorize the offenders based on their needs such that those with special needs can be identified
and given appropriate services. The special needs offenders deserve extra rehabilitation strategies
in order to prevent recidivism. Such strategies may be sex offenders’ treatment programmes,
drug and alcohol treatment, and anger management.

According to GOK (2006 a), probation in Kenya go an extra mile in rehabilitating juvenile
offenders by offering them material assistance such as school uniforms and miscellaneous fees
for those in school. They are also given admission in technical and vocational institutions; those
with skills are provided with tools as well as being assisted to start small-scale businesses; or

55
 encouraged to be self-employed. Probation also empowers women convicts by assisting them to
set up income generating projects such as selling groceries, operating kiosks, tailoring and
dressmaking among others to prevent their recidivation. For the probationers who come from the
home environments that are hostile to their proper rehabilitation, they are normally taken into
institutions called Probation Hostels that are run by the Kenya Probation Service. The hostels
are places of temporary residence for probationers as probation officers make efforts to have
them accepted and resettled at home. In Kenya, there are five (5) probation hostels with a
capacity of over two hundred (200) residents. Only one of the hostels is for females. These
hostels are Kimomo Juniour and Seniour hostels in Eldoret, Shanzu hostel in Mombasa,
Makadara Boys hostel in Nairobi, Nakuru girls’ hostel in Nakuru County, and Siaya hostel in
Siaya County (Okech, 2015).

i) Problems facing Probation Service in Kenya

As discussed earlier, the work of probation officers is broad and involving. For instance, they
supervise offenders who have been placed under them by the courts as an alternative to
imprisonment, and, at the same time, conduct social investigations for the pre-sentence reports.
To achieve the objectives, probation officers must therefore handle complex paperwork that
demands a lot of time, as well as handle huge caseloads. Their daily work is thus characterized by
strain and stress that often result into burn out.

According to Hannah (2012), the probation service in Kenya is also stretched and has limited
resources to supervise work placements. This makes the effectiveness of this form of punishment
in Kenya uncertain and ineffective thus leading to recidivism. To Okech, (2015), the main
challenges facing probation service in Kenya include absconding by the probationers, recidivism,
poor supervision, and inadequate resources. The researcher observes that supervision of convicts
on short sentences against inadequate personnel and finances is a major problem. Lack of
offender reentry programmes also negates rehabilitation through probation. The situation is made
worse by the presence of few probation hostels in the country, lack of halfway homes, and weak
legislative support. In concurrence, Aben, (2011) established that inadequate resources, lack of
co-operation from the offenders and lack of rehabilitation facilities for drug convicts were the
major challenges facing probation service in Kilifi County. The difficult probationers who do not

56
cooperate with the probation officers become recidivists since they end up not benefiting from the
rehabilitation measures on offer.

Inadequate financial resources are caused by insufficient funding from the exchequer. This may
result in probation service officers lacking resources that would help them to conduct visits for
social inquiry reports. In the end, the resultant reports may be incorrect in content thus
misleading the courts. High caseloads for individual officers due to understaffing also lead to
poor and insufficient work quality in terms of pre-sentence investigation reports and convicts’
supervision.

Finally, in Kenya, among the other impediments to the success of probation according to Okoth-
Opondi (nd) is the problem of corruption. This may take the form of some probation officers
colluding with criminals to write fake social inquiry reports favourable for noncustodial
sentences. These probation officers and magistrates benefit themselves from such deals which, in
the end, make hardcore offenders such as robbers, manslaughter suspects, and violent convicts to
benefit from noncustodial sentences like probation. When such offenders are not adequately
punished, thus not deterred; they may become serial recidivists.

Another challenge that has been generally observed is that probation service has always been
underutilized in many countries. For instance, in Nigeria, Yekini & Salisu (2013) argue that
probation has not been fully employed since most courts find it more suitable to send offenders
to jails. This calls for an awareness campaign among the judiciary and the prosecutions on the
benefits of community based treatment approaches.

j) Community Service Orders as a Penalty

Community Service Order (CSO) is a punishment where a person found guilty of a criminal
offence is directed by the courts to perform unpaid work for the benefit of the community
(GOK&UNAFRIC, 2011). According to Klus (1998), though unpaid work and reparative
sanctions have a long history, it was not until 1966 that community service was first employed as
criminal punishment for drunk drivers in the USA, and by mid-1970s’ it was extended to the
rehabilitation of juveniles. In Germany, CSO began in 1969, while in England and Wales in mid-
1970’s where the penalty became popular in preventing the negatives of short term

57
imprisonment. Across Europe, CSO was instituted in Italy in 1980, Portugal 1983, Norway,
France and Denmark 1984, and in the Netherlands it was introduced in 1989 as a court-awarded
sanction. As an alternative to imprisonment, CSO became popular as a means of enabling
offenders to restore the damage done to the society as it presented a message to the offenders that
crime had a public consequence. In Sri Lanka, according to Sugihara et al. (1994), it was first
introduced in 1973 by the administrative of justice law of No 44.

In Kenya, GOK&UNIAFRI (2011) opine that the precursor of CSO was Extra-Mural Penal
Employment (EMPE) which was provided for by the prisons Act Cap 90 and supervised by the
prison officers. Hence the offender was sentenced to work in a public institution for a period of
time not exceeding six months under the supervision of a prison officer. However, because
prison work is institution based, the prison department could not supervise the offenders
effectively. This prompted EMPE to be managed by the provincial administration, particularly
the chief who took charge of supervising the offenders sentenced to work in their locations.

But even under the chiefs, the problem of supervision worsened because they had other
responsibilities and were also not trained in the management of such offenders thus could not
keep track of the convicts. Some provincial administrators also abused EMPE by making
convicts to work in private enterprises which brought disquiet from the public. This resentment
by the public and reluctance of the judiciary to sentence offenders to EMPE made the prisons
population to bulge leading to outbreak of diseases due to poor living conditions that attracted
international outcry.

In response, the government began to explore ways of dealing with the problem through the
engagement of Penal Reforms International (PRI) and the African Network for Prevention and
Protection of Child Abuse and Neglect (ANPPCAN). These two bodies organized a symposium
in 1995 to discuss ways of improving EMPE and provide a way forward in dealing with petty
offenders in Kenya. The results of the deliberations and a recommendation of a task force
appointed by the Attorney General saw the enactment the CSO Act in 1998 by parliament.

Thus in Kenya CSO draws its mandate from the Community Service Act, the Probation Act CAP
64 and the penal code CAP 63. Under CSO, an offender is required to perform communal
manual work in public places such as hospitals, schools, government offices and other

58
government institutions (Musyoka, 2013). The manual works normally performed by the
convicts include cutting grass and cleaning public buildings. As they offer services to the
community, the offenders are usually supervised by the probation officers. The CSO sentence
duration must not exceed three (3) years. The punishment is usually imposed on offenders
convicted of minor offences such as being drunk and disorderly, trespass, common assaults and
creating disturbances (Senna & Siegel 1993). According to Hannah (2012), the use of this form
of punishment has increased in Kenya with the conviction of 3,000 offenders in 1990 to 55,000
in 1997.

The punishment has benefits to the society and the individual convict. For instance, rehabilitation
of the petty offenders in the community is cheaper compared to imprisonment. It also assists in
decongesting prison institutions, and helps prevent contamination of petty offenders by hardcore
felons in prison, which reduces the chances of recidivism. CSO is also a form of reparation to the
society where the offenders are given the opportunity to pay back to the community for the
injuries inflicted upon it, as they also reconcile with the victims of their crimes. Klus (1998)
postulates that community is a victim in crimes thus in CSO the offenders are offered the
opportunity for reparation and retribution ‘in kind’.

Another benefit is that the offender maintains family ties, and supports their loved ones
(GOK&UNAFRI 2011; Omondi, 2015). CSO also discourages criminality, for instance,
according to the report of Community Service Advisory Committee of the Municipality of
Middlesex Centre (2013), by making the offenders to work in public for free is painful, lowers
the dignity of the offenders, makes the offenders to get reformed, and discourages recidivism.

However, the major challenges facing Community Service Oder, according to Hannah (2012), is
that the public take it as well as probation as lesser punishments to the offenders. This may make
society members not to appreciate convicts in their midst. Another challenge established by
Hannah (2012) is that it is not easy to find work which develops the convicts’ skills for the job
market. This implies that after serving on CSO, the convicts are not assisted to acquire
employment opportunities which may lead to recidivism.

59
 k) Fines as Punishment

A fine is a sum of money an offender is required to pay to the authorities as a penalty for their
criminal activities. It is a court-awarded penalty where a convict is ordered to pay a specific
amount of money to the state. In this kind of penalty, there is a minimum intervention in the
offender’s life by the state (Zveki’c, 1994). As an alternative to imprisonment, it is the most
common form of punishment usually for minor offences. For instance, according to Adeyemi
(1994), in Nigeria in 1988, the Magistrates courts employed fines more frequently than any other
forms of punishment at 46.5%, while the District courts’ tally stood at 67.0%. The amount
usually paid as a fine is normally set by a court but there are statutory limits as the penal codes
specify the minimum or the maximum fines payable in various crimes. Fines can be paid as
alternative to imprisonment or can be combined with it.

As a punishment, one of the main merits of a fine is that it is economical in that it does not cost
the government much expense to administer (Zveki’c, 1994). Fines also generate revenue that
can be used by the state to offset the cost of operating the judicial system. It also does not
stigmatize the offenders or their families, and can help the offender to avoid the negative effects
of imprisonment, such as loss of employment (Cole, Mahoney & Hanson, 1987). A fine is also
the only punishment available where an organization, rather than an individual, has broken the
law.

However, the disadvantage of a fine is that its application may be discriminative against the poor
who may not afford to pay compared to the affluent offenders. In this case, the poor offenders
always head to prisons as an alternative thus suffer demerits associated with prisons (Zveki’c,
1994). As a rehabilitation tool, fines also have little impact on the rich convicts who may not feel
the intended financial pain thus may have no reason not to recidivate. According to Nicholson
(1994), the other weaknesses of fines lie in the possibility of payment by a third person such as a
friend or relative to the convict. This would obviously deny the offender the intended impact thus
may not be deterred from committing more crimes in future. Recidivism may also be as a result
of the convicts resorting to more crime in order to get back the money paid as a fine.

60
 l) Victim Compensation and Restitution

Restitution refers to giving back an equivalent of a loss or damage or injury to the victim of a
crime. In CJS, restitution is a court-ordered payment made by a convict to the victim of his or her
crime for the harm caused by a criminal activity (Reid, 1994). According to Zveki’c (1994),
restitution is one of the compensatory payments which in many countries are imposed as
conditional sentences. He observes that compensation applies in criminal matters while in civil
matters it is restitution.

The use of restitution is widespread all over the world. In Colombia, there is a mandatory
victims’ restitution Act which requires the convicts of federal crimes involving property to give
back any property taken, or if return is impossible, then to pay for the victims’ loss (Hill, 2013).
In the US, according to Harris, Kaminska and Springer (2013) restitution is one of the various
types of financial penalties for the white collar offenders. In Kenya, KPS and IED (2005) posit
that the penal code empowers the court to order the convict to compensate the victim of his or
her crime for the injury caused.

According to Tuckness (2010), the purpose of restitution is to restore the state that existed before
the damage occasioned by the crime. In awarding restitution, the courts quantify the loss the
crime victims have suffered, in the end this compensation to the victims becomes a loss to the
convict which should make him or her to desist from committing crimes in future (Asner &
Thornson 2013; Levin & Ramachandran, 2013). However, the weakness of restitution or
offender compensation is that, like fines, someone else can assist the convict to pay. For
instance, when the offender is a juvenile, restitution payment is made by the parents thus
negating on its effect which may result into recidivism.

m) Convicts’ Forfeiture of Property

As a punishment, forfeiture of property is a court-ordered relinquishment of money or assets by a

convict without compensation. It is a kind of punishment where a court gives a government the
power to take over a property which is connected to a criminal activity after a convict has been
found guilty. Forfeiture of property wrongfully acquired or used has existed since ancient times
and can be traced in the old testament of the bible. For instance, Ezra Chapter 10.8 states “that
anybody who fails to appear within three days would forfeit all his property in accordance with

61
the decision of the officials and the elders”. Exodus 21:28, on its part states that if an ox gore a
man or woman to death the ox shall be confiscated and stoned to death and its meat shall not be
eaten (Rothman & Schwarcz, 1993; Takata, 2004) .

Currently, in many jurisdictions, the laws guaranteeing forfeiture are in place. Such laws allow
the states to seize assets acquired through criminal activities such as fraud, money laundering,
drug trafficking and illegal trade in fire arms among others. In the USA, according to Siegel
(1983) the policy of forfeiture stipulates that any car, house, boat or aircraft found to contain
illegal drugs must be forfeited and put on auction. The US coast guard laws additionally stipulate
a zero-tolerance approach such that any trace of narcotics, even a tenth of an ounce found on
board of a million-dollar worth yacht could result in forfeiture of the yacht. In relation to the
punishment of drug and substance offenders, forfeiture has been encouraged by the 1988 UN
Convention against Illicit Trafficking Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances.

In Kenya, CAP 59 of the preservation of organized crimes Act of 2010 legalizes the forfeiture of
property of organized criminal groups. This act empowers the court to order forfeiture of any
money or property gained from or used to perpetuate an organized crime. On its part, the land
commission Act of 2012, outlines that any land acquired through corrupt means would be
forfeited to the government. Section 29 of the penal code Cap 63 also allows the court to impose
forfeiture of property as additional penalty to individuals convicted under section 118 and 119
which outlaws receiving or obtaining a property to conceal or withhold evidence about a felony.
On his part, Zveki’c (1994) observes that forfeiture is normally employed as an additional
sanction, and not independent penal sanction. This means a convict can be sentenced to prisons
and his or her property confiscated.

The aim of forfeiture of property is to disrupt criminal activities of a convict by confiscating

assets that might have been acquired by criminal means. It aims to weaken the economic
position of the convict to disenable him or her from continuing with more criminal activities in
future thus preventing recidivism. Further to this, because some offenders are motivated by greed
for acquisition of material wealth, forfeiture can be dissuasion to them if they know that such
illegally acquired properties will be taken away from them. The assets forfeited can also be sold
by the government and the proceeds used to fight crime in the country. However, if employed as
an independent penalty, forfeiture of assets like other financial sanctions such as fines may not

62
discourage the exceedingly rich offenders who may continue with criminal activities thus
become recidivists.

n) Diversion and other forms of Punishment for Misdemeanours

For minor offences, the magistrates may make various orders that in the public eye may not
amount to punishment. For instance, courts may conditionally discharge the offenders. Here the
convict is released on certain conditions and for a specific period. Failure to abide by the
conditions would lead the convict to be returned to court for another form of punishment. The
security to keep peace and be of good behaviour that is normally ordered by the courts to the
convicts is a form of conditional release.

The courts may also order the convict to reconcile with the victim of his or her criminal activity.
In Kenya, under the criminal procedure Code, section 176, trial court is mandated to seek
effective reconciliation between the accused person and the victim of their crimes. This may
require a stay of proceedings before conviction (Musyoka, 2013). In case of a traffic offence
related to driving, the courts may disqualify the convict from driving as a punishment. This form
of punishment is normally imposed on offenders who cause death by dangerous driving; reckless
drivers; and those convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol. The foreign offenders may
also be deported as a punishment. This may be in addition to any other sentence. For instance, a
foreigner may be deported after the completion of his or her prison term. In this case, the order is
made to the minister in charge of immigration to deport the convict.

However, diversion has also been applied in the treatment of petty offenders and juveniles. It is
diverting the offender from the Criminal Justice System particularly prisons, and channeling him
or her into, for example, a social welfare agency (Reid, 1994; Siegel, 2006). Diversion may be
applied at various stages of handling an offender within the CJS but is most frequently employed
prior to adjudication of a case (Bohm & Halley, 1997). For instance, a police officer who has
arrested a petty offender can apply diversion by warning or cautioning him or her never to repeat
the same offence, then set the offender free. Diversion can also take place after the offender has
been presented at the court of law when the prosecutor who has all the information relating to the
offence and evidence withdraws the case and requests the magistrate that the offender should not
be punished but be warned never to repeat that offence. Also at the court level, the judge or

63
magistrate after having heard the case in which the convict has been proved guilty can discharge
him or her unconditionally with a warning that a repeat of that offence will lead to a severe
penalty. These are diversion of adjudicated offenders who have been found guilty.

According to Champion, (2007) the logistical benefits and functions of diversion include its role
in reducing the case load for the courts and the probation staff. For the courts, this is true when
the offenders are diverted at the police level. Diversion also helps to prevent institutionalization
of offenders, which may cause recidivism. However, one serious weakness of diversion is that it
may be considered by the concerned offenders to be too lenient thus non-deterrent, and may lead
to recidivism.

2.1.8 Rehabilitation requirements for Different offenders

There are various types of offenders with different reformation and rehabilitation needs. These
are sex offenders, property related offenders, drugs and substance offenders, violent offenders,
and psychopathic offenders. The punishments offered to these offenders should be infused with
the correct strategies that would ensure that they are reformed and rehabilitated back into their
communities as law abiding citizens. Below is a discussion of the experts’ opinions on the
rehabilitative needs of these varied types of offenders.

a) Reformation and rehabilitation techniques for Sex offenders

Though sex offences are distinct, sex offenders are at times categorized as violent offenders.
According to Soothill (2010), sex offending is perverse and some go undetected thus controlling
it requires a multi-prong approach beyond the criminal justice solutions. This category of
offences violates another person’s sexual rights and encompasses the common predatory crimes
such as rape, indecent (sexual) assault and pedophilia. Other sex crimes include incest, sodomy,
bestiality (zoophilia), prostitution (in some jurisdictions), bigamy, necrophilia, exhibitionism,
and sex slavery among many others (Soothill, 2010). In Kenya, GOK (2006 b) lists the following
as sexual offences: defilement, rape, incest, child pornography, prostitution, promotion of sexual
offences with a child, child prostitution, child sex tourism, sexual harassment, and deliberate
transmission of HIV. An attempt to commit these crimes is also a criminal offence.

64
According Freudian explanations, some of these crimes are caused by arrested psychological
development or regression to childhood forms of sexual arousal. Some sex criminals are also
disturbed or inadequate individuals who cannot form satisfactory relationships. However the
fertile ground for the development of sexual offending is unfavorable family background of
abuse and neglect (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2004). When the individuals were not properly
nurtured and guided, it may lead to problems in the social functioning depicted by mistrust,
hostility, and insecure attachment. In turn these may be associated with social rejection,
loneliness, neglect and negative peer associations and delinquent behaviour. Under these
conditions pervasive intimacy which may be adversarial for a normal sex life may develop.
Additionally, negative beliefs that condone non-consenting sex also contribute to sex crime
among individuals. However the sex crime offenders do not have any noticeable difference from
the general population (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2004).

The oldest form of punishment to sex offenders in history has been castration. This form of
punishment or treatment has been in use since 1500 BC. However, because it was seen as
barbaric and cruel, castration was mostly applied as a last resort on offenders with severe mental
abnormalities (BMJ, 1955).This form of punishment has continued to date as a means of
permanently incapacitating the offender from sexual intercourse so as to prevent him or her from
future sex crimes. Thus chemical as well as physical castration of sex offenders considered to be
a danger to the society has continued to date in some jurisdictions under a legal frame work
referred known as protective treatment and is seen to be the answer to the public fear of
pedophiles and other sex criminals such as rapists (Hall, 2014; Beech & Grubin, 2010). This is
because sex offenders are the most feared and despised (Rickert, 2010). Because of this
perceived potential danger of sex offenders to the community, in the US, there is legislation
empowering the authorities to continue detaining the sex offenders considered dangerous beyond
the expiry of their sentences (Yung, 2011; Miller, 2010).

Also, several laws have further been developed to incapacitate sexual offenders. These are the
laws requiring that the community members are notified where sexual offenders live, and the
sexual offenders’ registration laws which require that sexual offenders notify the police of their
residential locations and places of employment for tracking and monitoring purposes (Prescott

65
&Rockoff, 2011). The laws aim to prevent these offenders from attacking local victims such as
their neighbours. According to Agan (2011), the sex offender registration laws in the US reduce
recidivism through target hardening where potential victims increase their safety precautions or
through increased police monitoring. Additionally, as the theory of ‘distance decay’ posits that
offenders are more likely to recidivate closer home, the statutes do also seek to distance the sex
offenders from the potential child victims (Berenson & Appelbaum, 2011). However, in Kenya,
according to Sexual Offences Act, the most severe form of punishment for sex crimes is life
imprisonment as castration of sex offence convicts is not allowed by the statutes.

Cognitive Behavioural Approaches for treatment or rehabilitation of sex offenders is one of the
techniques that are effective in reducing recidivism of offenders with deficient moral reasoning
(Lipsay, Chapman & Ladenberger, 2001).This technique focuses on changing the thinking
pattern related to sexual offending and deviant sexual behaviour in the offenders, and can only be
employed by trained experts. Another vital technique in rehabilitation of sex offenders under
cognitive approaches is psycho-educational approach which focuses on, among others,
inculcating in the offenders empathy for the victims while also teaching them to take
responsibility for their sexual offences.

The Cognitive Behavioural Approaches or Treatment also assists in training the offenders how to
manage their sexual emotions. Counseling therapy is also used under this technique to create
awareness in the offenders on their underlying problems so as to instigate change in behaviour.
Counseling therapy can be applied to individual offenders or similar group of offenders such as
exhibitionists. Other than Cognitive Behavioural Treatment, pharmacological approach is also
employed in rehabilitation of sex offenders (Kington, Yates & Firestone, 2012). This involves
the use of medicines such as serotonergic, antiandrogen and antidepressants to reduce libido in
the offenders. It is expected that the reduced libido will incapacitate the sex offender from
reoffending.

66
However, application of any strategies meant to rehabilitate sex offenders must begin with
diagnostic assessment and tests which are psychologically oriented to ascertain the root cause of
the sexual deviation – such as personality disorder – in the offender. These assessments and tests
should be conducted by competent psychologists or psychiatrists who also collect clinical
information to ascertain the cause of the sex crime in the offender. The assessment methods
include a clinical interview and administration of psychological scales. The clinically relevant
data can be collected from previous medical reports, family members, social workers, public
administrators, the police, and prisons records on previous arrests.

In conclusion, whereas majority of the sex offenders are always rehabilitated while in prison
custody, Hanvey (2011) established that sex offender’s treatment programmes in prison can be
highly effective, but their impact is lost due to social isolation which the offender is subjected to
once discharged into the community. The loneness, he asserts, can lead to reoffending. This
observation calls for a balance on the restrictions and isolation such offenders are subjected to.
Further, Soothill (2010) advises that for rehabilitation of this category of offenders to succeed,
sex offending should much more be handled as a public health issue, and not only as a criminal
justice concern deserving of severe punishment. This should involve professional expertise from
medicine, epidemiology, psychology, sociology, criminology, education and economics, and be
focused on the general well-being and safety of the community in general rather than being
overly concerned with the individual offender.

b) Reformation and Rehabilitation of Property-related Offenders

Property-related offenders execute crimes against property. These are offences that involve
unlawful acquirement or damage of property. The common property acquisition crimes are theft;
pick pocketing, burglary, forgery, obtaining money or property by false pretences, shop lifting,
misappropriation of public funds, bribery and other types of corruption and economic crimes.
The property related offenders are in two major categories: the poor who commit crime to
survive and the not so poor who involve themselves in criminal activities due to greed (Omboto,
2013 b). These two categories of offenders require different rehabilitation strategies.

67
Those who commit crimes for survival can benefit from vocational training programme me to
equip them with skills to earn a living to prevent recidivism. This, in some countries like the US,
is mostly operated as part of inmates’ job assignments (Bohm& Halley, 1997). Prison Vocational
Training Programmes provide this category of inmates with job skills that will improve their
marketability upon release. The other strategy for rehabilitating this category of offenders is
provision of education since some of them have very low education levels. These two techniques
are vital for their reformation and rehabilitation given that recidivism rate is high among such
offenders who fail to participate in education and training programmes in prisons (Bohm&
Halley, 1997).In Kenya, prisoners ‘vocational training programme is enshrined in the Prisons
Act Cap 90, and the Prison Standing Orders. The trades under this programme as per these
documents include carpentry, masonry, metal work (blacksmith and tinsmith), tailoring, dress
making, welding, spray painting and polishing, mechanic trades, panel beating, electrical trades,
electronic repair, cookery, basket making, crocheting, leather work (boots, shoes, belts bags
making), shoe shining and repair, upholstery (cushions, sofa, vehicle seats making), wood
carving, fitting, sign writing, and fine arts.

However, for the property offenders driven by greed for material wealth, counseling offered by
competent counselors and engagement in religious soul searching by religious leader may be of
help. If these offenders are counselled on the vanity of excessive accumulation of material
wealth, more so, through unlawful means, they may change their attitude and detest Mahatma
Gandhi’s seven social evils, among them “wealth without work” (Omboto, 2013 b). This
rehabilitation approach, among others, can also be of help to the morality offenders such as
prostitutes.

c) Reformation and rehabilitation of Drugs and Substance Offenders

Drug and substance offenders exist in two broad categories that require distinct strategies to
rehabilitate. The first group is those convicts whose crimes are acquisition and abuse of illegal
drugs and substances. The other is those offenders whose crime is possession and or smuggling
of such illegal drugs and substances (Omboto, 2010; Tiger, 2011).Nonetheless, rehabilitation of
drug and substance offenders is vital in reducing crime rate. This is based on the fact that it had
been established that drugs and substance abuse influences commission of criminal activities by

68
offenders. In USA, for instance, Bohm and Harley (1997) established that almost half of the
inmates in prisons had committed their crimes under the influence of drugs, while about 78% of
the prison inmates reported to have used illegal drugs in their life with 58% admitting to be
regular users outside prison.

Additionally, adult prisoners convicted of drug offences were about 68% thus drug violations
were the major reason for the large prison population growth in the United States both in the
1980s and 1990s. Further, Walters (2012) established that more than half of the convicts
‘population in US has a history of serious substance abuse or dependency. In Great Britain, Tiger
(2011) observed that alcohol and drugs are the major causes of contact between the offenders
and CJS either directly or indirectly. This is because a large number of offenders engage in
criminal activities to sustain their involvement in illegal drug use. In Kenya, effective
rehabilitation of drug and substance offenders is an urgent and challenging concern given that
various empirical studies such as Omboto (2010) have shown that the vice is rife in the general
society and prison institutions themselves.

Treatment programmes for drug and substance abuse offenders can take place both within the
correction institutions and in the communities. The strategies that can be applied within the
institutions include group counseling and self-help groups for a group of offenders who abuse
drugs and substances, and intensive therapy for individual offenders. The other prison based drug
problems treatments comprise the inpatient treatment programmes that are pharmacological in
nature. This begins with detoxification of new convicts sentenced to prisons which should be
mandatory in treating drug induced withdrawal problems. Another strategy is drug awareness
creation which involves giving information on the negative impacts of drugs such as addiction,
diseases, financial and social implications such as divorce, separation loss of friends among
others. Counseling and awareness creation model is more preferred by those who see addiction
to drugs as a social problem for which medical treatment alone would only be partially
successful.

However, another technique that is comprehensive and commonly applied in the communities is
therapeutic community technique (Tiger, 2011). This is a programme that requires that a drug
abuser remains in treatment for a long period of time ranging from several months to a few years.

69
It also focuses on transforming the personality of the addict since drug abuse is seen as a sign of
a larger problem within the individual, which must be treated. The treatment administration is
intense and involves encounter groups made up of people who have experienced similar
problems in the past and overcame.

These people are expected to assist in resolving the offenders’ resistance so as to ensure no
relapse during and after treatment. Additional strategies employed in the therapeutic community
technique include counseling and education which are expected to create awareness in the
offenders on the potential dangers they face among others. Pharmaco-therapies, a combination of
medicine and counseling, is also normally employed. In this strategy, the offender is treated with
medicines and counseling therapies at the same time (Tiger, (2011). However, for those
convicted of smuggling drugs and substances, education and creation of awareness by trained
and competent rehabilitation officers on the dangers of these activities to individuals and the
society will suffice.

d) Reformation and Rehabilitation of Violent Offenders

Violent and aggressive offenders are those convicted of criminal charges of violence against
other individuals. These convicts normally commit crimes such as assaults, grievous bodily
harms, homicide, kidnapping, and rape among others(Kathryn, 1999).The personal
characteristics of these offenders include lack of self-control and presence of impulsivity as they
are normally unable to control themselves when they are annoyed. A good number of these
convicts also suffer from personality disorders as they are people of unpredictable personality.
On this, Kathryn, (1999) posits that ‘cognitive distortions’ are responsible for criminality in
violent offenders. This violence also emanates from the fact that they have uncontrollable anger
and are hostile in nature.

Most of these offenders are also psychopathic; that is, they suffer from severe mental disorders
characterized by lack of remorse, lack a sense of guilt and inability to empathize with others
(Kathryn, (1999). Confirming this characteristic of violent offenders, Tengstrom, Grann,
Langston and Kullgreen (2000) posit that mental sickness particularly schizophrenia has been
associated with violent offenders. In concurrence, Hodgins (2008) observes that massive
evidence indicate that people suffering from schizophrenia are more at risk to engage in violence

70
towards others compared to the general populations. Further, Jarvinen (1977) had earlier
established that people guilty of grave violence present problems which are primarily
psychological and psychiatric in nature. The scholar established that such offenders suffer from
psychic disintegration and display “narcissism wounded self-esteem, paranoia and splitting”.

These offenders also suffer from poor interpersonal problem solving capacity (Hodgins, 2008).
Thus, they are normally confrontational which lead to violent crimes should situations of
interpersonal differences arise. In these cases, they may end up injuring others, or at worst
committing murder. Many of these offenders are also known to abuse drugs and substances
which may be the cause of their mental sicknesses. These offenders also prefer solitude; this is
because they do not fit well in the community. In most cases they choice to be on their own
because they are unable to socialize with other people. Another marked characteristic of these
offenders is that they also usually blame others for the consequences of their violent actions, and
see themselves the victims and not the offender (Jarvinen, 1977). In most cases, they have
weapons at their proposal which they use to execute their crimes and to defend themselves. Most
of these offenders also have low education level and they lack vocational training. In prisons and
other penal institutions, they have a high level of indiscipline cases.

The rehabilitation strategies which suit these offenders are varied but before a measure is
employed it is first of all important for the rehabilitation officers to understand the causes of
aggression and violence in the offenders. Depending on the established underlying causes, the
following strategies have been employed in the rehabilitation of such offenders. First and fore-
most, pharmacological intervention is vital for the offenders suffering from mental illness. This
is in the realm of psychiatry and it involves trained medical doctors who prescribe psychotropic
medications. This can be done in prison medical wards or such offenders can be admitted in
civilian mental hospitals for psychiatric care. Similarly, drugs and substance abuse treatment is
recommended for convicts who cause of their criminality is embedded on abuse of drugs and
substances.

Psychological interventions are useful in rehabilitation of violent offenders. These include

psychotherapy such as individual therapies where the individual violent offender is confronted
on his or her violent tendency and is counseled. Psychological counseling offered by trained

71
counselors is also vital for this kind of offenders. Here the counselors guide and teach the
offenders on how to handle their anger and high tempers. Family therapy is also useful to violent
offender in the community. Under it, close family members counsel the offenders with whom
they live while on probation service against violence (Kathryn, 1999).

Lipsay, Chapman & Ladenberger, (2001) posits that another psychological intervention
important for violent offenders is training on social skills to reduce aggressive behaviour
(Kathryn (1999). For instance, self-regulation training to impart skills for anger management
such as stress inoculation and deep breathing as relaxation training during strain and stress are
vital in controlling anger that would lead to aggressive behaviour. Other skills that should be
imparted are social interaction skills, problem solving skills and or cognitive coping skills.
Imitation and modeling, also a psychological technique used to modify behaviour can similarly
be employed. It involves advising and encouraging the individual offenders to imitate well
behaved and successful members of the society who are not violent.

According to Lipsay, Chapman & Ladenberger, (2001) and Kathryn (1999), cognitive
Behavioral Therapy is also another vital technique in reformation and rehabilitation of violent
and aggressive convicts. It is based on the psychological theories of crime which posit that
offending behaviour is linked to inadequate thinking skills such as problem solving, moral
reasoning, cognitive style, self-control and the like. Under it are calisthenics and advice intended
to change dysfunctional thinking pattern in the offenders. Cognitive therapy focuses majorly on
interpersonal relationships, feelings of entitlement, self-justification, transferring blame and
impractical expectations about outcomes of antisocial behaviour. It empowers the convicts to be
conscious of the existence of dysfunctional thought patterns or negative thinking, attitudes,
expectations and beliefs in them, and to know how these negatives contribute to their criminality.

Education and provision of vocational skills are also vital in reformation and rehabilitation of
aggressive and violent offenders (Tewkbury, 1997). For instance, if they are educated on the
risks and disadvantages of their perilous crimes such as being injured or injuring and/or killing
others or being killed, they may desist from violent crimes. The educational programmes should
be provided to enable offenders to understand how their crime affects the society. On the other

72
hand, provision of provisional skills to these offenders on which they can rely on to get their
basic needs is equally helpful because people who cannot afford the basic needs can turn
aggressive. Finally, deterrent punishment meted out on the violent offenders for their offences
can also prevent them from reoffending.

e) Reformation and Rehabilitation of Psychopathic Offenders

Criminal psychopaths are offenders who are mentally sick or suffer from psychological
problems. Mental disorder is best understood as a behavioural disorder diagnosed on the basis of
behavioural indicators such as perceptions, thoughts, desires, feelings, moods and actions
(Morse, 2011). The treatment of the mentally disordered offenders within the Criminal Justice
System is governed by the McNaghten rule and they are normally handled by the Criminal
Justice Personnel and the medical professionals.

At trial, where the court suspects or is informed that the offender before it is suffering from
mental illness, it orders for psychiatric evaluation tests to ascertain the truth (ABA, 2010). Even
though this class of criminals may be guilty of offences committed, they do have the mental
disease as their defense, therefore, they are viewed as not worthy of punishment. Because of this,
psychopathic convicts are normally committed to mental health facilities for psychiatric
treatment. They may also be confined to prisons for the same purpose, and to protect the general
society from their violent tendencies, and to protect them from the society members who may, in
ignorance, harm them if offended.

Because psychopaths are four to eight times more likely to be violent recidivists compared to
non-psychopaths (Kiehl & Hoffman, 2011), they may commit crimes such as murder, assault,
rape, and destruction of property. For instance, pyromaniacs - the mentally sick people who
cannot resist setting fires – are prone to arson. These criminal and violent behaviours are a
function of their pathology (Rice & Harris, 1992).Thus rehabilitation of offenders with mental
sickness should begin with treatment of their mental pathology. This is in addressing the many
behavioural, cognitive and emotional symptoms that they present. According to Friedrich (1998)
this involves techniques such as psychotherapy, behaviour modification, educational measures
and pharmacological treatment.

73
In concurrence, Morgan et.al (2012) posit that psychiatric rehabilitation should include social
and educational services, supportive community interventions, substance abuse treatment and
family support services for positive outcomes to be realized. However, as the mentally derailed
offenders receive treatment for their mental sickness, they should also receive extra treatment
apparatus to provide them with skills for independent living, and skills necessary for prevention
of further hostile or other violent criminality.

Given that proper mental health treatment and care may not be readily available in general
prisons, and, if available, may only be suitable for management of acute conditions (Gagliard,
Lovewell, Peterson & Jamelka, 2004), these offenders are normally admitted for specialized
inpatient care in mental hospitals outside prison institutions. For instance, in Kenya this is
normally at Mathari Mental Hospital Maximum Security Unit. However, those who do not pose
serious dangers to the public and those on the road to recovery can also receive specialized
community care, where they take drugs in the community (at home). Nonetheless, treatment in
the community is usually interfered with by factors such as abuse of alcohol and drugs
occasioned by poor supervision and control. Finally, treatment of mentally disordered offenders
is developed on individual basis after broad evaluation of the offender, something that entails not
only interviewing and observation but also collecting information from family members and
mental health and social professionals.

f) An Overview of Contemporary Offender Rehabilitation Strategies

Punishment should be both punitive and rehabilitative; thus, imbedded in the common forms of
punishment such as imprisonment and probation are various interventions meant to reform and
rehabilitate the offenders (Tewkbury (1997). These strategies include the interventions that target
the development of various skills: cognitive, social, parenting skills and anger management.
When individuals lack these skills, they may be prone to committing various crimes (McNeil,
2010). For instance, those who cannot control their anger are most likely to commit offences
such as grievous harm and even murder in interactive conflicts. The same applies to people
lacking in social and parental skills who may end up in endemic conflict with others and harm
their children respectively (Fromader and Malott (2010).

74
The other strategies involve the use of medical psychology and other psychological approaches
such as psychological counseling to change the criminal acts of the offenders. Counseling and
psychotherapy conducted by professionals help in assisting the offenders to know their problems
and where their criminalities emanate from. It also assists the offenders to endeavour to be law
abiding.

According to Williams (2001), some of the interventions applied are medical in nature. The most
common in this category is the use of medical drugs in treating psychiatric cases. To be
successful, psychiatric treatment must involve the engagement of competent psychiatrists in the
diagnosis and treatment of offenders. The two approaches used by these experts are
administering drugs to the offenders orally or intravenously, and the application of socio-
psychological approach which involves the use of environmental reorganization and personal
influences to change the offender. This involves social workers and counselors.

The engagement of social workers and probation officers which is also based on the treatment
paradigm is also commonly applied (Briggs, 1975). These experts dig into the background of
offenders to identify the causes of their criminality, and go ahead to develop a one on one
relationship with offenders in an effort to guide them out of crime (O’Leary, 2013). This is
common under probation as a punishment to the offenders. These professionals counsel and
guide the offenders, and may also reconcile them with the victims of their crimes. There are also
specific kinds of measures directed at particular convicts such as sex offenders (Stojanovski,
2009), and driving offenders. For instance, it may require that driving offenders be retrained to
polish their skills to prevent reoffending while castration of perennial sex offenders has been
applied in some jurisdictions.

Finally, according to James (2015), there are some interventions that are directed at ensuring
proper social reintegration of offenders back into their communities. These measures involve
provision of education, training and employment. For instance, under vocational training
programmes offered in prison institutions, the offenders are trained in vocational skills such as
farming, carpentry, dress making among others from which they can earn a living by lawful
means after discharge. This is important because when individuals lack the means to put food on

75
the table, and meet their other basic needs; they are most likely to recidivate. The measures
concerned with proper social reintegration of offenders back into the society are concerned with
their resettlement. However, it should be noted that successful reformation and rehabilitation of
offenders call for application of multi-model techniques (Playfair and Sington, 1965).

2.1.9 Factors that Influence Recidivism among the Convicts

According to McNeil (2010), among the factors that influence the likelihood of an inmate to
recidivate is whether or not he or she had been committed to prisons previously with more prior
convictions leading to greater chances of recidivism. In agreement, Castillo et al. (2004) confirm
this by stating that the first offender groups, who are offenders with neither prior convictions nor
criminal conduct, have consistent patterns of lower recidivism rates. Another factor is whether
the inmate is supervised after release. The supervised inmates are more likely to recidivate. This
is probably because they are more closely monitored. The younger the age of the prisoner at the
time of release, according to McNeil (2010), the higher the chances of recidivism. On gender,
Paranjape (2005) observed that the males are more prone to recidivism than females; he
attributes this to the male physical strength and adventurous attitude. However, men compared to
women also have a lot of socioeconomic responsibilities.

Indiscipline and infractions while in prison by an inmate is also a factor in recidivism. McNeil
(2010) established that prisoners who have more disciplinary reports record higher recidivism
rates. This may be based on the fact that indiscipline negates on their participation on
reformation programmes. Education level is also a factor in recidivism, the study established that
those with lower levels of education recidivate much more than the well-educated. This finding
is corroborated by Kagendo (2003) who confirmed that 82% of the 207 recidivists in Kenyan
prison institutions had very few years of formal education. That a majority of those with lower
level of education are recidivists is probably due to the fact that the well-educated are more
likely to be employed after discharge and rehabilitation compared to their colleagues with poor
education.

Confirming the influence of these factors on recidivism Bohm & Halley (1997) observe that
recidivism rates are highest for the ex-prisoners during the first year of release from prison, in
younger persons, people with less education, among those who were unemployed before

76
imprisonment, those who were drug and alcohol addicts before imprisonment, those who have
higher rates of misconduct in prison, and those who did not participate in education programme
while in prison. These scholars argue that recidivism is not in any way related to gender or the
length of the prison term.

However, according to Williams(2001), offenders with brain dysfunction are likely to become
recidivists given that they are not able to learn from the past punishment awarded to them,
cannot fathom the after-effects of their actions, and are impulsive in their actions. In concurrence
Salenkin, Rogers, Ustad & Sewell (1998) cite studies that show that male inmates who are
psychopaths are likely to recidivate within the first year of release. Further, inmates with mental
sickness are twice as likely to have their parole or probation revoked, and are at an elevated risk
for re-arrest (Vanderloo & Butters, 2012).

To rehabilitate this category of convicts with mental, emotional or brain dysfunctions requires
the input of trained psychiatric doctors to handle their conditions to full recovery.The failure of
Community Based Rehabilitation Strategies is also to blame for recidivism. For instance, Reifen
(1972) blames juvenile recidivism on insufficient and inadequate special community services. In
support of this, Crouch (1993) observed that law breakers in low social class fear the supervision
of probation and thus prefer imprisonment of two(2) or three (3) years instead.

Recidivism has also been blamed on the failure of the Institutional Corrections. For instance,
several scholars have observed that prisoners get hardened, and, on release, continue with
criminal tendencies. This has led to the arguments that prisons are ‘schools of crime’ where the
inmates only learn to engage in more serious crimes than the ones they were convicted of
(Kagendo, 2003; Gendreau, Goggin & Cullen, 1999). Prison institutions have also been termed
as criminogenic (Odegi-Awuondo, 2003; Mushanga, 1976); that is, they encourage criminal
tendencies rather than reform and rehabilitate offenders. In addition, Goodstein, (1993) opines
that prisons might be to blame for recidivism because they instil acquiescent and compliant
behaviour which causes institutional dependence. In agreement, Kamunyu (nd) observed that
giving of orders that must be complied with during imprisonment, and decision making by prison
authorities on basic issues concerning the prisoners’ life make the inmates to be institutionalized

77
and operate like mechanical actors. In the end, the inmates become dependent on prison
institutions.

However, Venter, Hoffman and Goudine, (2006) postulate that where recidivism is attributed to
imprisonment, it is due to the fact that rehabilitation interventions are provided too late and many
of the programmes are focused on the process rather than results. The scholar recommends that
halfway houses should be provided in good time, and that prison rehabilitation should focus on
the prisoner empowerment. This advice is important to the Kenyan Government given that
halfway homes just like parole have never been established yet they are vital for rehabilitation of
the offenders released from prison institutions (GOK, 2005).

On his part, James (2015) posits that lack of offender reentry programmes present a serious
challenge to the prevention of reoffending. He opines that the offender reentry programmes are
of three distinct categories; first, are the programmes that take place while the offender is still in
prison custody. These seek to prepare the offender for discharge. The second form refers to the
programmes that take place during the time of the offenders release to assist them in receiving
the services they may need, and third are the long term programmes that assist the offenders to
permanently reintegrate in the community.Despite these arguments associating recidivism purely
to imprisonment, reoffending, as a social problem, cannot be blamed on imprisonment per se
since it is not possible to predict future behaviour on the basis of training programmes, and other
reformation measures in prisons because there are many intervening variables such as
environmental influences that may impede the effects of reformation and rehabilitation
programmes after the offender is released back into the society (McNeil, 2010).

Nevertheless, to ensure that rehabilitation of offenders through imprisonment is fully

accomplished, Tewkbury (1997) opines that it is the responsibility of prison authorities to
provide treatment for the inmates, and contain them in conducive environments. For the same
purpose, Briggs (1975) posits that prison institutions must put up measures to preserve and
enhance a person’s dignity and self-respect while Playfair and Sington (1965) emphasize those
correctional institutions must strive to train the inmates so as to counter any possible
contamination by fellow felons.

78
2.1.10 Challenges facing Rehabilitation of Convicts
There are various challenges affecting reformation and rehabilitation of convicts which render
punishment ineffective thus leading to recidivism. These problems can broadly be looked at
under the challenges facing the ex-convicts in the society such as poverty and social stigma, and
the causes inherent in the convicts themselves such as rebellion against the laws and authority,
and alcoholism and drug abuse (Bohm &Halley, 1997). Other contributing factors relate to
challenges and weaknesses in the criminal justice system which are responsible for arresting the
suspects, determining guilt, and rehabilitation of the convicts (Omeje & Githigaro, 2010).Such
weaknesses and challenges in the criminal justice system may lead to delay in punishment, and
application of wrong punishment.

Reformed convicts may still regress back to crime when they do not have a legal means to earn
their basic needs due to poverty. This is more so if, due to social stigma and discrimination, they
fail to receive the required support from the society members in terms of employment among
others (Williams, (2001). Similarly, according to Gendreau, Goggin and Cullen, (1999) the
convicts who continue to abuse drugs and alcohol during and or after undertaking punishment
meant to reform and rehabilitate them will continue with their criminal activities as such habits
will negate the effectiveness of reformation and rehabilitation. The same applies to rebellious
convicts and ex-convicts who fail to obey laws and regulations during and after reformation.

The challenges and weaknesses within the Criminal Justice System such as corruption, backlog
of cases that lead to delays in punishment, and lack of trained rehabilitators among many others
also work against reformation and rehabilitation of convicts making them to be discharged non-
reformed (Omeje & Githigaro, 2010, Venter, Hoffman and Goudine, 2006). The limitations in
the various forms of punishment can also result into recidivism. This study discusses such
weaknesses under the typologies of the punishments.

2.1.11 Typology of Crimes and Recidivism

According to Adler, Mueller and Laufer (1995), the main types of crimes are violent crimes,
crimes against property, drugs and alcohol related crimes, and sexual morality crimes. Violent
crimes, according Ray (2013), include homicide, assault, child abuse and sexual offences. Even
though this scholar categorizes sexual offences as violent crimes, not all these offences can fall

79
under this category; for instance, sexual morality crimes such as prostitution, indecent willful
exposure, and obscenity common among women are nonviolent. However, rape and defilement
are violent crimes. The main sexual offences according to Terry (2013) are rape; pedophile;
production, dissemination and ownership of pornography; and child pornography. The factors
that influence sexual offending in an individual are being sexually abused as a child, having low
self-esteem, denying the sex offence, and lacking empathy with the victim (Hanson, 2000).
Though sex offenders are comparatively fewer than other offenders, their impact is substantial
and oppressive (Broadhurst & Muller, 1992).

In the US, Stalans, Yanford, Seng, Oslon & Repp (2004) established that violent crimes include
first and second degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, reckless homicide, armed or unarmed
robbery, battery, reckless conduct, domestic battery, assault, aggravated arson, unlawful use of
weapon, aggravated discharge of firearm, harassment, mob action, intimidation, unlawful
restrain, and violation of an order of protection. Majority of perpetrators of violent offences
according to Ray (2013) are men. For instance, in England and Wales, 90% of stranger attack
offenders were male while 66% of attacks on women were committed by males.

Drugs and alcohol related crimes are many and varied. There are crimes that involve acquisition
and abuse of illegal drugs and substances. The other are crimes related to possession and/or
smuggling of such illegal drugs and substances (Omboto, 2010; Tiger, 2011). Furthermore, drugs
and alcohol precipitate other crimes; for example, according to Traynor and Wincup (2013),
alcohol and drugs are frequently offered as explanations for crimes of rage that lead to violence.
The scholars argue that rage crimes have been attributed to cocaine and heroin while excessive
use of alcohol is attributed to violent and social behaviour. Crimes against property include
burglary, forgery, obtaining money or property by false pretences, larceny, shoplifting, pick
pocketing, misappropriation of public funds, bribery and other forms of corruption among others
(Adler, Mueller & Laufer, 1995).

On recidivism among drug offenders, Kim, Benson, Rasmussen and Zuehlke (1993) established
that male drug offenders are more likely to recidivate compared to females, and persons
convicted of possession are less likely to recidivate than persons who convicted of other drug

80
crimes such as trafficking, smuggling, production, delivery and distribution. This is probably
based on the allure of financial returns. Further, the study observed that imprisonment is more
likely to deter recidivism among drug offenders than probation. This positive effect of
imprisonment may be because it is more restrictive and severe than probation; also, offenders on
probation may still access drugs and substances. These scholars also established that drug
offenders who commit other crimes are more likely to recidivate than other drug offenders.

According to Hanson (2000), among the major predictors of sexual offence recidivism are
deviant sexual preferences, early onset of sexual offending, and anti-social personality disorder.
The study established that pedophiles are more likely to recidivate but rapists are more likely to
recidivate than child molesters with non-sexual offence.However, even though all kinds of
offenders have the propensity to recidivate, majority of recidivists commit property acquisition
crimes (Oloo, 1989, McNeil, 2010). For instance, McNeil (2010) with respect to USA
established that the inmates who have a higher number of theft and/or fraud offences in their
criminal history are more likely turn into recidivists. The reason as to why such offenders
commit property related crimes may be because some of them particularly the poor commit those
crimes as a means of survival. Nevertheless, not all recidivists are poor, and not all poor
offenders become recidivists.

Confirming that recidivism rates are high in property offences, Nagin, Cullen & Jonson, (2009)
established that recidivism rate among robbers stood at 70.2%, burglars 78.8%, and selling or
possession of stolen property 74.4%. Comparatively, in non- property crimes, homicide
recidivism rate was established to be 40.7%, rape 48.0%, while other sexual offences’ rate was at
41.4%. The study established that recidivism rate is low in crimes that attract long prison terms
because the offenders are always released into the society when they are older thus may not
reoffend.

In terms of rural-urban dichotomy, crime and recidivism rates are higher in urban areas
compared to rural areas (Paranjape, 2005). This can be attributed to among others, the fact that
urban centers are heterogeneous while rural areas are homogeneous in characteristics. For
instance, the urban population is composed of individuals, some of whom are very rich while

81
others destitute, thus, commission of property related crimes is more common in urban centers
than in rural areas.

2.1.12 Socio-demographic and Personality Traits of Recidivists

Offender profile refers to the socio-demographic characteristics of the offenders. A criminal
profile is a mental picture of the suspect. Profiling offenders is a key area of interest in Forensic
Criminology. It refers to the characteristics that are relevant in determining a suspect. It is an
exhaustive list of offender traits and emotional states covering almost every facet of their past,
present and future. The profile includes age of the offender, sex, marital status, education level,
socioeconomic status, mannerisms and personality, employment, use of drugs and/or alcohol, use
of weapons in crime among others (Patheric, Bent & Fergusion, 2010).Similarly, Adams, Cross
and Jackson (2010) postulate that these are basically what Criminal Records Office will
document about a particular criminal and they include full details of his personal description and
antecedent history. Establishing the profile of offenders is vital in crime control and management
as it offers a lead of who the suspect is where no arrests have been made. It is thus vital in aiding
apprehension, prosecution and conviction of offenders.

According to McNeil (2010), the majority of recidivists are young adults. This can probably be
attributed to the fact that this category of people still have many goals in life to accomplish such
as buying properties and settling down in families compared to the old (McNeil, 2010). On
gender, Paranjape (2005) observed that males are more prone to recidivism than females; this he
attributes to the male physical strength and adventurous attitude. However, men compared to
women also have a lot of socioeconomic responsibilities. On education level, Kagendo (2003)
established that 82% of the 207 recidivists in Kenyan prison institutions had very few years of
formal education.

That a majority of those with lower level of education are recidivists is probably due to the fact
that the well-educated are more likely to be employed after reformation and discharge for their
first criminal activities compared to their colleagues with poor education.Based on the
personality and economic status of recidivists, Bohm & Halley (1997) posit that recidivists are
offenders who are indisciplined, unemployed and those addicted to drugs and substances. This
profile of the recidivists can be explained by the fact that they are not easy to rehabilitate if the

82
correct measures are not employed such as provision of employment, and drug and substance
treatment.

As regards the emotional and mental states of recidivists, Williams (2001) observed that
offenders with brain dysfunction are likely to become recidivists given that they are not able to
learn from the past punishments awarded to them; they cannot fathom the after effects of their
actions, and are impulsive in their actions. On the profile of the South African recidivists,
Schoeman (2002) established that they have high levels of anxiety which is a reflection of a
dysfunction in social functioning. They also lack the ability to experience empathy.

2.1.13 Prevention and Control of Recidivism

According to Robinson (2000), even a small decrease in recidivism rate saves government
millions of currencies for prisoners’ accommodation; brings about ease in inmates’ control;
lowers police and court costs; and leads to fewer criminals and victims of crime. It also increases
community productivity. Based on these benefits, serious efforts must be directed at reducing the
recidivism rates, and given that the management of social problems is dependent upon their
causes, recidivism can also be controlled by tackling its causes.

Given that education level is a factor in recidivism as per the findings of Kagendo (2003) who
confirmed that 82% of the 207 recidivists in Kenyan prison institutions had very few years of
formal education, it is the responsibility of the state and other stake holders to ensure that the
education level of its citizens is raised to enhance their ability of finding jobs. In the case of
uneducated prisoners, the prison system must ensure that they are offered the opportunity to
better their education. This need is supported by the findings of Vacca (2004) that prisoners who
attend educational programmes while in prison are less likely to return to prison after discharge.
In concurrence with this observation, Chappell (2004) established that the more schooling an
imprisoned person receives, the less likely he or she is to get into crime after release with only
10% of those who received education in prison being arrested again compared to 60% of those
who had not received education.

Given that it has also been well established that recidivism rates are highest for the ex-prisoners
during the first year of release from prisons as per the findings of Bohm &Halley (1997), there is
need for proper reintegration into the society of offenders who have been imprisoned. In Kenya,

83
for instance, prisoners are released directly into the society without the assistance of Parole and
Halfway Homes since such institutions are lacking. It is, therefore, prudent for the government
to establish these institutions for proper resettlement of the offenders.

Community Based Rehabilitation Strategies should also be enhanced to control recidivism. For
instance, O’Leary (2013) posits that ensuring a stable accommodation plays a significant role
inprogrammes aimed at reducing recidivism. This is more applicable to the prisoners discharged
from prison institutions. Furthermore, on resettlement of ex-prisoners into the society, Fromader
and Malott (2010) recommend that family life education should be provided to the inmates so as
to improve their family relationships because this will make them less likely to reoffend. This is
because people with knowledge on how to maintain healthy family relationships ensure family
cohesion. However, offenders with brain dysfunction who are more likely to recidivate, should
be treated of their mental and emotional conditions to full recovery by qualified psychologists
and psychiatric practitioners. Williams (2001) recommends that these kind of offenders need
medication and other psychosocial support for their full rehabilitation.

On recidivism and imprisonment, it is vital to address the reasons why several scholars have
been critical on the ability of imprisonment to rehabilitate the offenders. The arguments, for
example, that prison institutions are ‘schools of crime’ (Kagendo, 2003; Gendreau, Goggin &
Cullen, 1999)or ‘criminogenic’ (Odegi-Awuondo 2003; Mushanga (1976) or that at best the
institutions have no appreciable effect on recidivism because imprisonment lack the crucial
elements of punishment vital for maximum effect such as being immediate and intense
(Gendreau, Goggin & Cullen 1999) must be addressed. First the delays in court trials that result
into belated punishments must be curtailed as much as possible so that the enormity of the crime
is not watered down. Faster trials, that aim at ensuring speedy convictions and, punishment that
is proportional to the severity of the offence committed will be deterrent to the criminal thus
controlling recidivism.

According to Paranjape, (2005), rehabilitation of offenders through imprisonment can be

improved on by engaging the inmates in corrective work and keeping them busy during the
period of incarceration. He suggests that penal administrators must also give individualized
treatment to prisoners, and not to treat them as a group because criminality is a symptom of

84
individual disorder. He postulates that psychotherapy and psychiatry are some vital techniques
that can assist in the reformation of the prisoners. Tewkbury (1997) opines that prison authorities
should, on top of providing treatment for the inmates, contain them in favourable environments.
Briggs (1975), on his part, argues that prison institutions must put up measures to preserve and
enhance a person’s dignity and self-respect for full reformation and rehabilitation to be realized.

The advice of these scholars is vital in managing recidivism in Kenya because it has been
established that the prison conditions in the country are unfavourable for rehabilitation of
prisoners. For instance, these institutions are overpopulated and characterized by harsh and
unhygienic conditions, insufficient medical care, homosexuality, abuse of tobacco and drugs, and
work without pay (Omboto, 2013 a). Other prison based measures that are key in enhancing
reformation and rehabilitation - thus would reduce recidivism– include proper classification and
segregation of offenders to prevent contamination of petty offenders by hardcore criminals
Paranjape (2005).

Finally, another strategy that can be effective against recidivism among many others is the
control of social stigma and discrimination against the offenders who have undertaken
reformation and rehabilitation programmes, more so in prison institutions. Despite the fact that a
good number of these offenders suffer from multifarious problems such as financial constraints
after discharge, the society stigmatizes and neglects them thus seriously jeopardizing their
resettlement into the society. The society members should therefore be educated and sensitized to
accept and be supportive to the offenders who have been punished so that they do not relapse to
criminal activities. As Paranjape (2005) found, 90% of discharged offenders wish to make
amends but the society denies them this opportunity through hostility and distrust for them.

2.1.14 Ethical Considerations in the Treatment and Punishment of Convicts

These are concerns that relate to how the offenders should be handled with fairness with regard
to their human rights. Ethical considerations also concern the observance of legal guidelines
which seek to ensure the professional conduct of correction staff as they go about their duties.
The ethical guidelines in treatment and rehabilitation of convicts can broadly be drawn from
medical and legal laws. In Kenya for instance, the prison officers must operate within the local

85
legal framework guiding the treatment and rehabilitation of convicts in custody. These laws
include the Prison Standing Orders, and Prisons Act-CAP 90. They must also observe the
international instruments on the treatment of offenders such as the 1949 Geneva Conventions
and additional protocols, among others. Thus, to adhere to ethical standards, the professionals
such as correction officers and forensic experts must be familiar with legal standards, and
professional code of ethics and specialty guidelines that guide their work (Kalmbach & Lysons,
2006).

Ward (2009) argues that when there are conflicts between rehabilitation and punishment
components, human rights values and the concept of human dignity that these values protect
should be taken into account. However, this may be very tricky in some treatment techniques and
given categories of convicts such as sex offenders. For instance, legal and ethical dilemmas exist
concerning the use of pharmacological treatment (Melella, Travin & Cullen, 2016; Akbaba,
2015), and surgical castration (Stojanovski, 2009) in sex offenders. The latter is surgical removal
of testes, while the former is castration by use of chemicals. The concerns that have been raised
are on the negative impacts of these treatment modalities such as rights to procreation, and
freedom from cruel and unusual treatment. Another concern is in upholding the prisoners’ right
to privacy against invasion without compromising security and safety (Bulow, 2014) particularly
if the prison authorities’ right to conduct searches including strip and cavity searches is
considered (Dubler, 2014).

However, in conduct of their duties, it is expected that the correctional officers must be firm and
fair to all the offenders under rehabilitation. The convicts must not be discriminated against or
accorded preferential treatment based on race, gender, tribe or the rehabilitators’ personal
idiosyncrasies. It is vital to observe equality in the treatment of offenders; however, the
correctional staff must note that equal treatment is not the same as similar treatment. The
fundamental rights of prisoners under rehabilitation must be upheld. These include the right to
life and good health. To ensure this, the convicts in custody must be provided with the basic
needs of survival such as quality and quantity food, clothes, beddings, and timely medical care.
The rehabilitators must avoid torture and inhumane treatment of the convicts. These include
verbal, physical and other psychological mistreatment or abuse.

86
It is also expected that male and female offenders must be separated. The same applies to the
convicted and not yet convicted offenders; the capital offenders and minor offenders; and the
juveniles and adult convicts. Rehabilitation officers must avoid private businesses and other
improper relations with convicts. In Kenya, this is a great challenge because it has been
established that illegal drugs and other contrabands are smuggled by prisons staff into prison
institutions (Omboto, 2010).

It is also an obligation to ensure that the techniques involved in reformation and rehabilitation
will enable the convicts to be truly rehabilitated. This is only possible when the offenders are
under the care of adequately trained professionals, and the conditions are conducive. In this
respect, Harrison and Bernadette (2013) posit that for the sex offenders, one of the important
ethical issues involved in providing treatment is the requirement that the treatment must be based
on the most effective approach.

2.1.15 Summary of Literature Review

The available literature on recidivism is robust. These literatures are however silent on the
relationship between recidivism and punishment; therefore, the need to fill this lacuna in
knowledge. There is also a gap in the literature concerning the profile of recidivists in Kenya
which is addressed by this study. Other gaps identified in literature that are addressed by this
study are progression in criminal career by recidivists, and offender based recidivism
management needs.

For example, several studies available have been focused on recidivism rate and types of
offences of recidivists but are not specific to progression in criminality by the recidivists which
was of great interest to this study.The literatures have also highlighted causes, predictors and
other risk factors for recidivism but have not analyzed the possible influence of initial treatment
at first conviction. Some studies have also been focused on particular category of offenders such
juveniles, males and females thus failed to give a broader perspective of the vice unlike the
present study.

87
In management of recidivism, several studies conducted, some in other countries have not
considered first time convicts and serial recidivists as different entities deserving diverse
strategies. Some of these literatures on recidivism control are also very specific to particular
offenders, and limited in strategy. Among these studies is Thorn (2009) which was focused on
the role of religion in management of recidivism in women.

2.2 Theoretical Framework

This section specifies the theories employed in analyzing recidivism in relation to punishment in
Kenya. The study made use of Deterrence Theory of Punishment to analyze an effective
punishment; and Strain, and Labeling Theories of Crime to understand recidivism.

2.2.1 Deterrence Theory of punishment

Deterrence theory of punishment has its roots in the Rational Choice theory, and the philosophy
of hedonism (Wright, 2010). The former argues that human actions are rationalized based on a
premeditated cost benefit analysis. Thus, even in committing crimes, individuals are motivated
by the expected gains. However, this is not always the case particularly where offenders commit
crimes under the influence of alcohol or drugs (Wright, 2010).The philosophy of hedonism, on
the other hand, postulates that whatever man does, he or she is always influenced by the desire
for pleasure and the fear of pain. The theory therefore argues that the purpose of any kind of
punishment is to deter future criminal activities by inflicting pain that outweighs the pleasure of
crime.

This theory further argues that if punishment is not severe enough such that it overcomes the
pleasure derived from crime; that is, when the proportionality is lacking, then the individuals will
not be deterred from further criminal activities (Wright, 2010). However, this proportionality
must be observed because if the punishment is too severe for a petty offence then the punished
offender will be bitter and becomes vengeful against the society. In this case, the ex-convict may
become a recidivist who commits more serious crimes; therefore, the punishment should be
proportional to the seriousness of the crime committed.

The theory also posits that whether or not an offender will be deterred from committing crime in
future is based on the alacrity and the guarantee of punishment for the crime committed. The
former refers to the swiftness with which punishment is awarded to the offender after the crime

88
is committed. However this vital characteristic of an effective punishment is not possible to
attain in the circumstances where the criminal justice process of determining the guilt of an
offender may take days, months and even years.

The guarantee of punishment or the certainty element that is also vital for a punishment to deter
crime is all about the probability that crime, when committed, will be punished. If an offender is
sure in his or her mind that if they commit a crime, they will be caught and severely punished,
then such offenders are likely to desist from committing crime. However, in some cases, the
certainty that all crimes will be punished is not guaranteed due to failure in its detection,
apprehension of the offenders, weaknesses and or corruption in court prosecutions and
sentencing among others. In this case, ex-convicts may commit crimes expecting to escape
apprehension, and/or to corrupt the criminal justice system personnel, but if this fails to
materialize and they are arrested and punished, they are considered recidivists.

Another determinant of whether punishment will be deterrent is if the potential offenders are
aware of the prescribed punishment for the various crimes that they are likely to receive before
they commit the crimes. However, this is not always the case since some people are usually
unaware of the specific penalties for various crimes, more so, in countries where majority of the
citizenry are ignorant or gullible.

In conclusion, the deterrence theory of punishment assumes that if the punishment is certain,
severe and swift, recidivism will be lower and vice versa. Thus, according to Wright (2010), the
sentencing policy initiatives in many countries have all along sought to enhance this in the
criminal justice systems. This study argues that any court sentence is a punishment, whether its
aim is to deter or reform the offender. This argument is premised on the fact that most, if not all,
sentences involve some kind of loss, deprivation and pain. The most common of these sentences
are fines which are a financial loss, probation which demands that the offender abides by some
conditions hence restrictive, and imprisonment which curtails some of the convicts’ freedom, and
denies them some rights. This study therefore postulates that a punishment that lacks the
characteristics discussed above is ineffective and is likely to facilitate recidivism. For instance,
the certainty that offenders will be apprehended and punished by the Kenyan courts is not
guaranteed due to corruption, poor investigation and other weaknesses in the criminal justice
system. The punishments awarded to the offenders may also not be severe enough due to the

89
same reasons. The convicts are also rarely punished swiftly since the judicial process usually
takes forever.

2.2.2 Strain Theory of Crime

The Strain Theory by Robert K. Merton, an American sociologist, postulates that an individual’s
response to societal expectations and means by which the individual pursues the goals are vital in
understanding crime. According to this theory, crime commission is caused by the frustrations
individuals suffer in their attempt to achieve the society’s goals through legitimate means. The
strain suffered, according to Merton, produces a number of deviants such as rebels, innovators
such as robbers and thieves, and other deviants like vagrants, drunkards, alcoholics, drug addicts,
or pariahs (Joyce, 2011). These individuals, the study argues, are not only potential criminals but
also easily become recidivists because, as rebels, drunkards, drug addicts and alcoholics, they
would not benefit fully from the punishment meant to reform and rehabilitate them as first time
convicts.

This study therefore postulates that regardless of the punishment awarded, the ex-convicts may
still indulge in criminal behaviour if they continue to lack legitimate means such as employment
opportunities and legal businesses to acquire their basic needs. In Kenya, for example, several
first time convicts cannot earn a living by honest and legal means such as employment because
of labeling and lack of job opportunities. Such offenders can also not operate legal businesses
due to poverty. Therefore, many first time convicts find it convenient to recidivate in order to
earn a livelihood.

2.2.3 Labeling Theory of Crime

According to Williams (2001), deviance or criminal behavior starts with the society labeling
some acts as criminal and goes ahead to label individuals who commit such acts as criminals.
This makes such individuals to internalize the negative label, and as time goes, the person takes
on the traits that define the real criminal, and commits criminal acts that conform to the label.
Tannenbaum (1938) explains that one becomes what he or she is described to be. The fixation
with the criminal label by the person and society makes one to conform to the attributed label.
This is reinforced by the fact that the individual labeled a criminal suffers the injustices of the

90
label such as failure to be accepted by employers, police profiling, and strained relations with the
law abiding members of the society (Lemert, 1951).

The social stigma and discrimination that comes with labeling can definitely lead to recidivism,
for instance, if an ex-convict is denied an employment opportunity that would assist him or her
to support themselves and their dependents through legitimate means. For instance, in Kenya,
many public and private organizations demand from potential employees a certificate of good
conduct, a document issued by the police only to those who do not have a criminal record. In
terms of social network, many law abiding citizens will also not want to be associated with the
ex-convicts, who would then be compelled to seek solace from the fellow felons, a situation
which reinforces the criminal behavior thus leading to recidivism.

91
 Figure 2.1: Conceptual Framework
Moderating Variables

 Age
 Level of education
 Social stigma
 Gender
Independent Variable
 Government policies Dependent Variable Impacts
Initial
Types of Crime Punishment Recidivism  Hardcore
 Violent crimes  Commission offenders in the
 Imprisonment
 Property crimes of same society
 Organizational  Fines
 Probation
crimes  High crime rate
crimes  Commission in the society
 Drugs and  Forfeiture of
property
of new /graver  Backlog of cases
alcohol related
crimes in court
crimes  Suspended
 Morality crimes sentence  Congestion in
police cells and
 Community
Prisons
service order
 Increased
government
spending on
Intervening Variables crime control
and management
Causes of recidivism
 Poverty
 Ineffective punishments
 Alcoholism
 Drug abuse

92
Figure 2.1 illustrates that Initial punishment which is the study’s independent variable seeks to
reform and or deter the offenders from criminal activities. It takes the form of imprisonment,
fines, probation service, suspended sentence, forfeiture of property and community service order.
For any of these punishments to be effective in controlling recidivism, it must be swift, severe
and certain. The crimes offenders commit either during their first time or as recidivists are
violent crimes, crimes against property, organizational crimes, drugs and alcohol related crimes,
and morality related crimes. Under violent crimes we have homicide, assault, rape and sexual
assault, robbery, kidnapping and terrorism. Crimes against property include larceny or theft,
fraud, and burglary. Organizational crimes comprise of white collar crimes, corporate crimes and
organized crimes. Other crimes are drugs and alcohol related crimes as well as morality offences.

Recidivism, a dependent variable, may be influenced by among others, ineffective punishment,

poverty, alcoholism, and drug and substance abuse which are the intervening variables. The
moderating variables of recidivism are age of the offender, gender, level of education, and
government policies among others. Recidivism can manifest itself in the ex-convicts committing
either the same crimes they had been punished for or new crimes. Subsequent recidivism can be
determined by the causes and internal and external factors that predispose the individual to
recidivate. These arguments are based on the Strain and Labeling theories of crime, and the
Deterrence theory of punishment. The impacts of recidivism include the creation of hardcore
offenders in the society, increased crime rate, congestion in police cells and prisons, backlog of
court cases, and increased government spending on crime control and offender management.

2.3 Operationalization of Key Variables

(i) Initial punishment: This is the independent variable. It refers to the court awarded
penalty a recidivist was awarded on his or her first conviction. It can be
imprisonment, fine, probation service, suspended sentence, forfeiture of property or
community service order.
(ii) Recidivism: This is the dependent variable in the study. It was measured by the
number of reconvictions after the initial punishment.

(iii) The intervening variables: These are poverty, rebellion against the laws and
authority, alcoholism and drug abuse, labeling, delay in punishment, and application
of the lenient punishments.

93
a) Poverty: This variable was measured by the socioeconomic indicators of the convicts
such as the type, ownership and location of residence, whether the residence is
permanent, semi-permanent or makeshift, and location of the residence which can be
slums, middle class, or upper class areas. The other social status indicators established
include ownership of cars, employment and the kind of job, ownership of land etc.

b) Rebellion against the laws and authority: This is indiscipline against prison personnel,
rules and regulations. It was measured by the number of infractions and other kinds of
indiscipline as recorded against the recidivists by prison authorities.

c) Alcoholism and drug abuse: This is use or abuse of illegal drugs and substances. It is
also addiction to alcohol by a recidivist. This variable was measured by the number of
cases of drug and substance abuse involving the convicts as per the court and prison
records, and their response in the questionnaires.

d) Labeling: This is social isolation, stigma and discrimination towards convicts by the
society in general based on previous conviction/s. It was measured in terms of whether or
not the inmates had acquired employment opportunities after the initial conviction and
punishment, received visits by friends and relatives while in prison, and the number of
police arrests that ended up in acquittals due to innocence.

e) Delay in punishment: This is taking a longer time than is reasonably accepted before a
convict is punished. It was measured through the duration of time it took from when the
convicts committed the initial and subsequent crimes to the time of arrest and punishment
as per the court records.

f) Application of lenient punishment: This is an award of a less severe punishment to a

convict taking into consideration the nature of crime committed. This was measured
through the analysis of the kind of crime committed and the punishment awarded based
on the need for severity to deter crime. The study also established from the recidivists
whether they consider the punishments received for the initial conviction to be severe
enough to deter them from crime.

94
 CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the study site, research design, target population, units of analysis and
observation, sample size, sampling procedure, sources of data, data collection techniques and
tools, as well as data processing and analysis.

3.2 Site Selection and Description

This study was conducted at Kamiti Maximum Security Prison and Langata Women Prison both
situated in Nairobi County. The institutions are under Kenya Prisons Service in the Department
of Correctional Services and are respectively the largest male and female prison institutions in
Kenya. At the time of the study, Kamiti had approximately 1800 male prisoners under the care of
about 700 prison officers, while Langata Women Prison had about 600 female inmates under
approximately 350 members of staff. These two institutions are maximum security prison
institutions; thus, given their structure and location in the capital city, they mainly contain some
of the most serious capital male and female criminals in the country.

Kamiti Maximum Security Prison, also known as Kamiti Main Prison, is the oldest penal
institution in Kenya having been established in 1954 by the colonial government. It is located to
the North East within Nairobi County, about 15 kilometers from the Nairobi City Central
Business District and is accessed through the Thika Super-Highway. From the highway the
prison lies about seven kilometers, and one branches along Zimmerman/ Kamiti Road, off
Roysambu Roundabout. The institution’s first independent Kenya officer-in-charge was SSP
Yacoob Ali who served from 1964 to 1965. Though the prison was meant to accommodate only
1300 inmates, it currently holds about 1800. Hence, the facility is overcrowded.

On the other hand, Langata Women Prison, also the oldest prison for women in the country is
located off Langata Road, about 5 kilometers south of Nairobi Central Business District (CBD).
The institution is accessible through Uhuru /Mombasa roads, branching at Nyayo National
Stadium and proceeding along Langata road. The first independent Kenya officer-in-charge of
the institution was SSP Phoebe Asiyo. The study purposively selected these two institutions

95
because of the following reasons, one; it was easier to access recidivists in the institutions than it
would have been to access those serving probation sentences in the community, or those who
were awarded other punishments such as fines on reconviction. Two, given that the two
institutions are the largest prisons housing the highest number for male and female convicts in
the country, the study expected to find more recidivists in the institutions compared to the other
smaller prisons. Figure 2 on the next page indicates where the institutions are located.

96
Figure 3.1: Maps of Kenya and Nairobi County showing the study sites

Source: UoN Cartographer, (2016)

3.3 Research Design

This study employed survey design. According to Picardi and Masick (2014) a survey research
design is the most commonly used method; it includes self-report measures such as use of
questionnaires and assessments as well as interviews and are mainly used for collecting data on
attitudes, beliefs, preferences, from a representative sample of a population. This design was
chosen because the study needed to gather information on personal characteristics and opinions

97
of respondents. This design also requires a representative sample that reflects major
characteristics of the study population. The units are thus selected in a manner that ensures
balanced representation of the population of interest. To attain a deeper understanding of the
phenomenon from the recidivists themselves and practitioners within the Criminal Justice
System i.e. the prison officers, police and probation officers; the study embraced methodological
triangulation in data collection. The methods included key informant interviews, focus group
discussions (FGDs), and filling of questionnaires with both open and structured questions.

3.4 Target Population

According to Bachman and Schutt (2011), target population refers to elements to which the
research would like to generalize the study findings. In this study, therefore, the target population
was the recidivists at Kamiti and Langata prison institutions.

3.5 Unit of Observation and Analysis

The units of observations are the cases about which measures are obtained in a sample (Bachman
&Schutt, 2012). While the units of analysis are the items to be studied; they are the level of
social life on which the research question is focused, and they may be individuals, groups, towns
or nations (Bachman &Schutt (2011). Therefore, in this study, both the units of observation and
units of analysis were the recidivists at the two prison institutions.

3.6 Sampling Procedure

The study applied purposive sampling which is a non–probability sampling method to select the
respondents who participated in the study. The method was used to identify documented
recidivists who were one hundred and eighty (180) at Kamiti Maximum Security Prison and
thirty seven (37) at Langata Women Prison. The researcher identified them with the help of the
prisons staff working at the documentation offices based on the entries in the prisoners’
admissions record. However, the study also stumbled on non-documented recidivists, whom
documented recidivists acknowledged to having served time with them in other prison
institutions, for different convictions and they were also willing to participate in the study. The
non-documented recidivists were therefore identified using snowball sampling method. Thirty
one (31) out of the eighty one (81) non-documented recidivists whose cases of reoffending were
verified from the courts and other prison institutions were involved in the study. Therefore, the
male respondents from Kamiti Maximum Security prison who accepted to participate in the

98
study were one hundred and thirty eight (138) in number, thirty one (31) of whom were non-
documented recidivists. While at Langata Women Prison, only twenty nine (29) documented
recidivists out of thirty seven (37) identified by the prison authorities accepted to be involved in
the study while the rest declined involvement.

The study also employed purposive sampling method to choose key informants and focus group
discussion members. The key informants were twelve (12) prison officers from Kamiti
Maximum Security Prison, seven (7) from Langata Women Prison, four (4) probation officers
from Makadara District and four (4) police officers from Jogoo Road Police Station. All the key
informants were chosen based on seniority and length of service. Two focus group discussion
panels comprising of serial recidivists were also selected by purposive sampling method. They
were twelve (12) and five (5) members at Kamiti and Langata, respectively.

3.7 Sample Size

A sample size of one hundred and sixty seven (167) respondents selected through non-
probability sampling methods participated in the study. In the sample were one hundred and
thirty eight (138) males from Kamiti Maximum Security prison, and twenty nine (29) females
from Langata Women Prison. In this sample 136 were documented recidivists while 31 were
non-documented recidivists. All non-documented recidivists were males.

Table 3.1: Sample Size

Gender Population Percentage Sample Percentage
Male Recidivists 211 85% 138 56%
Female
Recidivists 37 15% 29 12%
Total 248 100% 167 67%
Source: Researcher (2016)

The sample size was checked against the one that would have been generated had the study
employed probability based sampling method as captured in the work of Krejcie and Morgan
(1970) and the result were found to compare favourably. For instance, in the Krejcie and
Morgan (1970) from a population of 211 the sample size is approximately 137 while for a
population of 37 the sample size is approximately 33.

99
Table 3.2: Types of recidivists in the study
Type of recidivist Number Males Females Percentage
Documented
recidivists 136 107 29 81%
Non-documented
recidivists 31 31 0 19%
Total 167 138 29 100%
Source: Researcher (2016)

Table 3.3: The Key Informants

Profession Number Male Female Percentage
Probation Officers 4 3 1 15%
Prison Officers 19 12 7 70%
Police officer 4 2 2 15%
Total 27 17 10 100%
Source: Researcher (2016)

3.8 Nature and Sources of Data

The study generated both quantitative and qualitative data from primary sources. Quantitative
data was generated by administering questionnaires to the respondents, while qualitative data
was generated through open-ended questions in the questionnaire as well as from in-depth
interviews with key informants, and FGDs’ deliberations. Secondary data was also collected
from the recidivists’ records.

3.9 Techniques of Data Collection

The techniques that were employed in data collection were filling of questionnaires by the
respondents, key informant interviews; focus group discussions and documentary review at
various prisons and law courts.

3.9.1 Use of Questionnaires

This was the main method of data collection. The researcher used questionnaires with both open
and close-ended questions to collect information from the respondents who voluntarily accepted
to participate in the study. The questionnaires were administered by the researcher and his

100
assistant. However some inmates who were literate insisted on filling them on their own – which
the researcher allowed. Thus, some questionnaires were administered by the researcher while
others filled by the respondents themselves. The questionnaires were designed to cover the
background of the respondents, their age, gender, level of education, marital status, and a
comprehensive recidivism related concerns of interest to the study. At Langata prison, the
questionnaires were filled on 24th to 26th August 2016. While at Kamiti Prison the exercise
started on 29th August and was completed on 18th September 2016.

3.9.2 Key Informant Interviews

Key informants comprised of Prisons Officers based at both the institutions, and police and
probation officers based at Jogoo Road Police Station and Makadara District probation office
respectively. The study employed purposive Sampling Method to select the key informants. The
selected members of staff were expected to be knowledgeable on recidivism issues based on their
length of service and seniority. A total of nineteen (19) key informants, twelve (12) from Kamiti
and seven (7) from Langata were picked, in addition to four (4) police and another four (4)
probation officers. The key informants at Kamiti were three (3) senior prison administrators of
the ranks of Superintendent of Prisons to Assistant Commissioner of Prisons, three (3) inspectors
of prisons, three (3) senior sergeants with over fifteen years work experience and three (3)
warders who have worked in prison for over eighteen (18) years.

At Langata Women Prison the key informants were one (1) Senior Superintendent of Prisons,
one (1) Superintendent of Prisons , one (1) Senior Sergeant, one (1) Inspector of prisons, one (1)
Chief Inspector of prisons, one (1) corporal, and one (1) wardress all of whom had over fifteen
(15) years’ work experience. The four (4) police officers at Jogoo Road Police Station were one
(1) chief inspector of police, one (1) sergeant and two (2) police constables all with over ten
years’ experience in police work. The four (4) probation officers comprised of the district
probation officer and three other officers working at the Makadara District probation office. All
the four had worked as probation officers for over ten years. The interviews were conducted on
20th September and 4th October 2016 at Langata Women Prison and at Kamiti Maximum
Security Prison on diverse dates between 13th September and 7th October 2016. Police and
probation officers were interviewed later on. The researcher and his assistant both audiotaped the
interview sessions and took notes manually, the audiotaped was later transcribed.

101
3.9.3 Focus Group Discussions
Two FGDs were conducted. One was at Kamiti Maximum Security Prison and the other at
Langata Women Prison. Both comprised of serial recidivists who had been reconvicted three
times or more. These inmates were selected on the expectation that they have an in-depth
understanding of recidivism related matters having been reconvicted several times. At Kamiti
Maximum Security Prison, the FGD which involved twelve (12) inmates was conducted on
Sunday 18th September 2016 from 2.30 pm to 5.30 pm. The meeting took place at the
institution’s library in the presence of a Senior Prison Officer. At Langata Women Prison, the
focus group discussion which involved six (6) recidivist prisoners was conducted on Tuesday,
4th October 2016 at 10. 05 to 11.45 am. The researcher and his assistant both audiotaped the
discussion sessions and took notes manually, the audiotaped was later transcribed.

3.9.4 Documentary Reviews

With the assistance of prison officers working at the documentation offices in Kamiti Maximum
Security Prison and Langata Women Prison, documents were reviewed to assist in identifying
the recidivists in these institutions. The documents reviewed were Prisoners’ Admission Book,
Prisoners’ Discharge Book, and Prisoners’ Punishment Book. Prisoners’ Admission Book and
Prisoners’ Discharge Book were reviewed to enable the researcher identify recidivist prisoners
for engagement in the study. These two records document movement of prisoners in and out of a
prison institution during admission and discharge respectively. Prisoners’ Punishment Book is
used to document disciplinary cases of individual prisoners. This book assisted the study in
establishing the discipline level of recidivist prisoners. The other prison institutions and court
registries also assisted the study by reviewing their records to ascertain the veracity of previous
convictions’ claims made by some non-documented recidivists at Kamiti Prison. The study also
reviewed Prison Standing Orders Revised Edition 1979 CAP 42 on previous conviction records
which elaborates the role of the police in identification of recidivists and guides their admission
in prison institutions.

3.10 Data Collection Tools

The study made use of questionnaires with both open-ended and close-ended questions to collect
data from the respondents. Key Informants Interview (KII) guide was also employed to direct the
interviews with the key informants while FGD guide steered the engagement with the members

102
of the focus group during discussions. The study also used psycho-social appraisal inventory to
collect data on the respondents’ profile. This inventory sought to establish the personality of the
recidivists, their involvement in drug and alcohol abuse, their upbringing during childhood, their
interpersonal and family relationships, discipline, and involvement in the community affairs.

3.11 Data Processing and Analysis

To ensure reliable and valid results, data processing began with cleaning and editing the data
collected to check for errors, omissions and inconsistencies such as double responses during
fieldwork. The data was then sorted based on a set out criteria. Heuristic coding technique was
employed to code qualitative data. This is a method where the researcher determines the code of
a data based on core content or meaning (Miles, Huberman and Saldana, 2014). The coded data
was then assigned values, thematically analyzed and expressed in terms of arguments,
discussions and statements. In some cases, the views of respondents were reported in direct
verbatim.

The quantitative data was keyed in and analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences
(SPSS) and presented in the form of tables, percentages and diagrams. Regression and
correlation analysis was done to test the relationship between the variables.

3.12 Ethical Considerations

In conducting the study, the researcher complied with the ethical standards guiding a research of
this nature. The researcher did not engage in plagiarism and fraud. The researcher also did not
misuse the trust and privileges bestowed upon him to conduct the study. The research
participants were protected from physical and emotional harm by ensuring that they remained
anonymous and the information received from them treated confidentially. This was achieved by
ensuring that the respondents, key informants and focus group discussion members’ names,
service and prisoner numbers where applicable and positions are not disclosed in the study
reports and discussions as they were promised when their consent to participate in the study was
sought. Further, participation in the study was voluntary and based on informed consent. Finally,
permission to conduct the study was sought from the relevant government institutions and
authorities as required.

103
3.13 Problems Encountered in the Field
A number of challenges were encountered in conducting this study. They include reluctance by
inmates to participate in the study, inconsistencies in prison records, insufficient cooperation
from some relevant agencies, strict prison routines and schedules, and high turnover of female
participants. Each of these problems is explained in detail below.

Reluctance by inmates to participate in the study

The first major impediment the study faced was that several documented recidivists identified
with the assistance of prisons staff based on the records at Kamiti prison were reluctant to be
involved in the study arguing that the study will not benefit them directly. They further
complained that they are fatigued by the many researches that target prisoners. A good number
of the convicts identified (67%) however later softened their stand and willingly participated in
the study. This reluctance was similarly observed at Langata Women prison where no inmate
accepted to be a non-documented recidivist unlike in Kamiti prison. During the FGDs, the
researcher also noticed that these women prisoners were not as free as their male counterparts.
One of them was overwhelmed and cried thus the discussions had to temporarily stop for her to
cool down.

Inaccurate Prison Records on Recidivism

The second major challenge that faced the researcher at the onset at Kamiti Maximum Security
Prison is inaccurate prison records on recidivism. The researcher established that the offenders
considered to be recidivists are those who had been sentenced to imprisonment previously. This
leaves out those who may have received other forms of punishments such as fines, forfeiture of
property, suspended sentence, compensation, restitution, probation service and community
service order. But even in identifying these offenders who had been imprisoned again by the
courts, the prison system mainly relies on the ability of its officers to identify inmates who were
in the specific prison institutions before and on the goodwill of the individual convict to be
truthful during the admission interview. This is because due to lack of computer system
connectivity, it is impossible for the prison department to detect that the prisoner being admitted
in one prison institution had previously served and completed another imprisonment term in a
different institution.

104
Thus it is possible, for example, for a dishonest prisoner who had served a sentence at a Migori
prison in the Western region of the country to be admitted at Kamiti in Nairobi as a first time
convict. The researcher was faced with such un-documented recidivists who claimed to have in
the past received different forms of punishment while others claimed to have served prison terms
in other institutions. One such offender, a capital prisoner at Kamiti, confessed that he had served
a one-year prison sentence in another institution in Nairobi in the year 2010 which the researcher
later confirmed to be true. Asked why he did not let the prison administration know about his re-
conviction, the inmate who participated in the study asserted that during admission they are ask
in Kiswahili“umewahi kufungwa kwa jela” which in English is “have you ever been a prisoner
before” in a tone which makes an inmate fear that honesty may earn him punishment. Based on
this assertion, the prison authorities in Kenya seem to view recidivism as re-imprisonment and
not a reconviction of which a convict might have been awarded other punishments.

However, according to a key informant(a prison officer), the prisons’ records on recidivism are
not correct because the police, particularly the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), the
court prosecutors and the prisons officers do not perform their work as required. This officer
with vast experience noted that the case of non-documented recidivists in prisons and in the
community serving other forms of punishment would not arise if, during trial, the prosecutor
indicated to the court whether the offender in question is a first offender or not as required. The
prosecutor, he explained, should receive this data from the CID who are responsible for checking
finger prints of offenders to determine their criminal history. Based on the findings given to the
prosecutor, the convicts’ committal warrant after sentencing should be attached to either C9 or
C10 forms which are certificates of previous conviction. The C9 form is for the first offenders,
filled and attached to their warrants when a search for their finger prints indicates that they have
never been convicted previously. The C10 form is for offenders who are found to have previous
convictions, and it indicates the number of convictions.

According to Prison Standing Orders Revised Edition of 1979, forms C9 and C10 also referred to
as police forms are vital for rehabilitation of convicts since the classification and assessment of
convicted offenders which assists in knowing their reformation needs cannot be accurate without
the knowledge of criminal history. The Standing Orders thus requires prison authorities to fill
prisoner form (Pf) 28 where there is no C9 or C10 attached to the prisoners’ committal warrant

105
on admission, and attach the prisoners’ photograph and send the form to the police so as for the
police to forward to the prison authorities the C9 or C10 form as applicable.

During court trials, forms C9 or C10 should be given to the magistrates and judges before the
offenders are sentenced. There is no room for the court prosecutors to verbally inform the court
that a given person on trial is a first or serial offender, neither is the court expected to depend on
the Pre-sentence Investigation Report prepared by the probation officers. These certificates of
previous conviction are more reliable in giving the offenders’ previous criminal history because
they require checking the offenders’ finger prints thus will be valid even where there is change of
names.

Insufficient cooperation by relevant Agencies

Because the study never anticipated a deeper engagement with other agencies such as the
Criminal Investigation Department of the police, the courts, and other prison institutions as a
follow-up on the cases of non-documented recidivists required, the permission for the study was
limited to Kamiti and Langata prisons. Based on this fact, some of these institutions particularly
the CID were not cooperative when inquiries were made on why forms C9 and 10 which are
certificates of previous conviction are never filled and forwarded to prison institutions with the
committal warrants as procedurally required. Some court registries and prison institutions which
the researcher contacted to ascertain the cases of particular non-convicted recidivists also
declined on the basis that the study was restricted to Kamiti and Langata prisons, while the ones
that confirmed such cases requested that they must not be mentioned in the study. Owing to this
insufficient cooperation, the researcher only managed to verify thirty-one (31) out of fifty one
(51) cases of non-documented recidivists it intended to authenticate.

Scheduling of key Informant Interviews and Focused Group Discussions

Given the strict prison work routine and procedures particularly at Kamiti Maximum Security
Prison which at times require some officers and prisoners to be out of the institution, and the
need that prison visitors should not interfere with prisoners when they are at work, it resulted
into several failed appointments aimed at conducting KIIs with some selected prisons staff.
Organizing FGDs with the serial recidivists was equally affected. For instance, two key
informants were only able to honour successful appointments between 6.30 and 7.00 am.
Similarly, it was not possible to have a FGD during the week days. Because of this, the

106
researcher was compelled to reschedule the discussions with the inmates at Kamiti on a Sunday
instead of a working day which turned out to be quite successful.

High turnover of Female Recidivists at Langata Prison

Finally, because of high turnover of female recidivists at Langata prisons, some inmates who had
participated in the study by filling the questionnaires had left the prison before FGDs were
conducted. This denied the researcher the opportunity to engage them. Some of these convicts
paid fines while others were discharged after their short imprisonment duration for the petty
offences they had committed. A key informant working at the documentation office at the
institution had indicated that it is possible for a prisoner to return to the prison twice or thrice a
year for minor transgressions.

107
 CHAPTER FOUR
DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents data gathered from the field in relation to the study objectives. The
quantitative data are presented through the use of frequency tables and diagrams. While
qualitative data are thematically expressed in terms of arguments, discussions and statements.
The chapter is divided into the following sections: personal and socio-economic characteristics
of recidivists, relationship between the initial punishment and subsequent reoffending,
correlation between recidivism and key variables, typology and severity of crimes at subsequent
convictions, intervention measures against recidivism, and lastly findings from the respondents’
psycho-social appraisal.

4.2 Socio-Economic Characteristics of Recidivists

Under personal and socio-economic characteristics, the recidivists’ personal attributes such as
gender, age, marital status, education level, and socio-economic status were established as
presented below.

4.2.1 Respondents’ Gender

Majority of the respondents (83%) were males imprisoned at Kamiti Maximum Security Prison
while 17% were females serving sentences at Langata Women Prison. Figure 4.1 below shows
the gender proportion of the respondents.

Figure 4.1: Gender of the Respondents

17%

Langata Women
Kamiti Prison

83%

Source: Researcher (2016)

108
Evidently, the number of male recidivists in Kenya prisons is higher than that of their female
counterparts. This finding corresponds with the opinion of Paranjape (2005) that males are more
prone to re-offending than females due to the fact that they have more socio-economic
responsibilities compared to women. They are therefore more likely to get involved in crime and
also recidivate. Furthermore, the male agility and physical strength also make them more daring
and explorative. However, in this study the huge disproportion is also attributed to the fact that
male respondents at Kamiti were both documented and non-documented recidivists while at
Langata only documented recidivists were involved in the study.

4.2.2 Respondents’ Age

Majority of the respondents (35.3%), males and females combined, were aged between 31-40
years, 26.9% were between 41-50 years, 24% were 18-30 years, 11.4% were between 51-60
years while 2.45% were between 61-70 years. Table 4.1 illustrates the findings.

Table 4.1: Respondents’ Age

Gender
Age Male Female
N % N %
18 - 30 years 30 18.0% 10 6.0%
31-40 years 46 27.5% 13 7.8%
41 - 50 years 41 24.6% 4 2.4%
51 - 60 years 17 10.2% 2 1.2%
61 - 70 years 4 2.4% 0 0.0%
Total 138 82.6% 29 17.4%
Source: Researcher (2016)

That 59.3% of these male and female recidivists were aged between 18 and 40 years resonates
with the findings of McNeil (2010) that most of the recidivists are young adults. This fact may
be because within these ages individuals still have many goals in life to achieve such as buying
property and settling down in families. If they cannot achieve these obligations by legal and
honest means, they are more likely to engage in criminal activities and may turn into recidivists.
Conversely, individuals aged above 40 years are more likely to have settled in life in terms of
starting families. For instance, at this age most people are married and may not wish to engage in

109
criminal activities due to the social bonds they have with their families – the spouses and
children whom they may wish to shield from shame and suffering should they engage in crime
and are caught and punished.

4.2.3 Marital Status of Respondents

Among the male and female respondents combined, 41.9% were single, 40.1% were married,
7.8% were divorced, 6.6% were separated while 3.6% were widowed. Figure 4.2 below
illustrates these findings.

Figure 4.2: Marital Status of Respondents

Marital Status
35.3%

33.5%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%
8.4%

6.0%
4.8%

4.8%

3.0%

3.0%
10.0%
.6%

.6%
0.0%
Married Single Divoced Separated Widowed

Male Female

Source: Researcher (2016)

The finding that majority of the recidivists (59.9%) were either single, divorced, separated or
widowed and not in marital relationships seems to confirm the claim by social control theorists
that the lesser the attachment (social bond) the higher the susceptibility that the individuals may
become criminals. Moreover, Siegel (1983) posits that without attachment to family, it is
improbable that feelings of respect for others, the law and authority will develop. Without this
respect, individuals who become criminals are more likely turn into recidivists. However, the
fact that most of the offenders at 52.7% and 39.5% had received imprisonment as a punishment
during their first and second convictions respectively, may be the cause of their marital state,
particularly those who are divorced and separated. Apel, Nieuwbeerta, Blokland & Schellen,
(2009) posit that imprisonment experience exposes offenders who were married before
incarceration to higher divorce risks due to prolonged period of separation.

110
4.2.4 Education Level of Respondents
Among the respondents, 38.9%; males and females combined, had reached secondary level
education, 33.5% primary level education, 15% college level education, 6.6% had no formal
education while 6% had university education. Table 4.2 below illustrates the findings.

Table 4.2: Cross Tabulations of Gender and Education Level of Respondents

Highest formal Gender

education level Male Female Total

N % N % N %
None 11 6.6% 0 0.0% 11 6.6%
Primary 48 28.7% 8 4.8% 56 33.5%
Secondary 52 31.1% 13 7.8% 65 38.9%
College 17 10.2% 8 4.8% 25 15.0%
University 10 6.0% 0 0.0% 10 6.0%
Total 138 82.6% 29 17.4% 167 100.0%
Source: Researcher (2016)

This finding on the level of education of recidivists seems to verify what was earlier established
by Kagendo (2003) that a majority of recidivists in Kenyan prison institutions have few years of
formal education. That 79% of the recidivists’ level of education range between none and
secondary may be a cause of their continued involvement in crime due to the fact that their
counterparts with college and university level education are more likely to be employed after
first conviction and punishment compared to them. Their situation is also made worse by the fact
that in Kenya, the number of college and university graduates has steadily risen over the years,
thus denying the lowly educated and trained individuals opportunities for formal employment.
This may therefore predispose them to engage in criminal activities.

4.2.5 Respondents’ Socio-economic status

To determine the socio-economic status of recidivist prisoners engaged in the study as
respondents, the researcher sought to establish the type of house structure they lived in before
arrest and conviction, house ownership status, occupation of respondents before imprisonment,
salary/ income of respondents before conviction, land ownership and the size of land. The
findings were as follows.

111
Type of House Structure lived in before Imprisonment.
Majority of the respondents, males and females combined, (44%) lived in semi-permanent
structures, 37% lived in permanent structures while 19% lived in makeshift structures. Figure 4.3
shows the findings.

Figure 4. 3: Description of house lived in

19%

44%
Semi-permanent
Permanent
Makeshift

37%

Source: Researcher (2016)

Conventionally, the kind of house structure individuals live in connotes their social status. In
Kenya, individuals from middle and upper social classes live in permanent houses. Based on this
fact, the study concludes that majority of the respondents were from the lower social class given
that they lived in semi-permanent and makeshift structures before their conviction. That the
majority were from the lower social class may imply that they were struggling to meet their basic
needs, and this may have been the cause of their perennial convictions.

House Ownership Status

Majority of both males and females respondents, (58.1%) lived in rented houses, 40.7% lived in
their own houses while 1.2% lived in their parents’ house. Figure 4.4 indicates the findings.

112
Figure 4.4: Ownership of house lived in

1%

41%

Rented
Own
58% Parents house

Source: Researcher (2016)

The fact that before their conviction majority of the respondents lived in rental premises which
were either semi-permanent or makeshift structures further confirms that they are from the lower
social class. This is based on the fact that in Kenya it is common for individuals from the middle
and upper social classes to live in their own houses, and if not owned they rent permanent
houses. Therefore, that the majority lived in rental houses means that they might have borne the
strain of payment given that they come from lower social class. This may have caused their re-
offending.

Occupation of respondents before imprisonment

Among the respondents, only 8.4% were formally employed, 38.9% were self-employed and
35.9% were in informal employments earning wages for survival. The rest of the recidivists
(16.8%) were unemployed meaning that they were not earning any income. Table 4.3 cross
tabulates gender of respondents and occupation before imprisonment.

113
Table 4.3: Cross Tabulation of Occupation and Gender of Respondents

Gender
Occupation Male Female Total
N % N % N %
Formal Employment 11 6.6% 3 1.8% 14 8.4%
Self-Employment 50 29.9% 15 9% 65 38.9%
Informal Employment 56 33.5% 4 2.4% 60 35.9%
Unemployed 21 12.6 7 4.2% 28 16.8%
Total 138 82.6% 29 17.4% 167 100.0%
Source: Researcher (2016)

On occupation, it can be concluded that only 8.4% of male and female respondents were on
reliable income by being in formal employment. Those who were self-employed and the ones in
informal employments may not have had a steady source of livelihood. However, the ones who
were worst off were the 16.8% who reported being unemployed. Crime and recidivism levels are
always worst among the unemployed because such individuals find it very difficult to earn a
living by legal means thus in most cases resort to crime, and they end up being recidivists.

Salary/ Income of respondents per Month

On monthly income, the study collected discrete data; exact monthly earnings in Kenya shillings
from the respondents which were later categorized as low income, medium income and high
income. A total of 83.2% of the respondents were found to be low income earners (earned Kshs
25,000 and below), followed by 15.6 % middle income earners (earned between 26,000 and
90,000) and only 1.2% earned more than Kshs. 90000. In comparison based on gender, most of
the respondents of either gender were low income earners. Table 4.4 indicates the findings.

114
Table 4.4: Distribution of Respondents Based on the Income

Salary or Gender

income in Kshs Male Female Total

N % N % N %
High Income 2 1.2% 0 0% 2 1.2%
Medium Income 23 13.8% 3 1.8% 26 15.6%
Low Income 113 67.7% 26 15.6% 139 83.2%
Total 138 82.6% 29 17.4% 167 100%
Source: Researcher (2016)

From the findings above on income, it can be deduced that some recidivists are likely to be low
income earners thus may face financial difficulties in meeting their various needs. This financial
difficulty may be the root cause of their engagement in crime, and subsequent re-offending.

Land Ownership
Majority of the respondents 64.1% (males and female) indicated that they do not own any piece
of land while only 35.9% own land. Figure 4.5 shows the findings.

Figure 4.5: Land Ownership

35.9%

64.1%

Yes No

Source: Researcher (2016)

115
Land is a treasured economic resource in Kenya. Those who own land are invariably
economically advantaged as they can practice agriculture, build houses and also acquire loans
from financial institutions to operate businesses. It is therefore possible that those who do not
own any pieces of land are economically disadvantaged. This can be attributed to the 64% of the
respondents who indicated that they did not own any piece of land. This economic disadvantage
may influence commission crime, and re-offending as the culprits seek to earn their
physiological needs.

Size of land Owned

Of the 35.9 % (60) respondents who owned land, 93% were male and 7% female. The 44.8% of
the males who owe land own not more than 3 acres. Only 14% of the males owned between 4
and 6 acres. However, a sizeable number of respondents, all males (28%) owned large tracts of
land of 10 and above acres. However, 1.2% (2) respondents, who indicate that they own land
declined to mention the sizes of their lands, thus only 34.7% (58) respondents indicated their
land sizes. The results clearly indicate that the rights to land ownership rest with the men to the
disadvantage of women who may be relegated to dependency on men. Lack of land as an
economic resource may also force women to resort to crime and re-offending for survival. Table
4.5 summarizes the findings.

Table 4.5: Distribution of Respondents Based on the Sizes of Land Owned

Gender
Size of land Total Male Female
N % N % N %
Less than 1 acre 13 22.40% 12 20.70% 1 1.70%
Between 1 and 3 acres 16 27.60% 14 24.10% 2 3.40%
Between 4 and 6 acres 9 15.50% 8 13.80% 1 1.70%
Between 7 and 9 acres 4 6.90% 4 6.90% 0 0.00%
10 and above acres 16 27.60% 16 27.60% 0 0.00%
Total 58 100.00% 54 93.10% 4 6.90%
Source: Researcher (2016)

116
The findings indicate that females are disadvantaged when it comes to land ownership as only
7% owned land. Given the economic advantages attributed to land ownership, this implies that
they are economically disadvantaged. However, male recidivists are also disadvantaged in this
regard since 44.8% owned three acres or less which cannot be put to large scale economic
advantage such as large scale farming.

Generally, from the socio-economic data presented above(on the type of house structure the
convicts lived in, house ownership, occupation before imprisonment, income levels, land
ownership and size of land owned by the respondents) the study appears to confirm that the
majority of the recidivists come from the lower social class. This is backed by the fact that 63%
of the respondents lived in semi-permanent and makeshift structures before their arrest and
conviction. As concerns ownership of the houses, 58% lived in rented houses. On monthly
income, 83.2% of the respondents were low income earners. Additionally, on ownership of land
which is a treasured economic resource in Kenya, 64% of these recidivists did not own any piece
of land of whatever size.

In terms of occupation before arrest and conviction, 12% of the respondents were unemployed,
while majority at 38% were engaged in menial tasks such as casual labourers, hawkers,
herdsman, handcart drivers, car washers, guards, farm workers and vendors. This finding is
similar to that of Scott (2010) who established that a large number of offenders in federal prison
institutions in Canada had unstable work history and had no trade. According to Bohm and
Halley (1997), Merton’s Differential Opportunity Theory of crime posits that when individuals
lack the legal means to earn their basic needs, they innovate in the context of engaging in crimes
such as theft, burglary, robbery, organized crimes, and prostitution.

This theory of crime explains why there are more of the poor than the wealthy in crime. Once
they have been punished for the initial offences, the poor may recidivate if their economic
circumstances have not changed. This is in line with the findings of Bohm and Halley (1997) that
recidivists are usually the unemployed. In Norway, Skardhamar and Telle, (2012) established
that the likelihood of recidivism is significantly lower when former prisoners are employed
compared with when they are unemployed.

117
The above findings from the respondents on the typical profile of recidivists in Kenya are
consistent with the opinions of the key informants and FGD members from whom the attributes
can be summarized as follows:

 Majority of the recidivists are males.

 Majority of them are poor and they come from the lower social class.

 They are mostly the youth and young adults. Kamiti Prison Key Informant- 6 (KPKI-6)
summarized these three attributes thus:

“Wengi wawenye wana rudi rudi ni wanaume vijana, wenye wamezobwa na

umasikini na hawana kazi.” “Many of the prisoners who come and go are poor
young men who are unemployed”.

 Several of them abuse drugs and alcohol. On this Langata Focus Group Discussion
Member Number-3 (LPFGDM-3) who had been re-convicted several times attributed her
problems to drugs and alcoholism. She asserted:

“I regret why I started taking alcohol and drugs, at times I steal or sell my
body to buy drugs”.

 They lack professional skills or trades.

 They are illiterate or have lower formal education; thus they reoffend because they
cannot improve their skills, cannot learn from their mistakes, have no alternatives in life
and therefore rely on crime as a source of income. KPFGDM-6 observed:

“Sisi hatuku batika kuwenda shule na hatuna kazi sasa hualifu ndio kazi
yetu” “We were not lucky enough to go to school and we are
unemployed, so crime is our job”

 They mostly come from dysfunctional families or had poor childhood upbringing. They
also have poor family relations and are, thus, hardly visited by relatives in prisons. For
instance, KPKI-1 observed:

118
 “Most of these prisoners who keep coming back to prison are never even
visited, it seems they have been rejected, but some of them came from the
streets”

 In prisons, they are disobedient to the prison rules and personnel and they do not take the
reformation and rehabilitation programme seriously. For instance, on this; KPKI-3
observed:

“Such prisoners give us very hard time; they would not want to follow
prison rules. When it comes to work, they malinger a lot”

4.3 Relationship between Initial Punishments and Subsequent Reoffending

To establish the link between Initial Punishments and Subsequent Reoffending the study
established the following.

4.3.1 Number of times convicted

Majority of the respondents interviewed (62.9%) had been convicted twice, 31.1% had been
convicted three times, 4.2% convicted four times, 1.2% convicted 5 times while 0.6% had been
convicted over six times. Table 4.6 shows the results.

Table 4.6: Respondents Conviction Rate

Gender
Number of times
Male Female Total
arrested
N % N % N %
2 times 88 52.7% 17 10.2% 105 62.9%
3 times 40 24.0% 12 7.2% 52 31.1%
4 times 7 4.2% 0 0.0% 7 4.2%
5 times 2 1.2% 0 0.0% 2 1.2%
over 6 times 1 0.6% 0 0.0% 1 0.6%
Total 138 82.6% 29 17.4% 167 100.0%
Source: Researcher (2016)

119
Based on these findings, there are fewer serial recidivists at 37.1% at the two prison institutions
than ordinary recidivists. Serial recidivists according to Mednick, Gabrielli and Hutchings (2008)
are offenders who have been convicted 3 times or more and are normally the most undesired
because they are usually responsible for a large proportion of criminal activities. Comparatively
more males than females are serial offenders at 30% and 7.2% respectively. This may partly be
attributed to the socio-economic responsibilities of men in patriarchal communities such as those
in Kenya.

4.3.2 Duration taken before arrest by police after committing first crime
Of the respondents, 37% took days before being arrested by police after committing their first
crimes, 24% took over a year before being arrested, 19% took months before being arrested,
15.6% took weeks while 5.4% could not recall the duration they took before being arrested by
the police. Figure 4.6 illustrates the findings.

Figure 4. 6: Duration taken before arrest by police after committing first crime

40% 37%

35%
30%
24%
25%
19%
20% 16%
15%
10% 5%
5%
0%
Days Over an year Months Weeks Can' t recall

Source: Researcher (2016)

4.3.3 Duration taken before court sentencing for the initial crime
Majority of the respondents, males and females combined (52.7%) took over a year before being
sentenced by the court from the time they committed their very first crime while 32.3% took
months. Figure 4.7 shows the results.

120
Figure 4. 7: Duration taken before court sentencing

60.0% 52.7%

50.0%

40.0% 32.3%

30.0%

20.0%
10.2%
10.0% 4.8%

0.0%
Days Weeks Months Over an year

Source: Researcher (2016)

On the durations taken before arrest by police after committing a crime and that taken before
court sentencing, Deterrence Theory of punishment posits that one of the characteristics of an
effective punishment that would control re-offending is alacrity; the swiftness with which the
punishment is awarded to the offender after the crime was committed. However, as per this
study, 59% of the respondents took weeks to over a year to be arrested by the police for trial and
conviction while cases of 52.7% took over a year for their cases to be concluded from the time
the cases were taken to court for determination. Hence the average period between crime
commission and conviction took too long for the punishments for the very first crimes to be
effective. This means that the punishments that were awarded for the initial crimes came too late
thus could not control recidivism.

4.3.4 Type of punishment for first convictions

Majority of the respondents, (64% and 72% males and females respectively) had been awarded
imprisonment for their very first conviction while 17% of the males and 7% of females were
awarded fines, 8% and 14% respectively were punished by committal on probation service, 3.6%
and 3.4% were placed on community service orders. Only males were punished by compensation
and restitution albeit a small percentage (5%) as shown in Figure 4.8.

121
Figure 4.8: Punishment Categories for first conviction

80.0% 72.4%
70.0% 63.8%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0% % Male
20.0% 16.7%
13.8% % Female
6.9% 8.0%
10.0% 2.2% 2.9% 3.6%
3.4% 3.4%
2.9%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0%

Source: Researcher (2016)

4.3.5 Type of punishment awarded for the second and subsequent convictions
Among the male and female respondents, 43.4% were imprisoned for the second convictions,
20.4% were awarded life sentences, 16.2 % awarded death sentences, 7.2 % claimed to have
been guilty during first conviction but were wrongly convicted for subsequent crimes thus
though they participated in the study on the basis that they have been reconvicted they strongly
insisted to be first offenders. For those who had been convicted more than twice, 5.3% were
imprisoned and community service for these convictions, while 3.3% were fined and imprisoned.
Another 2% and 0.7% were fined and given probation respectively. However, 1.3% (2)
respondents were not clear on the punishments received given that they were serial recidivists at
Langata Prison who had been convicted over four times for petty offences. Figure 4.9 presents
this information.

122
Figure 4. 9: Punishment Categories for second and subsequent convictions

Senteced but Innocent 7.2%

Dont know 1.3%

Fine and imprisonment 3.3%

Death sentence 16.4%

Life sentence 20.4%

Fine 2%

Probation 0.7%

Imprisonment 43.4%

Imprisonment and Community Service 5.3%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Source: Researcher (2016)

The fact that majority of the respondents were awarded imprisonment for their first conviction
and subsequent convictions seems to echo the findings of Dhami et al (2006) that imprisonment
is the most common type of punishment awarded to convicts globally. Though its common
application is influenced by the belief that putting offenders behind bars ensures protection of the
society as compared to community based punishments such as probation (Subramanian &
Shames, 2013), imprisonment is also the most common due to the fact that it is often awarded to
poor petty offenders in place of fines and other financial penalties.

However, the popular use of imprisonment may in itself influence reoffending. This was
confirmed by McNeil (2010) who asserted that the likelihood of an inmate to recidivate is
influenced by prior imprisonment, with previous prison terms leading to greater chances of
recidivism. This is based on the weaknesses inherent in this kind of punishment that impede
reformation of convicts. These weaknesses include fights among prisoners, and at times among
prisoners and prisons staff, coercion and other acts of indiscipline by prisoners which negate on
reformation measures (Mbugua, 2011; Paranjape, 2005; Colvin, 2000; Steiner, 2008); poor
physical and social prison conditions which lead to contamination of petty offenders (Kagendo
2003; Gendreau and Cullen, 1999; Odegi-Awuondo, 2003; Mushanga, 1976); brutality by the

123
warders which embitters the convicts into revenge against the general society upon release
(Odera-Oruka, 1976); instilling of institutional dependence (Goodstein, 1993); overcrowding and
congestion (Omboto, 2013 a) among other weaknesses. On the harshness of prison life, Kamiti
Prison Focus Group Member Number-2 (KPFGDM-2) observed during focus group discussions
that:
“Hapa jela naye kuteseka ndio saidi, uwesi badilika kama unateseka” (Here in
prison life is also full of suffering, one cannot change when suffering).

On institutionalization of prisoners, KPFGDM-8 who claimed to have been a street boy and have
recidivated four times remarked:
“Kwa walala hoye kama mimi, jela si mbaya, kwa streets nili teseka na nilipo
fungiwa Inda maraya kwanza kwa makosaya snatching kibeti ya mama nili pata
jela iko chakula ya bure na mahali pa kulala, sio kama inje kwa streets mahali
nilitoka, uko raia ni ya matajiri. Sasa ata ukinitoa hapa nita iba nirudi” (For the
very poor like me, prison life is not bad; in the streets I used to suffer but when I
was imprisoned at Industrial Area Prison for the first time for the offence of
snatching a lady’s bag, I found free food and somewhere to sleep unlike in the
streets where I lived, life outside prison is for the rich. Now even if I am
discharged, I will steal so as to come back.)

Another member of the focus group KPFGDM-1 asserted:

“Imprisonment is the main form of punishment thus people who have not been to
prison fear committing crime because they don’t want to be here, but if you have
been here, you no longer fear because you realize it is not as bad as people
outside there say;, moreover, people quickly adjust.”

These weaknesses described above render imprisonment ineffective thus may contribute to
recidivism.

On other reasons why imprisonment in Kenya may not reform convicts, Kamiti Prison Key
Informant 1 (KPKI-1) observed as follows:

124
 “We keep on receiving sex offenders, yet we can’t rehabilitate them. I am aware
the convicts require experts such as clinical and psychological counselors to
assist them; some may require psychiatrics which prisons in Kenya do not have,
so we mix them with other convicts and send them to the industry to train in
carpentry, tailoring, metal work and the like which is wrong because they do not
need those skills to get out of crime. Moreover, some of these sex offenders were
in other professions such as teaching. Even for other categories of offenders in
medium and minimum prisons, we engage them more in vocational and farming
training at the expense of counseling. These activities seem to be more directed at
earning prisons and the larger government revenue than at benefiting the convict.
If not, of what benefit is knowledge on farming for a convict who doesn’t have any
piece of land? We concentrate so much on activities which cannot rehabilitate
many of the prisoners we host. Prisons department should recognize this fact and
employ true rehabilitators not merely safe custody level officers as is the case
now. The government should realize that most convicted offenders end up in
prisons.”

Other than the capacity of prison officers, a focus group discussion member also pointed out that
former prisoners in Kenya are more likely to reoffend because of integrity and character of
prison officers who cannot be emulated as role models by prisoners they seek to reform. The
KPFGDM-10 remarked:
“You cannot be reformed by these afandes (prison officers,) they are harsh and
need favours from us. If you have money, you can send them to buy for you bangi
(cannabis) at a small fee, so we recruit them into crime instead of them reforming
us. What do you think someone who was imprisoned because of bangi think when
he sees it available here and commonly used?”
Concerning criminalization of petty offenders in prisons, KPFGDM-3 had put it thus:
“Bad influence from fellow prisoners is the reason why some of us are here. A
prison such as Kamiti is for bad people; we are bad people all put together, and
we can only get very bad by contact with one another and it is worse for petty
offenders who come here and those who never committed the crimes they are
convicted of. This bad influence should be addressed. When we were at the

125
 Industrial Area Prison, we laughed at and mocked a watchman who was charged
with failure to prevent a crime. We told him: wewe ni mjinga sana ulikuwa
ukilinda pesa mingi bila kuiba na sasa uko hapa na sisi robbers kwa makosa
bandia, ungezuia wezi wenye wakona bunduki na rungu?ukirudi iba” (You are
very foolish, you were guarding a lot of money without stealing, and now you are
here with us robbers on a fake charge, how could you stop robbers armed with
guns using a club? If you get out, steal). This guy promised to steal and rob when
he leaves prison and he did and is with me here at Kamiti. Also, after release from
prisons, the former prisoners who find life difficult contact the colleagues met in
prisons with whom they form vicious criminal gangs and commit more serious
offences”.

The 20% of the convicts whom from the findings were sentenced to life sentences, and the 16%
awarded death penalties during second convictions are those who committed capital crimes such
as rape, robbery with violence, murder, and manslaughter. According to the penal code or
Criminal Procedure Code CAP 63, these crimes deserve the two punishments. However, the fact
that neither of the two punishments were awarded during first convictions is a pointer that
recidivists commit less serious crimes compared to when they recidivate.

That 7% of the respondents accepted that they were guilty on first convictions but insisted that
they were wrongly convicted on the second and subsequent convictions, if they are truthful;
points to the inadequacies in the criminal justice system institutions mandated with trial and
conviction of offenders in Kenya as postulated by Omuya (2015), Nyongesa (2013), Mageka
(2015), Omboto (2015), and Kivoi and Mbae (2013) about the police, and (Gathu, 2014;
Infotrak, 2012; Mnjama, 2013; Muneeni, 2011; Kiprono, Ngetich & Mwangi, 2015) on the
courts.

4.3.6 Punishment and prevention of Recidivism

Among those interviewed, 53% indicated that the nature of punishment received could not stop
them from future criminal activities, while 47% were in agreement that punishment could stop
them from future criminal activities. Figure 4.10 shows the findings.

126
Figure 4. 10: Punishment effect on Recidivism

47%

Yes
53%
No

Source: Researcher (2016)

The 53% who felt that punishment could not stop them from engaging in criminal activities
indicated that other factors such as poverty and bad influence were responsible for their re-
offending. While 47% were of the opinion that only punishments that ensure that the poor
convicts are economically empowered and counseled can be effective in controlling reoffending.
These positions correspond with the findings from the key informants. For instance, on whether
punishment can stop re-offending, a key informant at Kamiti Prison opined that:

“A large number of prisoners who keep on coming back to us are the poor who
cannot afford basic needs, so their continued criminality cannot in any way be
controlled by or attributed to punishment”

4.3.7 Reasons for Recidivism

Asked for the reasons why they continue to commit crimes despite their past punishment(s), 29%
of the respondents indicated that they are in crime due to poverty, 25% blamed their continued
criminality on stigmatization and rejection by members of the society, while 13% each indicated
that their reoffending was due to lack of employment, and peer influence. The 7% of the
respondents cited that it was due to drug and substance abuse, as another 7% blamed their
recidivism on other factors such as easy way of earning a living, the need to revenge against

127
those who offend them, corruption, land conflicts, psychosocial issues among others. Few
respondents (4%) cited ignorance and lack of formal education. While another smaller
proportion (2%) indicated that they did not know why they continue to commit crime despite
punishment. Figure 4.11 indicates the findings.

Figure 4. 11: Reasons for Recidivism

I don't Know 2%
Ignorance and lack of
4%
education
Drug and substance abuse 7%

Others 7%

Unemployment 13%

Peer influence 13%

Stigmatization and
25%
Rejection by Society
Poverty 29%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Source: Researcher (2016)

During focus group discussions, these factors were elaborated on by the two FGD members at
Kamiti prison and Langata in nine categories as follows:-
 Poverty, which is reflected in lack of employment or capital to start business on which
one can support themselves and their families, is a major factor in re-offending.
 Bitterness or a drive to revenge where one feels he or she was unfairly convicted or the
punishment awarded was too harsh.
 Peer pressure from bad friends with whom one has been involved with in crime, who
normally pull back their colleagues into committing crimes despite punishment even
when they feel they should stop.
 Drug and alcohol consumption of which the members observed that once one is hooked
on drugs and alcohol, punishment has no power over them, more so, if crime is their
source of earning to buy the drugs and alcohol.

128
  Ignorance or failure to accept legal mechanisms of settling disputes as in the cases of
grievous bodily harm resulting from fights in situations where one takes the law into their
own hand instead of registering complaints with the police.
 Land conflicts commonly witnessed when relatives disagree on how a family land should
be sub-divided. The group observed this could lead to murder cases, among others.
 Domestic issues or conflicts between family members and spouses are also responsible
for continued criminality.
 Social stigma and discrimination from community members, and bitterness from crime
victims who never forgive convicts even after punishment.

On poverty as a factor influencing reoffending by convicts, a Police Officer who was one of the
key informants; PKI-2 observed that:

“Poverty characterized by lack of employment and lack of capital for business

are factors that fuel re-offending; therefore the root cause of crime and
reoffending which is poverty should be addressed instead of over reliance on
punishment”.

That 29% and 13% of the respondents blamed poverty and unemployment for their reconviction
seems to be corroborated by the findings on the socio-demographic characteristics of the
respondents which established that a majority come from lower social class, and thus may have
been pushed into crime by poverty. The findings are consistent with the opinions of other
scholars such as Bohm & Halley (1997) who identified unemployment as one of the causes of re-
offending by ex-convicts.

Concerning stigma, discrimination from the community and family members and rejection,
KPFGDM-5 put it thus:
“Immediately people learn that you were once prisoner, they drift away even
when you have not offended them in any way. I left prison and got employed by an
Asian in his factory in industrial area here in Nairobi. When he learnt that I was
once a prisoner, I got fired. At the work place a stool got broken and I offered to
repair it, which I did very well. The boss was quite impressed and asked where I
had trained, but when I became honest with him and informed him that I had

129
 learnt the skill at Kamiti Medium prison, he fired me on the spot accusing me of
not having informed him that I am a criminal. I had worked with them for seven
months without any mistake. I deeply regret this incident. I stayed for over a year
without a job which forced me to steal, and that was the onset of my criminal life
as I later became a robber for which I am now condemned to die.”

On his part, KPFGDM-9 observed:

“When you have been falsely accused, you do not see the need not commit a
crime, after all you are guilty whether you did it or not.”

KPFGDM-7 summed the extent of stigma thus:

“To the public, once a criminal, always a criminal, the society does not expect
offenders to change”.

According to Tannenbaum (1938) and Lemert (1951) social stigma and discrimination worsens
the rate of recidivism since it leads to police profiling and close monitoring of ex-convicts. The
individuals labeled criminals also suffer from other injustices of the label which include failure
to be accepted by employers, and strained relations with the law abiding members of the society.
In Kenya this observation would appear to be true since convicts are denied certificate of good
conduct by the government on the basis of their past criminal history. Without this document,
most employers including the government declines to offer job opportunities to applicants.

On bitterness and the need for revenge by crime victims, Langata Prison FGD Member Number-
1 (LPFGDM-1) who had been reconvicted four times, attributed her problems to the victim of
her first crime who kept accusing her falsely and the area chief and the police that were either
compromised or could not believe her protestation of innocence asserted:

“My first offence was stealing by servant for which I was imprisoned for three (3)
years but served one year due to remission and amnesty. When I went back to the
estate, the lady I had stolen from in the shop demanded that I pay back her money
but because I didn’t, she accused me of a different offence and I was arrested.”

130
KPFGDM-6 observed:
“Mwenye ulikosea na watu wake wakiona umerudi baada ya kesi kumalizika
kotini, bado wanakuandama uwalipe na koti ilishakuhukumu” (After you have
been punished by the court, the crime victims still follow you up to pay them.)
As a result of social stigma and discrimination, rejection by family and relatives, and bitterness
from crime victims, some ex-convicts make a conscious decision to go back to crime. The above
findings and arguments show that several factors that influence re-offending lie outside the
punishment and it can only be curbed by controlling these factors.

4.3.8 Prior Awareness of punishments

Majority (81%) of male and female respondents had no prior knowledge of the punishments
prescribed for their first convictions. Only 19% were aware. Figure 4.12 shows the results.

Figure 4.12: Prior awareness on prescribed punishments

19%

81%
Yes No

Source: Researcher (2016)

According to Wright, (2010) another factor that determines whether punishment will be effective
in deterring crime is awareness of the prescribed punishment for the various crimes. That 81% of
the respondents were not aware of the legally prescribed punishments before they committed the
crimes implies that they could not be deterred from committing the crimes. This might be
another factor responsible for their recidivism. It therefore calls for education of the general

131
public on the prescribed punishments. This can be done by making the penal code easily
available to the public. This document outline prescribed punishments for all crimes.

4.3.9 Duration before Arrest for the Second Offence

Among the respondents, both male and females, 38.3% took over a year before they were
arrested again for the second offence after completing their initial punishment while 32.9% took
months, 13.8% could not recall the duration, 5.4% took weeks, while 9.6% took days.
Comparatively, majority of the males (38%) took over a year before arrest, while majority of the
female, 48% took months before second arrest. Table 4.7 indicates the findings.

Table 4.7: Duration before Arrest for Second Offence after Initial Punishment
Duration before Gender
arrest for
second offence N Male N Female N Total
Days 14 10.1% 2 6.9% 16 9.6%
Weeks 9 6.5% 0 0.0% 9 5.4%
Months 41 29.7% 14 48.3% 55 32.9%
Over an year 53 38.4% 11 37.9% 64 38.3%
Can' t recall 21 15.2% 2 6.9% 23 13.8%
Total 138 100.0% 29 100.0% 167 100.0%
Source: Researcher (2016)

That 48% of the respondents were re-arrested within a year after the initial punishment compared
to 38.3% who took over one year to be rearrested appears to confirm the findings of Bohm and
Halley (1997) that recidivism rates are highest for ex-prisoners during the first year of release
from prison. This according to Goodstein (1993) and Kamunyu (nd) can be attributed to
institutional dependence while James (2015), and Venter, Hoffman and Goudine (2006)
postulate that it is caused by lack of prisoner empowerment for proper social reintegration into
the society which exposes them to a lot of challenges in settling down as law abiding citizens in
the communities because they were not adequately prepared before their abrupt discharge.

132
James (2015) posits that reentry programmes are of three divergent types: The first are those that
seek to prepare the offenders for discharge; those that aim to assist them in receiving the services
they may need before their release from prison, and lastly strategies geared towards assisting the
offenders to permanently re-integrate in the community. If these preparations are not adequately
done then the former prisoners are likely to be exposed to difficulties in meeting their
physiological needs during the first days of discharge, and may be compelled to reoffend. This
therefore, calls for convicts to be released into half way homes before their final discharge into
the society. These are institutions that assist ex-prisoners to settle down through counseling and
provision of basic needs. This enables the former convicts to settle down in the community after
full discharge from prison.

4.3.10 Relationship between recidivism and the initial punishment

Majority of the respondents ; 62 % (104 out of 167) felt that their reoffending was not in any
way linked to the initial punishment they received at the first conviction, while 38% (63 out of
167) felt that it had a linkage. Figure 4.13 below show the results.

Figure 4.13: Relationship between recidivism and initial punishment

38%

62%

Yes No

Source: Researcher (2016)

This finding that 62% of the respondents felt that their reoffending was not in any way linked to
the initial punishment seems to contradict the assertion of Paranjape (2005) that there exists a
connection between recidivism and punishment the offender receives for his/her initial criminal
act. Even the 38% who connected their reconviction to the punishment simply pointed out to the

133
fact that a punishment like imprisonment exposed them to stigma, and made them to lose time
that they would have used to accumulate resources. Some also pointed out the inability of this
form of punishment (imprisonment) to bring change on the offenders for various reasons.

It is also prudent to note that these offenders never received the same forms of punishment for
their initial conviction. This was reflected in the varied punishments the members of the FGDs
had received. For instance, the study established that among the FGD members at Kamiti four
(4) members had been awarded prison sentence, three (3) probation sentence, two (2) fined,
another two (2) warned and released (suspended sentence) while one (1) had been placed on
community service under Community Service Order. Similarly, at Langata prison among the six
(6) FGD members, two (2) had served on CSO for their first conviction, three (3) imprisonment
for lack of money to pay fines, while the other one (1) was sentenced to probation.

Asked to comment on the link between recidivism and initial punishment a key informant -
KPKI-3 asserted:

“First punishment does not influence reoffending because every crime depends on
different factors, circumstances and on the individual. It is not clear- cut. For
instance, convicts without stable backgrounds will reoffend irrespective of the
punishment because they depend on the crime to survive.”

Similar opinions were expressed in focused group discussions. The members observed that
several factors influence recidivism in offenders and not punishment. Majority of these factors
like poverty, and social stigma and discrimination of former convicts are community based,
while some factors such as inability to withstand peer pressure and drunkardness are inherent in
the individual convicts.

The general view was that formerly convicted offenders if not properly reformed and
rehabilitated, accepted and supported by the community members, will always relapse back to
crime, despite the type of initial punishment meted out. However, it was also clear that if the
initial punishment is not severe enough, the convicts will not be deterred and may recidivate.
Similarly, any form of punishment which does not reform a convict and ensure that he or she is
rehabilitated for one reason or another, indirectly makes him or her to reoffend.

134
4.4 Relationship between Recidivism and Key Variables
The key variables namely marital status, formal education levels, salary or income, duration
before police arrest for initial offence, duration before court sentence and type of the first crime
were correlated with recidivism.

4.4.1 Regression Analysis of Socio-Demographic Characteristics and Recidivism

Regression Analysis was conducted on the relationship between recidivism and various
variables. The findings are shown in table 4.8 below.
Table 4. 8: Regression Analysis on Socio-Demographic Characteristics and Recidivism
Variable B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Gender 0.607 11872.43 5.378 1 0.038 2.638
Age 0.209 0.462 7.205 1 0.026 1.233
Marital status 0.023 0.424 0.003 1 0.956 1.024
Education level -0.685 0.68 2.015 1 0.056 0.504
Occupation 0.911 6547.178 1 0.998 0
Incomes -0.302 6547.179 3.894 1 0.047 0.331
Constant 3.186 11872.43 0 1 0.997 3.849
Source: Researcher (2016)
Y=Recidivism; X1=Gender; X2=Age; X3=Marital status; X4=Education level;
X5=Occupation;X6=Incomes.
The regression equation(algorithm) is then given by Y=a+b1X1+b2 X2+b3 X3+b4 X4+b5 X5+b6
X6
As shown in Table 4.8 above, only three of the independent variables made a unique
statistically significant contribution to the model. These are gender, age and income which
have p-values less than 0.05. The remaining model variables did not bear any statistical
significance as they have p-values greater than 0.05. The table also reveals that the strongest
predictor of recidivism was gender, recording an odds ratio of 2.638. This indicated that male
respondents were over 2 times more likely to experience re-conviction, controlling for all
other factors in the model. The odds ratio of 0.331 for incomes was less than 1, indicating
that for every increase in income, the respondents were 0.331 times less likely to re-engage in
crime, controlling for other factors in the model. This finding supports the assertion that

135
economic difficulties influence recidivism (Scott, 2010, Bohm & Halley, 1997).

4.4.2 Duration before Arrest and Reoffending Counts

The study sought to establish the relationship between the duration before arrest after
committing the first crime, and reoffending in second conviction. Table 4.9 presents the
findings for this cross tabulation.

Table 4.9: Relationship between duration before arrest by police and reoffending
Duration taken before arrest
Duration before
Yes No Total
Arrest
N % N % N %
Days 27 16% 34 20% 61 37%
Weeks 19 11% 7 4% 26 16%
Months 20 12% 11 7% 31 19%
Over an year 22 13% 27 17% 49 29%
Total 88 53% 79 47% 167 100%
Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-
Square 8.674a 3 0.042
Source: Researcher (2016)

A Chi square statistical test was done. P-Value was taken at 0.05 significance level. The test
results show that there is a significant relationship between duration before being arrested by
police after committing crime and reoffending. P = 0.042 that is <0.05 with degree of freedom at
4 and Chi square value at 8.674. Therefore, the duration before an offender is arrested by police
after committing crime influences reoffending. This finding is consistent with assertion of
deterrence theory that when punishment of convicts is delayed it loses its effectiveness to deter
re-offending (Wright, 2010).

4.4.3 Duration before Sentence by the courts and Reoffending

To determine whether the duration before sentence by the courts for committing the initial crime
influences re-offending in convicts, it was important that the study conducts a test on the

136
relationship between the duration before sentence and re-offending the second time. Table 4.10
summarizes the findings.

Table 4.10: Relationship between duration before sentence by court and Reoffending
Duration before Duration before sentence by the court
sentence from time Yes No Total
of first crime N % N % N %
Days 12 7% 7 4% 19 11%
Weeks 0 0% 6 4% 6 4%
Months 27 16% 27 16% 54 32%
Over an year 49 29% 39 23% 88 53%
Total 88 53% 79 47% 167 100%
Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig.(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 3.320a 3 0.282
Source: Researcher (2016)

A Chi square statistical test was done. P-Value was taken at 0.05 significance level. The test
results show that there is no significant relationship between the duration before sentence by the
courts after committing the first crime and reoffending. P = 0.282 that is >0.05 with degree of
freedom at 3 and Chi square value at 3.320. Therefore, the duration before Sentence by the
courts for the first conviction does not influence reoffending in convicts. This implies that as
earlier established, other socio- economic factors such as poverty, labeling and peer pressure
among others are responsible for recidivism.

4.4.4 Crime committed at first conviction and subsequent recidivism

The study sought to determine whether or not the type of crime at the first conviction influences
reoffending. The results are given in Table 4.11.

137
Table 4.11: Relationship between crimes committed at first conviction and reoffending.

First Convictions
Crime at first Conviction Yes No Total
N % N % N %
Petty Offence 24 14% 16 10% 40 24%
Middle level Crimes 27 16% 18 11% 45 27%
Felonies 46 27% 36 22% 82 49%
Total 88 53% 79 47% 167 100%
Asymp. Sig.
Chi-Square Tests Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 4.143a 2 0.0521
Source: Researcher (2016)
A Chi square statistical test was done. P-Value was taken at 0.05 significance level. The test
results show that there is no significant relationship between type of crime convicted of at first
conviction and reoffending. P = 0.0521 that is >0.05 with degree of freedom at 2 and chi square
value at 4.143. Therefore, the type of crime an offender is convicted of at first conviction does
not influence recidivism but other factors are responsible for continued criminality by convicts
despite punishments. These factors are largely socio-economic in nature as earlier findings
indicated.

4.4.5 Relationship between crimes committed at subsequent convictions and reoffending

Under this objective, the study examined the relationship between type of crime at first
conviction and reoffending. Table 4.12 shows the findings.

Table 4.12: Relationship between Crimes committed at Subsequent convictions and

reoffending
Subsequent convictions
Crimes at subsequent
Yes No Total
convictions
N % N % N %
Petty offences 7 4% 9 5% 16 9.5%
Middle Level Crimes 10 6% 6 4% 16 9.5%
Felonies 81 49% 54 32% 135 81%
Total 98 59% 69 41% 167 100%
Asymp. Sig.
Chi-Square Tests Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 8.845a 2 0.01
Source: Researcher (2016)

138
A Chi square statistical test was done; P-Value was taken at 0.05 significance level. The test
results show that there is a significant relationship between type of crime convicted at second
and subsequent convictions and reoffending. P = 0.01 that is <0.05 with degree of freedom at 2
and Chi square value at 8.845. Therefore, type of crime convicted of at second and subsequent
convictions influences reoffending.

4.4.6 Relationship between subsequent punishments and Recidivism

Finally, given that a majority of the respondents at 62% (104 out of 167) indicated that their
reoffending was not in any way linked to the initial punishment received for the first conviction,
a chi square statistical test was done on the relationship between subsequent punishments and
recidivism. The results are given in Table 4.13 below.

Table 4.13 Relationship between subsequent punishments and Recidivism

Subsequent punishments at
reconvictions
Punishment Received More than 2
2 times conviction times conviction Total
N % N % N %
Imprisonment 68 41% 41 25% 109 65%
Fines and Forfeiture of
Property 24 14% 6 4% 30 18%
Probation and CSO 21 13% 7 4% 28 17%
Total 113 68% 54 32% 167 100%
Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig.
(2 sided) Sig.
Pearson Chi-Square 2.671a 2 0.005 .066b
Source: Researcher (2016)

A Chi square statistical test was done; P-Value was taken at 0.066 significance level. It therefore
emerged that there was no significant relationship between punishments for subsequent
convictions and recidivism. Therefore, punishment does not influence reoffending in convicts;
this applies to both ordinary and serial recidivists. This finding contradicts an argument by
Paranjape (2005) that recidivism is related to the type of treatment a convict receives for the
initial crime.

139
4.5 Typology and Severity of Crimes at Subsequent Convictions
This section presents findings on the typology and severity of crimes the respondents committed
upon subsequent reconvictions. At the time of this study, some respondents (convicts) were
serving their first reconvictions (i.e., for the second offence), others were at their second (for the
third offence) or third (for the fourth offence) reconvictions with variations in crime typology
and severity as discussed in the subsequent sub-sections.

4.5.1 Typology of crimes by male recidivists

Respondents were requested to state the crimes they were convicted of at the first, second and
successive convictions. These crimes were later put into various categories. Table 4.14 gives a
detailed summary of the crimes that the male respondents committed during the various
convictions.

Table 4:14 Typology of Crimes Committed by Male Recidivists

First Crime Second Crime Third Crime Fourth Crime
Crimes
N % N % N % N %
Crimes Against Property 79 57% 86 62% 34 85% 6 86%
Violent crimes against the
person 26 19% 42 30% 4 10% 1 14%
Others 33 24% 10 7% 2 5% 0 0%
Total 138 100% 138 100% 40 100% 7 100%
Source: Researcher (2016)

On the typology of crimes committed by male recidivists, based on the information from Table
4.14 above, it is evident that throughout their criminal life, majority of male recidivists engage in
crimes against property. For instance, crimes against property recorded the highest percentages
of 57%, 62%, 85% and 86% in first, second, third and fourth convictions respectively, compared
to violent crimes against the person, which recorded 19%, 30%, 10% and 14%
respectively.Similarly, crimes in other categories combined such as sexual crimes, traffic
offences, and alcohol and drug related crimes among others recorded minimal percentages 24%,
7%, 5% and 0% respectively. Most of the property crimes committed by the recidivists were
geared towards acquisition of properties and not destruction. This can be attributed to the fact
that poverty is the leading cause of crime in Kenya.

140
The findings of this study are in agreement with the assertion by Oloo (1989) and McNeil (2010)
that compared to the other offenders, property related offenders have a greater propensity to
reoffend. This is because majority of such offenders seek to meet their physiological needs.
Thus, McNeil (2010) established thatthieves and fraudsters are more likely turn into recidivists.

4.5.2 Types of crime committed by female recidivists

Concerning the female respondents, Table 4.15 gives a detailed summary of the types of crime
that they committed during the various convictions.

Table 4.15:Typology of Crimes Committed by Female Recidivists

First Crime Second Crime Third Crime
Crimes
N % N % N %
Crimes Against Property 17 59% 13 45% 0 0%
Violent crimes against person 4 14% 6 21% 0 0%
Others 5 17% 6 21% 4 57%
Moralistic crimes 3 10% 4 14% 3 43%
Total 29 100% 29 100% 7 100%
Source: Researcher (2016)

As per Table 4.15 above, majority of the female recidivists just like their male counterparts also
engaged in property acquisition crimes. For instance, among the respondents at Langata prison a
majority at 59% and 45% committed property crimes during their first and second convictions
respectively. The crimes they were convicted of include operating businesses without licences,
selling chang’aa (illegal liquor), handling stolen property, petty theft, and obtaining money by
false pretences. Few of the female recidivists also commit violent crimes, in this category the
crimes that were committed by 14 %(4 respondents) are attempted robbery, grievous harm,
affray (fights) and manslaughter.

However, other crimes that 17% of female recidivists were convicted of are alcohol and drug
related offences such as being in possession of bangi (cannabis sativa). The female offenders
who committed moralistic offences (prostitution, loitering) during first conviction were 10% (3
respondents) and 14% (4 respondents) for first and second convictions respectively. The study

141
also revealed that some of the female recidivists who commit alcohol and drug related offences,
and moralistic crimes become serial recidivists (convicted more than 3 times).

Compared to their male counterparts, slightly fewer females were convicted of violent and
capital offences such as robberies, murder, and manslaughter. This may be attributed to the
feminine qualities and fewer social responsibilities society bestows on women as compared to
men.

4.5.3 Crime progression by Male recidivists at Kamiti prison

To analyze progression in criminality by recidivists, respondents were requested to state all the
crimes they had been convicted of, at the first and successive reoffending. The crimes were
categorized into petty offences, middle level crimes and felonies. The kinds of crimes that were
committed by male respondents in terms of severity are outlined in table 4.16 below.

Table 4.16: Comparison of first and subsequent offences by male respondents

First Crime Second Crime Third Crime Fourth Crime
Crimes
N % N % N % N %
Petty crimes 72 52% 30 22% 1 2.5% 0 0%
Middle level offences 41 30% 65 47% 5 12.5% 2 18%
Felonies 25 18% 43 31% 34 85% 9 82%
Total 138 100% 138 100% 40 100% 11 100%
Source: Researcher (2016)

From the above findings it is evident that male recidivists begin their criminal career with petty
offences before they finally graduate to felonies. These petty offences include handling stolen
property, petty theft, being drunk and disorderly, creating disturbance, affray, abetting crime,
obtaining money by false pretences, loitering, giving false information and impersonation. In the
table above 52% (72 out of 138) of the convicts committed these petty crimes as their first
offences, compared to 30% and 18% who committed middle level crimes and felonies
respectively.

The offences attract lenient punishments such as CSO, probation, fines and short term
imprisonment terms. These offenders then moved to middle level crimes during their second
convictions and committed crimes such as ordinary theft, petty corruption offences, stealing by
servant, ordinary assault, attempted robbery, burglaries, and house breaking. For instance, at the

142
second conviction, 47% (65 out of 138) were found guilty of these offences compared to 22%
and 31% who were convicted of petty crimes and felonies respectively. The middle level crimes
attract severe punishments such as imprisonment terms of more than three years.

During their third and subsequent convictions the study established that the male recidivists
graduate to felonies which are capital crimes. These crimes include rape, defilement, robbery,
and robbery with violence, grievous harm, malicious damage to property, arson, murder,
manslaughter among others. Capital crimes attract very severe punishments such as long term
imprisonments ranging from fifteen (15) years to life imprisonment and even death sentence,
which compel them to be out of their communities for a long time. Thus the offenders convicted
may not reoffend again in the communities. For instance, those sentenced to life imprisonment
and those sentenced to death. Similarly, those convicted of felonies during their second
conviction rarely turn into serial recidivists.

At the third conviction 85% of the convicts committed these crimes, while 82% of those who
were convicted the fourth time committed the felonies. This evident progression in criminality by
male recidivists may be caused by the fact that offenders get hardened and fear no more with
every conviction. However, if imprisoned for the first offences, the convicts may also be
contaminated by other more experienced and hardened inmates they come in contact with in
prison institutions. This phenomenon of contamination of petty and first time convicts in prisons
was also pointed out by Kagendo (2003), Gendreau and Cullen (1999), Odegi-Awuondo (2003)
and Mushanga (1976).

4.5.4 Crime progression by Female recidivists at Langata prison

In terms of severity, the kinds of crimes committed by the female respondents during their first
and subsequent convictions are outlined in Table 4.17.

143
Table 4.17: Crimes progression by female respondents
First Crime Second Crime Third Crime
Crimes
N % N % N %
Petty offences. 21 72% 20 69% 7 100%
Middle Level Crimes 6 22% 5 17% 0 0%
Felonies 2 6% 4 14% 0 0%
Total 29 100% 29 100% 7 100%
Source: Researcher (2016)

From the above findings, it is evident that the majority of female recidivists unlike their male
counterparts do not progress in criminality. Majority of them begin and end their criminal careers
with petty offences. For instance, 72%, 69% and 100% of the convicted offenders committed
petty offences at their first, second and third convictions, respectively. Several of these female
recidivists involved in this study were consistently convicted of petty theft, handling stolen
property, prostitution, loitering, giving false information, creating disturbance, operating
business without licenses, brewing and selling chang’aa (illegal liquor), obtaining money and or
receiving it by false pretence. This finding is consistent with the views of key informants and
FGD members that women recidivists commit same offences for which they earn short prison
sentences with options of fines.

4.6 Intervention Measures Against Recidivism

On recidivism control strategies, the study sought to establish measures that can be instigated to
prevent first time convicts from reoffending, and those that are suitable for known recidivists.
The following are some of the suggestions that were received as effective for first time offenders
and the recidivists.

4.6.1 Strategies against Reoffending by First time convicts

On the treatment which first time convicts need to prevent them from reoffending, the following
suggestions in Table 4.18 were made by the key informants:

144
Table 4. 18: Key informants’ strategies for preventing first time convicts from reoffending
Strategies N Percentage
Fairness in punishment by the courts 2 7%
Economic Empowerment 10 37%
Community support and acceptance 8 30%
Severe/ Deterrent punishment 4 15%
Use of Non-custodial Sentences 3 11%
Total 27 100%
Source: Researcher (2016)

Concerning the measures that can be taken to prevent recidivism by first time convicts, 37% of
the key informants proposed economic empowerment, 30% support and acceptance by
community members, 15% proposed deterrence through severe punishment, while 11% and 7%
suggested use of non-custodial sentences and fairness by the courts, respectively. These findings
from key informants recognize the impact of economic deprivation, and social stigma and
discrimination as the two major contributory factors in the reconviction of first time convicts.

The respondents and FGDs similarly laid emphasis on tackling poverty so as to contain
recidivism among first time convicts. For instance, the FGD at Langata singled out poverty as a
major impediment to their rehabilitation, and the sole cause of reconvictions. They were of the
opinion that ex-prisoners should be economically uplifted through soft loans from the
government and trust funds. They were also in agreement that first time offenders should be
rehabilitated in the communities; and observed that this would only be possible when offenders
are sentenced to probation and CSO. The six observed that fines should be avoided because the
poor cannot afford them thus ending in prisons for failure to pay. On the best strategy to prevent
recidivism, economic empowerment for the poor convicts and proper social reintegration for the
former prisoners were over-emphasized.

4.6.2 Measures against Reoffending by Recidivists

The following measures indicated in Table 4.19 were suggested by the key informants as best
suited to control reoffending among recidivists.

145
Table 4.19: Key informants’ proposed measures against recidivists’ reoffending
Measures to assist recidivists desist from crime N Percentage
Proper classification/segregation of prisoners 3 11%
Economic empowerment of ex-prisoners 7 25%
Vocational Skills training 2 7.4%
Carry out prison reforms 1 3.7%
Alcohol and Drug awareness training programmes 3 11%
Spiritual support and counseling 1 3.7%
Use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms 2 7.4%
Community Reintegration Programmes 1 3.7%
Legal Education 1 3.7%
Ensuring Rights and Dignity of Prisoners 1 3.7%
Psychosocial Counseling 2 7.4%
Use of Non-custodial sentences CSO/ probation 3 11%
Total 27 100%
Source: Researcher (2016)

On the measures that can be taken to assist recidivists get out of crime, the study revealed that
25% of the respondents suggested economic empowerment for ex-convicts, 11% were for proper
classification and segregation of prisoners so as to curtail contamination of petty convicts, while
another 11% rooted for use of non-custodial sentences particularly CSO and probation instead of
imprisonment. Application of vocational training and offering the convicts psychosocial
counseling were suggested by 7.4% each. Use of community integration approaches, spiritual
counseling, prison reforms, and ensuring respect for rights and dignity of prisoners were each
suggested by 3.7% of the respondents.

These findings show that economic empowerment is the most preferred strategy by the key
informants for reducing crimes among recidivists. This may be explained by the fact that these
professionals have noticed that a large majority of convicts who reoffend are economically in
need.

The need to employ the same measures emerged from the respondents and FGDs. For instance,
in the FGDs, the inmates emphasized that unless the government improve on resettlement of ex-
prisoners by coming up with institutions to receive prisoners who have served long sentences
before their final release into the community to enable them settle down, then re-offending will

146
continue since majority of the ex-convicts will be forced to live on crime. The focus group,
therefore, emphasized that the government should put more attention on social reintegration of
ex-prisoners, because they have been labeled, rejected, and discriminated against to an extent
that they have been pushed back into crime by the community.

The FGDs also observed that efforts should be made to ensure that prisoners who have acquired
trades such as carpentry, masonry, mechanics and the like are assisted to get gainful
employment. Some of the prisoners have work experiences spanning up to twenty (20) years
which they have spent in prisons but because of labeling, they cannot get access to employment
yet they leave prison institution without any capital to establish self-employing engagements.

The groups suggested that since thousands of prisoners are very experienced in various trades
which they learnt in prisons and were working in prison industries, it would have been beneficial
if there were government-owned industries outside prisons requiring the same skills where ex-
convicts can be absorbed as employees. As a proof that prisoners who have served several years
in prisons are highly experienced, the researcher was reminded by the group at Kamiti that the
highly priced and magnificent seats used by the parliamentarians were made by prisoners at
Kamiti Prison Industry.

The group also observed that while all vehicle number plates in Kenya are manufactured by
prisoners at Kamiti, these highly skilled convicts are not able to use their skills outside prisons,
which would not be the case if there was an extension of the Kamiti vehicle number plate
industry outside the prison walls. It was also observed that the training in prisons does not equip
the prisoners with entrepreneurial skills thus on release from prisons they move around looking
for employment despite the odds against them. The group suggested that the prison authorities
should also inculcate in the convicts entrepreneurial skills so that on release, the ex-prisoners
will be self-employed and create employment for others. They emphasized that with such skills
and capital, recidivism rates will be greatly lowered. On how the ex-prisoners can acquire
capital, the focus groups suggested that as a sign of goodwill, the government should create a
capital fund for prisoners where they can borrow repayable loans to start businesses. Added to

147
this, the Kamiti FGD suggested that the issue of prisoners’ earning scheme should be revisited so
that long termers do not leave prisons empty-handed.

Strong recommendations were also made on certificate of good conduct which is required by
employers before any job placement. The focus group at Kamiti suggested that reformed
convicts should not be denied this vital document which is demanded by potential employers
including the government. The group observed that it is double standards for the government
entrusted with reformation and rehabilitation not to trust the offenders they have reformed. The
group suggested that the government should trust that the ex-convicts are reformed and should
guarantee them to other employers. On the high unemployment rate which influences crime and
recidivism rate, the focus group observed that the education sector should be reformed to
produce graduates, at all levels, which will be self-reliant after school. The education system
should be on mentorship, talent and vocational skills; this will stem the yearning for formal
employment after school.

Finally, the focus group at Kamiti recommended that awareness campaign be conducted among
the Kenyan society to inculcate a change of attitude towards ex-convicts. The community
members should be able to accept that convicts can change through reformation and
rehabilitation, thus, as members of the communities, they should forgive them for the wrongs
they committed and forget their past. The group suggested that as a sign of goodwill towards ex-
convicts, the need for certificate of good conduct from them should be abolished.

4.7 Respondents on Psychosocial Appraisal and Recidivism

This section focused on establishing the association between psychosocial factors and
recidivism. The psychosocial factors considered were personality, alcohol and drug use,
interpersonal relationship and discipline, family relations, occupation, childhood upbringing,
marital relationship, and community acceptance. The results are presented below.

4.7.1 Information on personality

Among the respondents interviewed, 48.3% of the women and 33.3% of the men said they are
never happy, cheerful and satisfied with their lives. Among the women 48.3% and 30.4% of the
men said that they sometimes feel they should be punished for the wrong things they do. The

148
women at 44.8% and men at 33.3% said they are sometimes easily angered while 37.9% of the
women and 39.9% of the men indicated that sometimes when they are angry they cannot control
themselves. Similarly, 34.5% of the women and 23.9% of the men prefer solitude sometimes.
Table 4. 20 below show the findings.

Table 4. 20: Percentage distribution of Information on personality

Langata Women Kamiti Prison

Half the time

Half the time
Information

No response

No response
Total count

Total count
Sometimes

Sometimes
on

Total %

Total %
Always

Always
personality
Never

Never
Often

Often
I am happy,
cheerful and
48.3 31 3.4 6.9 10.3 - 29 100 33.3 24.6 13 8.7 13.8 6.5 138 100
satisfied
with my life
I make good
- 41.4 17.2 6.9 34.5 - 29 100 11.6 24.6 14.5 19.6 26.1 3.6 138 100
decisions
When I fail I
don't lose - 37.9 20.7 6.9 34.5 - 29 100 11.6 19.6 17.4 13.8 34.1 3.6 138 100
hope
I believe I
am in
17.2 31 17.2 3.4 31 - 29 100 11.6 20.3 18.8 14.5 30.4 4.3 138 100
control of
my life
I feel guilty
when I do
13.8 34.5 6.9 6.9 37.9 - 29 100 13.8 26.8 12.3 9.4 31.9 5.8 138 100
something
wrong
I feel I
should be
punished for 27.6 48.3 10.3 6.9 6.9 - 29 100 21.7 30.4 14.5 10.1 13 10.1 138 100
the wrong
things I do
People like
me 6.9 34.5 20.7 34.5 3.4 - 29 100 9.4 23.9 20.3 21 21.7 3.6 138 100

I am easily
3.4 44.8 20.7 20.7 10.3 - 29 100 11.6 33.3 15.2 16.7 19.6 3.6 138 100
angered
When I am
angry I can't
13.8 37.9 24.1 13.8 10.3 - 29 100 15.9 39.9 13 10.1 13 8 138 100
control
myself
I prefer
24.1 34.5 6.9 27.6 6.9 - 29 100 13.8 23.9 15.9 23.2 18.8 4.3 138 100
solitude
Source: Researcher (2016)

149
That 48.3% of the women and 33.3% of the men respondents are not contented with their life as
is indicated by the fact that they are never happy, cheerful and satisfied may itself be the cause
their criminality. However, it may also mean that they feel that way because of guilt of their
criminal life. The latter is re-enforced by the fact that 48.3% of women and 30.4% of the men
sometimes feel that they should be punished for the wrong things they do. Similarly, given that
women at 44.8% and men at 33.3% are sometimes easily angered while 37.9% of the women and
39.9% of the men cannot sometimes control themselves when annoyed may also be an
explanation of why they are in crime. The preference of solitude by 34.5% of the women and
23.9% of the men which may indicate poor social interaction may thus further explain why they
commit some categories of crime.

4.7.2 Information on peer influence and drug and alcohol abuse

Among the women 37.9% and 19.6% of the men said they never got into trouble because of their
friends. However, 20.7% of the women and 18.8% of the men said they took drugs while with
their friends. On the other hand, 51.7% of the women and 25.4% of the men said they never took
illicit drugs and substances in prison. Table 4.21 illustrates the results.

150
Table 4. 21: Percentage distribution of information on drug and alcohol abuse

Langata Women Kamiti Prison

Information

Half the time

Half the time

No response

No response
Total count

Total count
on drug and

Sometimes

Sometimes
Total %

Total %
alcohol

Always

Always
Never

Never
Often

Often
abuse

I only drunk
when was 3.4 27.6 3.4 17.2 6.9 41.4 29 100 11.6 21 7.2 13 11.6 35.5 138 100
with friends
I couldn't
resist taking 10.3 17.2 10.3 10.3 10.3 41.4 29 100 17.4 15.2 10.9 8.7 12.3 35.5 138 100
alcohol
I got into
trouble
37.9 3.4 6.9 6.9 3.4 41.4 29 100 19.6 15.9 7.2 7.2 12.3 37.7 138 100
because of
my friends
I took drugs
when I was 31 20.7 3.4 3.4 - 41.4 29 100 18.8 16.7 7.2 9.4 8.7 39.1 138 100
with friends
I feel it is
not bad to 27.6 17.2 6.9 - 6.9 41.4 29 100 18.1 18.1 6.5 9.4 7.2 40.6 138 100
use drugs
I had to use
drugs 37.9 10.3 3.4 3.4 3.4 41.4 29 100 20.3 15.2 5.8 8.7 10.1 39.9 138 100

I used drugs
to be 41.4 13.8 - - 3.4 41.4 29 100 26.8 13.8 5.8 8 5.8 39.9 138 100
popular
I got into
trouble
48.3 6.9 - - 3.4 41.4 29 100 22.5 16.7 2.9 5.1 13 39.9 138 100
because of
drugs
I found it
fun to use 31 17.2 - 3.4 6.9 41.4 29 100 19.6 15.2 3.6 5.1 13.8 42.8 138 100
drugs
I take illicit
drugs and
51.7 6.9 - - - 41.4 29 100 25.4 13.8 4.3 4.3 10.1 42 138 100
substances
in prison
Source: Researcher (2016)

151
That 42.6% of men and 20.6% of women indicated a trace of friends influence in their troubles
may be an indication that they are in crime due to peer pressure and bad influence. On the use of
drugs in prisons, that 6.9% of women and 32.5% of males have taken drugs while serving prison
sentences may be the impeding factor in their failed reformation and rehabilitation.

4.7.3 Information on family relations

Among the women respondents 37.9% and 29.7% of the men indicated that they sometimes
spend time with their families and have fun as a family together. The women at 41.4% and men
at 26.1% said they are always honest with their family members and 31% of the women and 29%
of the men said they sometimes share their secrets and what happens to them with their family
members, while 41.4% of the women and 26.8% of the men said they often have family
gatherings /celebrations. Table 4. 22 on the next page show the findings.

Table4. 22: Percentage distribution of information on family relations

Langata Women Kamiti Prison

Half the time

Half the time

No response

No response
Total count

Total count
Information on

Sometimes
Sometimes

Total %

Total %
family relations
Always

Always
Never

Never
Often

Often
Our family spend time
and we have fun as a
20.7 37.9 6.9 13.8 20.7 - 29 100 17.4 29.7 10.1 12.3 24.6 5.8 138 100
family together

I can be honest with

my family members 17.2 10.3 17.2 13.8 41.4 - 29 100 11.6 18.8 16.7 21.7 26.1 5.1 138 100

My family help me out

when I am in problem 17.2 27.6 10.3 10.3 34.5 - 29 100 15.2 22.5 18.8 10.9 26.8 5.8 138 100

I share my secrets and

what happens to me
with the family 24.1 31 17.2 24.1 3.4 - 29 100 18.1 29 9.4 25.4 2.9 15.2 138 100
members

We do have family
gatherings/celebrations 17.2 31 10.3 41.4 - - 29 100 23.9 24.6 17.4 26.8 2.9 4.3 138 100

Source: Researcher (2016)

152
The above findings indicate that more women than men are in cordial family relationships where
they spend time with their families, have fun together, are honest with each other and share their
secrets. This may be the reason why there are less women recidivists than men as dysfunctional
families are at times responsible for deviance.

4.7.4 Information on upbringing during childhood

Most of the women 27.6% and 26.1% of the men said they never shared their feelings with their
care givers, while 31% of the women and 23.2% of the men said they never spent time together
with their care givers. Likewise, 27.6% of the women and 21% of the men said they never chart
and talk freely with their care givers. Table 4. 23 indicate the findings.

Table 4.23: Percentage distribution on upbringing during childhood

Langata Women Kamiti Prison

Information
on
upbringing
Half the time

Half the time

No response

No response
Total count

Total count
during
Sometimes

Sometimes
Total %

Total %
childhood
Always

Always
Never

Never
Often

Often
I shared my
feelings with
27.6 17.2 6.9 24.1 24.1 - 29 100 26.1 20.3 14.5 13 21 5.1 138 100
my care giver

My care giver
and I spent
31 13.8 10.3 13.8 31 - 29 100 23.2 17.4 13 18.8 21.7 5.8 138 100
time together

I could be
honest with
and confide in 31 10.3 13.8 31 13.8 - 29 100 24.6 23.9 14.5 9.4 21.7 5.8 138 100
my care giver

When I got
into trouble
my care giver 20.7 27.6 10.3 13.8 27.6 - 29 100 17.4 26.1 14.5 14.5 22.5 5.1 138 100
stood by me

I could chart
and talk freely
with my care 27.6 20.7 - 20.7 31 - 29 100 21 21 8.7 15.9 27.5 5.8 138 100
giver

Source: Researcher (2016)

153
In terms childhood upbringing, most respondents seem to have had a normal care and upbringing
as only 27.6% of the women and 26.1% of the men never shared their feelings with their care
givers. Further, a majority of both were free with and spent time together with their care givers.
This implies that other factors not related to faulty upbringing are responsible for their
criminality.

4.7.5 Information on marital relationships

Among the married respondents 13.8% of the women and 16.7% of the men said they sometimes
spend time and have fun with their partners and discuss the issues that concern their marriage
with their partners. However, 17.2% of the women and 13% of the men noted that they
sometimes fight with and verbally abuse each other with their partners. Table 4.24 shows the
findings.

Table 4. 24: Percentage distribution on marital relationships

Langata Women Prison Kamiti Prison

Information
Half the time

Half the time

No response

No response
Total count

Total count
on marital
Sometimes

Sometimes
Total %

Total %
relationships
Always

Always
Never

Never
Often

My partner Often
and I spend
10.3 13.8 10.3 3.4 6.9 55.2 29 100 5.1 16.7 4.3 4.3 15.9 53.6 138 100
time and have
fun together
My partner
and I share
6.9 13.8 10.3 3.4 6.9 58.6 29 100 3.6 11.6 10.9 5.1 15.2 53.6 138 100
secrets and
feelings
My partner
and I do things 10.3 13.8 3.4 6.9 6.9 58.6 29 100 3.6 10.9 8 11.6 11.6 54.3 138 100
together
We discuss the
issues that
concern our 13.8 10.3 10.3 - 6.9 58.6 29 100 4.3 16.7 7.2 4.3 13 54.3 138 100
marriage with
my partner
We fight with
and verbally
abuse each 6.9 17.2 6.9 6.9 3.4 58.6 29 100 10.9 13 13 3.6 5.1 54.3 138 100
other with my
partner
Source: Researcher (2016)

154
As per the above table, a large percentage of the respondents at over 50% never responded to
questions on marriage because they are not in marital relations as they were single, separated or
widowed. Among the married, only 13.8% of the women and 16.7% of the men sometimes
spend time together, had fun with their partners and discussed marital issues as partners. Further,
17.2% of the women and 13% of the men sometimes fought with and verbally abused each other
with their partners. These are clear indicators of sour marital relations among the few
respondents who were married. These unhealthy marital relations may be as a result of their life
as criminals or the cause of their criminality as postulated by social control theorists.

4.7.6 Involvement in community affairs and acceptance by members

Among the women interviewed majority 62.1% said they are sometimes involved in the affairs
of their community while only 19.6% of the men said they are always involved in the affairs of
their community. The women at 44.8% and men at 26.1% said they sometimes have a cordial
relationship with their relatives and people in the community while 44.8% of the women and
29.7% of the men said they sometimes get support from the community members. Likewise,
44.8% of the women and 23.2% of the men noted that they are always respected by their
community members. In addition, 34.5% of the women and 24.6% of the men said they always
had a good relation with the police, relatives and community members despite the first
conviction. Table 4.25 indicates the findings.

155
Table 4.25: Percentage distribution on involvement in community affairs and acceptance
by members

Langata Women Kamiti Prison

Involvement

Half the time

Half the time

in

No response

No response
Total count

Total count
Sometimes
Sometimes
community

Total %

Total %
affairs and

Always

Always
Never

Never
Often

Often
acceptance
by members
Involved in
community 17.2 62.1 6.9 6.9 6.9 - 29 100 18.1 26.1 10.1 15.9 19.6 10.1 138 100

Cordial
relationship
10.3 44.8 17.2 10.3 17.2 - 29 100 8.7 26.1 10.1 8 24.6 22.5 138 100
in the
community
I get support
from the
17.2 44.8 6.9 20.7 10.3 - 29 100 18.1 29.7 10.9 13.8 17.4 10.1 138 100
community
members
I care about
my 10.3 27.6 24.1 3.4 34.5 - 29 100 14.5 21 11.6 5.8 34.8 12.3 138 100
community
Feel
prestigious
13.8 51.7 6.9 13.8 13.8 - 29 100 20.3 22.5 13.8 8 24.6 10.9 138 100
about
community
I have a
positive
bond with 6.9 37.9 13.8 10.3 31 - 29 100 18.1 26.1 8 7.2 28.3 12.3 138 100
my
community
My
community
6.9 24.1 10.3 13.8 44.8 - 29 100 13 22.5 13.8 17.4 23.2 10.1 138 100
members
respect me
My friends
and relatives
6.9 44.8 13.8 10.3 24.1 - 29 100 26.1 26.1 8 10.1 17.4 12.3 138 100
visit me here
in prison
Good
relation with 27.6 24.1 6.9 6.9 34.5 - 29 100 20.3 20.3 11.6 12.3 24.6 10.9 138 100
the police
Falsely
accused,
58.6 3.4 10.3 10.3 17.2 - 29 100 29.7 22.5 8 8.7 19.6 11.6 138 100
arrested or
prosecuted
Source: Researcher (2016)

156
From the above finding, majority of women at 62.1% compared to men at 19.6% are sometimes
involved in their community’s affairs. Further, more women again at 44.8% than men at 26.1%
sometimes had cordial relationships with their relatives and community members. More women
also indicated that get support from the community members. Also in terms of respect, more than
men felt that they are they are always respected by their community members. In addition, more
women than the men had good relations with the police, relatives and community members
despite the first conviction. All these imply that men compared to women may suffer from social
stigma and discrimination in their communities. This is reflected in the higher number of women
at 44.8% compared to men at 26.1% who are sometimes visited by friends and relatives in
prisons. This rejection by relatives and friends may be the reason why a majority are criminals
and recidivists. According to labeling theory of crime, social stigma and discrimination is one of
the major causes of re-offending in ex-convicts.

4.8 Regression Analysis on the effects of psycho-social factors on recidivism

Regression Analysis was conducted on the relationship between recidivism and various psycho-
social factors, and the findings are shown in Table 4.26.

Table 4. 26: Variables in Equation

Variable B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Personality 0.134 0.343 4.267 1 0.033 1.814
Alcohol and
Drug Use 0.6204 0.462 6.281 1 0.026 2.163
Interpersonal
relationship and
discipline 0.023 0.424 0.043 1 0.086 1.024
Family relations -0.57 0.68 2.015 1 0.044 0.504
Occupation 0.911 0.823 1.119 1 0.998 0
Childhood
Upbringing -0.302 0.459 3.894 1 0.057 0.631
Marital
relationship 0.014 0.661 2.788 1 0.067 0.428
Community
Acceptance -0.056 0.776 2.872 1 0.023 0.398
Constant 2.246 0.487 1.004 1 0.997 3.225
Source: Researcher (2016)

157
As shown in Table 4.26, only four of the independent variables made a unique statistically
significant contribution to the model (personality, alcohol and drug abuse, community
acceptance and family relations). From the results, it was revealed that the strongest predictor of
recidivism was alcohol and drug abuse, recording an odds ratio of 2.163. This indicates that
respondents who had engaged in alcohol and drug abuse were over 2 times more likely to
experience re-conviction, other factors being constant.

The odds ratio of 0.398 for community acceptance was less than 1, indicating that for every
increase in community acceptance, the respondents were 0.398 times less likely to re-engage in
crime, other factors constant. This finding is consistent with Williams (2001), Tannenbaum
(1938) and Lemert (1951) who established that rejection by community members due to social
stigma is responsible for reconviction in offenders. That alcohol and drug abuse increases the
likelihood of re-conviction also confirms earlier findings by Bohm &Halley (1997) that majority
of offenders who turn into recidivists are those addicted to drugs and substances.

158
 CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction
The chapter summarizes the study findings based on the objectives of the study and makes
conclusions and recommendations.

5.2 Summary of Key Findings

Though the problem of recidivism exists in Kenya, the study established that it is difficult to
ascertain the extent of the problem since the correct number of recidivists particularly in prison
institutions remains unknown as there are non-documented recidivists in the country.

On the link between the initial treatment and recidivism, the study established that there is no
linkage between the punishment an offender receives during first conviction and recidivism
because some other factors not related to punishment make offenders to recidivate. The
respondents at 62% opined that their reconviction was not at all connected to the initial
punishment they received at the initial conviction. A further proof of non-relationship between
punishment and recidivism was also indicated by the fact that a majority of the respondents, at
53% did not feel that if they received a different kind of punishment from what they were
awarded at the initial conviction, they would not have re-offended. A Chi square statistical test
also revealed that punishment does not influence reoffending by both ordinary and serial
recidivists.

As concerns the profile of recidivists in terms of gender, the study established that most of the
recidivists at 83% were males. Age-wise, they are young adults and individuals in middle age.
The majority of the recidivists (59.3%) were aged between 18 and 40 years. In terms of their
level of education, a majority of recidivists were either illiterate or semiliterate, with 38.9% of
them being secondary school leavers; 33.5% primary leavers while 6.6% had no formal
education. Concerning marital status, majority of the recidivists (60%) are not in marriage
relations, they were single, divorced, separated or widowed. In terms of social class, majority of
the recidivists came from the lower social class as depicted by the economic indicators such as

159
unemployment, level of income, and symbolic indicators such as land ownership and residential
houses. For example, 63% of the respondents lived in semi-permanent and makeshift structures
before their arrest and conviction while 64.1% did not own any piece of land of whatever size.
On psycho-social appraisal, the study established that the strongest predictor of recidivism is
alcohol and drug abuse by the convict, while community acceptance reduces the possibility of re-
engaging in crime.

On the typology and severity of crimes committed by recidivists during the first and subsequent
convictions, a majority commit offences related to property acquisition. For instance, male
recidivists at 57%, 62%, 85% and 86% committed these crimes during first, second, third and
fourth convictions respectively. Likewise, among the females a majority at 59% and 45%
committed property crimes during their first and second convictions respectively. On crime
progression, male recidivists had shown a clear progression from petty crimes to more severe
crimes with reconviction unlike the females whose crimes remain minor. For instance, majority
of the male respondents at 52% committed petty offences at first conviction while at second and
third convictions majority at 47% and 85% committed middle level crimes and felonies
respectively. For the female recidivists, the same petty crimes were noted throughout their
convictions. For example, the majority at 72%, 69% and 100% were convicted of the petty
offences at first, second and third convictions respectively.

Concerning the control of recidivism, the study established that there is a need to ensure that
petty first time offenders are awarded community based forms of punishment such as probation
sentence, community service order, suspended sentences, compensation and restitution to curtail
the convicts from the negative impacts of imprisonment that influences recidivism. In prisons,
there is also need for proper classification and segregation of petty offenders from hardened and
seasoned convicts. While before discharge, effective social reintegration and economic
empowerment of the first time ex-convicts should be ensured. Concerning reformation and
rehabilitation of known recidivists, the study established the need for a thorough pre-sentence
investigation to unravel the causes of reconviction so as to award the desired punishments that
would assist this category of offenders to get out of crime. The corrections should then come up
with individual based reformation and rehabilitation strategies for each recidivist guided by their

160
peculiar needs. Before these recidivists are discharged from prisons, their community based
social support systems should be established to prevent them from reoffending due to rejection.

Finally, outside reformation and rehabilitation arrangement, the study established that recidivism
can also be managed by targeting crime levels in the country based on the fact that reduced
crime levels mean fewer offenders will be exposed to a possibility of reconviction. Given that the
study established that most of the recidivists are unemployed, poor and illiterate or semi-illiterate
individuals, crime rates can be reduced by upgrading the literacy level and increasing
employment opportunities in the country. The public should also accept the ex-convicts
particularly former prisoners, and not label and discriminate against them as the study
established that this pushes them back to crime. It is also important to encourage strong social
bonds in families and marriage relationships. This can be achieved through religious
organizations and their leaders. As Skardhamar, Savolainen, Aase and Lyngstad (2015) posit
marriage promotes desistance from crime, and the stronger the marital attachment the better.

5.3 Conclusions
From this study, one of the most important facts learned about recidivism in Kenya is that extra-
punishment factors which are socio-economic, individual, and community based in nature
largely influence re-offending in convicts. In the socio-economic category, poverty as a factor is
the major cause of recidivism. It is characterized by lack of employment or capital to start
business from which the ex-convicts can earn a living through their own sweat. This lack forces
this category of ex-convicts to eke out a living through crime. Domestic and land conflict is also
another socio-economic factor responsible for recidivism among a few convicts. Domestic
conflicts occur in troubled marriages while land conflict is common where relatives disagree on
how family land should be sub-divided.

The individual factors responsible for recidivism are weaknesses inherent in an individual
offender, which influences reoffending. These factors established in a few convicts include
bitterness and drive for revenge, inability to withstand peer pressure, drug and alcohol abuse, and
ignorance or lack of knowledge. The community based factors are social stigma and
discrimination, and labeling of ex-convicts despite punishment received for their first crimes
which largely hinder their resettlement in the community. However, the study also established
that there are intra- punishment factors which influence re-conviction. These are ineffective

161
punishments that would not control recidivism. Punishment theorists posit that for a punishment
to be effective it must be severe, swift and certain. The offenders must also have known the
punishment prescribed for the crimes before committing them. Based on these premises, this
study established that at times punishments awarded to the convicts may not prevent reoffending
because they are ineffective. The study also established that imprisonment, though the most
widely applied form of punishment is ineffective against recidivism due to inherent weaknesses
associated to it.

Secondly, it has also been learned from the study that criminal severity increases with
reconviction among male recidivists who graduate from petty crimes to felonies unlike their
female counterparts who generally commit the same petty offences with reconvictions. However,
convicts who abuse alcohol and drugs have a higher propensity to reoffend.

5.4 Recommendations on Recidivism control

Based on the findings, the following recommendations emerged on control of recidivism:-

5.4.1 The need to ascertain the correct number of recidivists in the country
First and foremost, given the fact that the correct number of recidivists in prisons is unknown,
the study first recommends that the Kenya government should, as a matter of priority, establish
the number of recidivists within the prison walls and the number of those serving on community
based punishments. This will enhance reformation and rehabilitation of convicts because
deciding on suitable punishments by the courts, classification of the convicts in prisons, and
drawing of appropriate reformation strategies relies on the correct criminal history. To net all the
recidivist convicts, some of whom might have used fake names, the CID of the police service
should liaise with the National Registration Bureau which has the custody of finger prints of all
adults in Kenya.

Further, to prevent a reoccurrence of this problem of non-documented recidivists, there is need

for synergy between all the institutions within the criminal justice system. The police and the
prosecution must ensure that forms C9 and C10 are filled and presented to the courts before
sentencing and the same attached to the convicts’ committal warrants. However, should this fail
to be done then prison authorities must petition the CID by sending filled prisoner form (Pf) 28
with the photograph/s of the prisoner/s in question attached to enable the CID process and

162
forward the correct certificate of previous conviction as outlined by the Prison Standing Orders.
This exercise of identifying all the recidivists in the country irrespective of the punishment they
are undertaking is vital because it will enable the corrections to design reformation and
rehabilitation strategies that specifically suit their needs.

5.4.2 Creation of recidivist databank for crime management purposes

The Kenya Prison Service should have an inbuilt computer connectivity to enable prison officers
detect any recidivist who might have served a prison sentence in any prison institution in the
country. At the prisons headquarters, there is need for a detailed digitalized databank on all
offenders who have ever entered prison walls giving the number of convictions, offences
committed, duration of sentences, and demographic details to enhance reformation and
rehabilitation of convicts. Also given that recidivists are responsible for high crime rates as
espoused by Mednick, Gabrielli and Hutchings(2008) who established that, in the US, chronic
recidivists who were just 4.09% of the male offenders were responsible for 64.4% of all the court
convictions for male convicts, it is further recommended that a national recidivism database be
developed and managed by the National Crime Research Centre to provide vital country- wide
data for use by the various criminal justice agencies for crime management purposes. The centre
should also design recidivism prediction systems based on typologies of crimes and on specific
offender populations such as male and female categories.

5.4.3 Mandatory community based punishment for poor petty convicts

Since most recidivists engaged in this study had received imprisonment as their first punishment
for the initial convictions, and given the identified weakness inherent in this type of punishment
and the fact that majority of the recidivists in prisons are petty offenders from the lower social
class, the judiciary should relook into sentencing of petty convicts to control recidivism. For as
much as possible, the study recommends that the courts should always sentence the poor petty
crimes convicts to community service and probation or suspended sentences, instead of
subjection to fines which they cannot afford thus they end up in prisons. Imprisonment as a
punishment should also not be an option for these offenders because they turn into recidivists
due to contamination by capital offenders and institutionalization. This recommendation is in
line with the requirement of the Community Service Order Act No. 10 of 1998 which outlines
that offenders whose crimes on conviction would earn them an imprisonment term of not more

163
than three (3) years should serve community based punishments. Furthermore, when it comes to
social stigma, Schnittker and John (2007) warn that any contact with prisons has effect not just
the length of contact.

5.4.4 Enhancement of capacity of prisons to reform and rehabilitate offenders

Based on the fact that some convicts will always deserve imprisonment, the government should
make sure that the institutions have the capacity to truly reform and rehabilitate offenders. This
should begin with a pragmatic assessment of the situations in prison institutions in Kenya
currently. There ought to be programmes that suit both short term and long term prisoners, and
the different typologies of offenders. Acquiring the vocational skills such as carpentry currently
imparted in prisons are only meant for long term convicts who would be in prisons for several
years, and there must be proof that these offenders committed crimes due to lack of skills to earn
a living by honest and legal means.

Further to this, the fact that prison institutions lack the capacity in terms of personnel and
programmes to reform some convicts such as drug, alcohol and sex offenders should be
addressed. The government should make sure that prison officers are suitably trained for the
delicate work of reformation and rehabilitation by employing the professionals required for all
types of offenders instead of some typologies like drug and sex offenders being subjected to
artisan courses such as carpentry, tailoring, dress marking, and farming as the study established–
this cannot rehabilitate them. For instance, according to Kington, Yates and Firestone (2012) and
Lipsay, Chapman and Ladenberger (2001), for sex offenders to be reformed, they require
pharmacological treatment and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, while Tiger (2011)posits that
drug abuse convicts require pharmaco-therapies– combination of medicine treatment and
counseling.

Other categories of convicts such as psychopathic offenders may also require medical treatment
and counseling for them to be fully reformed and rehabilitated; thus, it is defeatist to subject all
convicts to vocational training. Counseling approach in rehabilitation which is rarely applied in
prisons in Kenya currently should be introduced. However, this requires that trained professional
counselors who are versed in various kinds of counseling as different convicts may need are
employed. The types of counseling that the convicts may need include cognitive counseling,
transactional counseling, problem management counseling, and reality counseling. Imhabekhai

164
(2002) recommends that where the required experts are not available within the prisons,
personnel for the varied rehabilitation needs, engagement of part time experts is necessary.

Furthermore, improvement on the quality of personnel should also include having in place
people of character and integrity as prison officers. Prison officers should be individuals worth
emulating by the prisoners as role models. This cannot be the case where inmates confess about
the officers that “...If you have money, you can send them (prison officers) to buy for you bangi
(cannabis) at a small fee, so we recruit them into crime instead of them reforming us…”. It is
high time the government also vetted all the prisons staff as have been the case with the police,
magistrates and judges.

Finally, provision of quality education to long term prisoners for rehabilitation purposes is also
vital, more so given that the study established that 6.6% of the respondents had no formal
education at all, while 33.5% were primary school drop outs. Education empowers individuals
and enhances chances of survival outside crime. Further, Vacca (2004) established that prisoners
who receive education while in prison are less likely to return after discharge. In another study,
Gordon and Weldon (2003) also established that inmates who undertook general education and
vocational training in prisons had recidivism rate of 6.71% compared to 26% rate for non-
educated participants. In support of education for prisoners, the scholars posit that it assists
individuals to change their personal behaviour, attitudes and values.

5.4.5 Avoidance of abrupt discharges of prisoners through amnesties

Ensuring that prisoners are reformed and properly reintegrated back into the society should be a
topmost priority of the government. Thus, when deserving offenders have been imprisoned,
measures such as remission of sentences and blanket presidential amnesties which do not take
into consideration the stage at which an offender was in the reformation process should be
avoided at all costs. Moreover, the state should respect the changes in the 2010 constitution
which outlawed the power to pardon convicts through unilateral presidential executive order.
Article 133 of the constitution directs that the president may exercise power of mercy in
accordance with the advice of the advisory committee of the power of mercy. This advice to
pardon should be guided by recommendations of correctional services on the inmates’ post-

165
conviction conduct and character. For transparency purposes, section 23 of the Power of Mercy
Act demands that the committee gazettes the names of all prisoners released.

The study makes this recommendation on rushed releases based on the opinions of key
informants that remissions and amnesties negate on reformation of prisoners by shortening the
periods and ending the reformation and rehabilitation programmes abruptly. The position is also
influenced by consistent news reports which have shown that some prisoners released on
presidential amnesty have reverted back to crime almost immediately. For instance, in a report
entitled“60 percent pardoned offenders jailed again”, the Standard newspaper (January
26,2004) reported that 700 out of 744 ex-convicts released on presidential amnesty on 23rd
December, 2003 from prison institutions in the then western province were back at the very
institutions after a duration of one month. The president had pardoned 11,500 prisoners
countrywide. Further, according to the Daily Nation newspaper(October 25, 2016)in a report
entitled “Freed petty offenders back in police cells”, two of the 7000 prisoners who were
released on presidential amnesty on 20th October 2016 had been arrested for fresh offences less
than a week from the time of the pardon. One was in police custody over theft of offerings at a
church in Laikipia West while the other was arrested for stealing a neighbours’ sheep in Othaya,
Nyeri.

5.4.6 Improvement of prison conditions and segregation of inmates

The prison conditions should also be improved so as to make them conducive for reformation
and rehabilitation instead of being viewed by the convicts as places of torture and suffering as is
the case. All forms of suffering by convicts in these institutions, which only embitters them to
revenge against the society when discharged, must be avoided. Prisoners must also be
scientifically classified and segregated based on crime etiology and offender’s criminal history.
The classifications currently employed seem to enhance prison administration but do not
facilitate reformation and rehabilitation of the convicts. For instance, the classifications are
majorly based on the duration a convict has spent in prisons.

166
Petty first-time offenders who land in prisons as remanded or convicted prisoners must not be
contaminated by hardcore capital offenders. This requires that the government creates prison
institutions for these two diverse classes of offenders or have different sections created for them
in existing institutions. The kind of segregation needed is only possible with improved funding
from the government and proper planning and utilization funds by the prison authorities.

5.4.7 Appropriate social reintegration of ex-prisoners into the community

Social reintegration of ex-prisoners in Kenya must be taken seriously. It is absurd to expect a
released prisoner who has been abruptly discharged into the community after spending years in
prisons where all his/her needs were taken care of to keep away from crime from the first day of
freedom without a legal means of meeting the basic needs when such individuals do not have the
requisite social and economic support. As is the case in other countries such as the USA, the
Kenya government should as a mechanism of controlling recidivism among offenders released
from prisons create Half Way Homes, Work Release Programmes and Parole institutions to act
as soft landing places for the ex-inmates so as to enhance their reintegration into the society.

These institutions have the advantage of reintroducing the convicts back into the society
progressively. They also provide basic needs, assist in reconciling the ex-convict with their crime
victims where necessary, and mediate between the offenders and their families in cases of family
rejections. These in the end cushion the offenders against social stigma and discrimination which
is largely responsible for recidivism. Further, the government and other stakeholders such as
NGOs should create a fund where needy ex-convicts can get soft loans to begin life afresh. This
is the case in Sweden as one of the key informants at Kamiti observed. However, as James
(2015) posits, the most effective reintegration programme for prisoners begin during
imprisonment and extend during the release and resettlement processes.

167
5.4.8 Mollify crime victims through a compensation fund and enhancement of Victim-
Offender Reconciliation Programmes

Another mechanism of enhancing ex-convicts’ reintegration and acceptance is to find a means of

appeasing crime victims. As the key informants and focus group discussions observed, the
community members prefer that convicts are jailed rather than subjected to community based or
non-custodial punishments such as CSO, probation or fines which are seen to be lenient for the
offenders who hurt them. It was also established that some victims of crimes still demand that
the convicts compensate them for the harm even after being taken to court and punished, failure
of which they falsely accused them to the police of other crimes, thus, they end up being charged
on trumped-up charges. Some victims even plan to harm the ex-convicts despite having been
punished by the courts. These challenges can be addressed through enhancement of Victim-
Offender Reconciliation Programme with the assistance of community elders and probation
officers.

Further, the study proposes that the government should create a victim compensation fund out of
the fines collected where money to ameliorate the pain and suffering of the victims of crimes can
be sourced. This study postulates that state compensation will dissipate the bitterness and
eradicate the ill will towards the ex-convicts. It will also eradicate the opinion that the
government uses the plight of crime victims to unfairly earn revenue through fines. The Kenya
government should emulate jurisdictions such as USA where part of the fines paid by the crime
convicts goes to the crime victims’ compensation fund (Herrington, 1985; Floyd, 1969).

5.4.9 Massive sensitization of the public against labeling and social stigma of ex-prisoners
There is need for massive public sensitization and education to fight labeling, social stigma and
discrimination against ex-prisoners. This will enable families, community members and other
stakeholders to accept the already punished offenders. However, the sensitization should begin
with the Kenya government ensuring that the ex-convicts who have reformed and stayed out of
crime for a specified duration of time are given certificates of good conduct and are not
discriminated against forever as is the case currently. Lack of this vital document required by the
employers only exacerbates the ex-convicts’ helplessness in trying to find legal means to earn a
living after imprisonment. The community members must be made to appreciate the fact that to

168
err is human, and change by the transgressors is possible with correct support. Thus, there is the
need to forgive, accept and support the ex-convicts for them to abandon criminal activities.

5.4.10 The need for poverty reduction in the county

Finally, the government should put in place measures for poverty reduction in the country
through creation of employment opportunities. Fromader and Mallot (2010) argue that
employment is significant in explaining desistance or termination of a criminal career. The
scholars established that engagement in job employment helped in reducing recidivism rates in
older adult former convicts. In Kenya, expanded employment opportunities will reduce the
number of destitute people who commit crime to survive and when convicted and imprisoned
would prefer to live in prison because “life outside prison is for the rich.” There is also need to
reduce the cost of living by controlling the prices of essential commodities. It is also important to
issue free licences to the legal businesses operated by the poor. This recommendation is based on
the fact that several respondents and focus group discussion members at Langata were in prisons
for operating businesses without licences.

5. Recommendation for further studies

The study recommends a need for further studies in two main areas. One, a research should be
conducted on the factors responsible for the presence of non-documented recidivists in Kenya
focusing on the problems facing forensic documentation of convicts’ criminal history by the
criminal justice institutions. Two, a study should be conducted on the impact of non-documented
recidivism on trial of offenders by courts and on their rehabilitation by the corrections.

169
 REFERENCES

ABA. (2010). Criminal Incompetency: Mental and Physical Disability. Law Reporter, 34.1.

Aben, C.A. (2011). Factors influencing success of Non-Custodial Sentence in Kenya: A case
of Kilifi District in Kilifi County.-(Unpublished M.A Project) University of Nairobi,
Kenya.

Adams, J., Adams, J.C., Cross, H. & Jackson, R.L. (2010). Criminal Investigation. New
Delhi: Universal Law Publishing.

Adeyemi, A.A. (1994). Personal Reparations in Africa: Nigeria and Gambia. In Zveki’c. U
(1994) Alternatives to Imprisonment in Comparative Perspective. UNICRI.

Adler, F., Mueller, G.O. & Laufer, W.S. (1995).Criminology 2ndEd. The Shorter Version
McGraw Hill Company. New York, U.S.A.

Adler, F., Mueller, G.O. & Laufer, W.S. (1996). Criminal Justice the core. New York:
McGraw Hill Company.

Adler, F.,Mueller, G.O. & Laufer, W.S. (2004).Criminology and the Criminal Justice System
5th Ed. McGraw-Hill-USA.

Adler, F., Mueller, G.O. & Laufer, W.S. (2007). Criminology 6th Edition. McGraw Hill
Company. New York, U.S.A.

Agan, A.Y. (2011). Sex Offender Registries: Fear without Function? The Journal of Law and
Economics, 54, 1.

Akbaba, Z.B. (2015). The Permissibility of Pharmacotherapy for Paedophic Sex Offenders in
the Light of Protected Rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. Ph.D
Thesis. University of Leicester.

Allen, D. (1997). Imprisonment in Classical Athens. The classical Quarterly-New Series, 47,
1.

170
Apel, R., Nieuwbeerta,P., Blokland, A.A.J, & Schellen, M.V. (2009). The Impact of
imprisonment on marriage and divorce: A risk set matching Approach. Journal of
Quantitative Criminology.

Asner, M.A. & Thornson, J.L. (2013). Restitution from the Victim’s Perspective-Recent
Development and Future Trends. White Collar Sentencing. University of California.

Bachman, R & Scutt, R.K. (2011). The Practice of research in Criminology and Criminal
Justice (4th Ed). India: Sage Publications.

Bachman, R. &Schutt, R.K. (2012). Fundamentals of Research in Criminology and Criminal

Justice. USA: Sage Publications.

Becker, H.S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York:
MacMillian.

Beech. A. & Grubin, D. (2010). Chemical Castration for Sex Offenders. British Medical
Journal, 340, 7744.

Berenson J.A. & Appelbaum, P.S. (2011). A Geospatial Analysis of the Impact of Sex
Residency Restrictions in Two New York Counties. Law and Human Behaviour, 35,
3.

Birzer, M. & Roberson, C. (2004). Introduction to correction. Copper House Publishing

Company.

BMJ, (1955) Castration of Sex Offenders. The British Medical Journal, 1, 4918.

Bohm, R.M. & Halley, K.N.(1997). Introduction to Criminal Justice. New York: Glencoe,
McGraw Hill.

Bosire. C. (2012) Kenya needs a broader Justice Sector reforms. OSISA.

Bottons, A.E & Macclintock, M.C. (1973). Criminals Coming of Age. London: Macmillan
and Company.

171
Bourke, A., Boduszek, D. & Hyland, P. (2013). The Role of Criminal Convictions and
Personality traits in non-violent recidivism: An empirical Investigation within a prison
sample. Journal of Criminal Psychology,3, 1.

Briggs, D. (1975). In the Place of Prisons-towards a new society. London: Maurice Temple
Smith Limited.

Broadhurst, R.G. & Muller, R.A. (1992). The Recidivism of Sex Offenders in the Western
Australian Prison Population. The British Journal of Criminology, 32,1.

Bulow,W. (2014). Ethics of Imprisonment: Essays in Criminal Justice Ethics. Theses in

philosophy. Royal Institute of Technology.

Bwononga, M. (1998). Procedures in criminal Law in Kenya. Nairobi: African Educational

Publishers.

Castillo, R., Sessions, III.,W.K., Steer, J.R., Hinojosa, Horowitz, M.E. & O’neill (2004)
Recidivism and the “first offender”: A component of the fifteen year report on the US
sentencing commission’s legislative mandate.USA Sentencing Commission.

Champion, D.J., (2007). The Juvenile Justice System: Delinquency, Processing and the Law
(5th Ed). USA: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Chappell,C.A. (2004). Post-Secondary Correctional Education and Recidivism: A meta-

Analysis of Research Conducted 1990-1999. Journal of Correctional Education 55.2.

Chung .Y. (2012). The Effects of Paternal Imprisonment on Children’s Economic Wellbeing-
Social Service Review, 86,3.

Cole, G.F., Mahoney, B.,Thornton, M. & Hanson, R.A. (1987). The Practices and Attitudes
of Trial Court Judges Regarding Fines as a Criminal Sanction. National Institute of
Justice-US Department of Justice.

Colvin, M. (2000). Crime and Coercion. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Community Service Orders Act (1998) Laws of Kenya. Nairobi: Government Press.

172
Cornish, T.& Whetzel, J. (2014).Location Monitoring for Low Risk Inmates - A cost
effective and evidence Based Reentry Strategy, Probation Journal.

Coyle, A. (2002). A Human Rights Approach to Prison Management: A Handbook for

Prisons Staff: International Centre for Prison Studies, London, United Kingdom.

Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches. India: Sage Publications.

Crimshaw, R. (2014). Institutional Care and Poverty: Evidence and Policy Review. Center
for Crime and Justice Studies.

Crouch, B.M.C. (1993). “Is Incarceration Really Worse? Analysis of offenders’ Preference
for Prison over Probation. Justice Quarterly, 10,

Daily Nation, (October 25, 2016).Freed petty offenders back in police cells.

Daily Nation, (August 27, 2015).Kenyatta University Partners with Prison Service to train
warders.

Daly, R. & Peck, M. (2007). Considering Consolidation: The Nebraska Probation and Parole
Services study .Vera Institute of Justice.

Dhami, M.P.K., Mandel, D.R., Loewenstein.G. & Ayton, P. (2006). Prisoners Positive
Illusions of their Post-Release Success. Chicago University Press: Chicago, USA.

Dubler, N. (2014). Ethical Dilemmas in Prison and Jail Health Care. Health Affairs Blog.

EU. (2002). The European convention for the prevention of torture and inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment. EU.

Friedrich, L. (1998). Treatment and Management of Psychopaths. Jurimetrics Journal.

Floyd. G.E. (1969). Victim Compensation Plans. American Bar Association Journal,55, 2.

Fromader, A. & Malott, M. (2010). Male Inmate perspective on Reducing Recidivism Rates
through Post incarceration Resources. Retrieved from
internetjournalofcriminology.com.

173
Gagliard, G.J., Lovewell, D., Peterson, P.D. & Jamelka. (2004). Forecasting Recidivism in
Mentally Offenders Released from Prison. American Journal of Psychology.

Gary D. S. (2010) The Law of armed conflict (2nd edition) Cambridge University press.

Gathu, W. (2014). Public Confidence in Kenya’s Judiciary Plummets. ACR Issue 387.

Gendreau, P., Goggin, C. & Cullen, F.T. (1999). The Effects of Prison Sentences on
Recidivism. Correction Research.

GOK &UNIAFRI. (2011). Evaluation of the Community Service Orders Programme in

Kenya-Probation Service.

GOK (1970). Prisons Act Cap 90.Laws of Kenya. Nairobi: Government Printing Press.

GOK (1979). Prison Standing Orders. Nairobi: Government Printing Press.

GOK (1982). A Historical Review of Progress made by Kenya Prisons Service during the 20
years of Uhuru.

GOK (1998) Community Service Orders Act. Government Printing Press.

GOK(2005).Towards improving methods of imprisonment. Nairobi: Kenya Prisons Service.

(KPS).

GOK (2006a). Probation and Aftercare Services -Probation Service.

GOK (2006b). The Sex Offences Act- No. 3 Laws of Kenya: Government Printing Press.

GOK (2008). A report of the High Level committee on the prisons crisis.

GOK (2009). Interim Report of the Integrated Correctional services Reform Programme.
Probation Service. OVP & MOHA.

GOK (2010a). The Preservation of Organized Crimes Act Cap 59. The laws of Kenya.
Nairobi: Government Printing Press.

GOK (2010b). The Penal Code Cap 63 Laws of Kenya -Government Printing Press.

174
GOK (2010c). Criminal Procedure Code Cap 75. Laws of Kenya. Nairobi: Government
Printing Press.

GOK (2011a) Centennial/ACSA Celebrations Kenya prisons service synopsis.KPS

GOK (2011b) The Power of Mercy Act, 2011. Laws of Kenya. Nairobi: Government Printing
Press.

GOK (2011c) Perception of Service providers regarding Special needs offender in

Kenya.OVP & MOHA.

GOK (2012). The Land Commission Act: Number 5 of 2012. Nairobi: Government Printing
Press.

GOK (2013) Service Charter. Nairobi: GOK. KPS

GOK (2014a) Annual Report: Safer Communities and Fewer Victims through offender
rehabilitation. Smithfield, Dublin7. Probation Service.

Goodstein, L. (1993).Inmates Adjustment to Prison and the Transition to Community Life.

Justice Quarterly, 10.

Gordon, H. R. D. & Weldon, B. (2003). The Impact of Career and Technical Education
Programme on the Adult offenders: Learning Behind Bars. The Journal of
Correctional Education.

Grieger, L., Hosser, D, Schmidt, A.F (2012) Predictive Validity of Self-reported self-control
for different forms of recidivism-Journal of Criminal Psychology, 2, 2.

Grunhut. P (1948). Penal (4thed) New York: Oxford University Press.

Hail, M. (2014). Treatment or Punishment? Chemical Castration of Child Sex Offenders.

School of Social Sciences and Psychology. West Sydney University.

Hannah, A. (2012). Revising the Decline of community Service Orders: Challenges and
solutions for Magistrates in Kenya –Training Workshop Presentation.

175
Hanson, R.K. & Morton-Bourgon. K. (2004). Predictors of Sexual Recidivism: An up-dated
Meta-Analysis. Canada: Public Works and Government Services.

Hanson, R.K. (2000). Will they do it again? Predicting Sex Offence Recidivism. Association
for Psychological Science. Sage Publications.

Hanvey,S. (2011). Circles - a Community Response for Convicted Sex offenders. British
Medical Journal,343, 7832.

Haralombos, M. & Holborn, M. (2007). Sociology: Themes and Perspective (7thEd). Collins
London: Publishers.

Harris, M.D., Kaminska, A.G. & Springer. S. (2013). The Current State of White Collar
Sentencing. Federal Sentencing Reporter,26 ,1

Harrison, K. & Bernadette, R. (2013). Ethical Issues in Treating Sexual Offenders. Wiley
Online Library.

Hasan, J. (2012). Ethics of Punishment: A Canadian Perspective. (MA Thesis) Saint Paul
University, Ottawa Canada.

Herrington, L. H. (1985). Taking the Stand: Crime Victim Aid: Restoring Balance.
Competent Lawyer. 2, 4.

Hill, D.T. (2013). The Arithmetic of Justice: Calculating Restitution for Mortgage Fraud.
Columbia Law School Review, 113, 7.

Hodgins, S. (2008). Violent Behaviour among People with Schizophrenia: a framework for
investigations of causes, and effective treatment, and prevention. Philosophical
Transactions: The Neurobiology of Violence: Implications for Prevention and
Treatment. Biological Sciences, 363, 1503.

Home Office Report. (1969). The People in Prison; England and Wales.

Hussain, A. (2015). Prisons Service sees highest Recidivism rate in nine years. Singapore:
The Straits Times.

176
IED, KPS. (2005). Handbook on human rights in Kenyan Prisons. KPS.

Imhabekhai, C.A. (2002). Appraisal of prison services in Edo State in Nigeria. Journal of
Correctional Education, 53, 1.

Infotrak Research & Consulting. (2012). Judicial Perception Survey Presentation.

James, N. (2015). Offender Reentry: Correctional statistics, Re-integration into the

community, and Recidivism. Congressional Research Service.

Jarvinen, L. (1977). Personality Characteristics of Violent Offenders and Suicidal

Individuals. InWest, D.J. (1979). The British Journal of Criminology. London: Oxford
University Press.

Jeremy, H. (2008). International perspective: Prisoners and their rights. Boston: Elsevier.

Jonson,C.L. & Nagin, D.S. (2015). Prisoner Reentry Programmes: A review of Research.
Chicago Journals.

Joyce, P. (2011). Criminology and Criminal Justice: A study guide. New Yolk: Routledge.

Kagendo, R.S. (2003). Factors precipitating recidivistic behavior among the Kenyan
Prisoners: A Sociological interpretation. (Unpublished MA Project) University of
Nairobi, Kenya.

Kalmbach, K.C. & Lysons, P.M.(2006). Ethical Issues in Conducting Forensic Evaluations.
Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice.

Kamunyu, M.P. (nd). Crime Prevention: Current issues in Correctional treatment and
effective counter-measures - 145th International Training Course: Participants and
Observers Papers. Retrieved from http:www.unafei.or.jp/English/pdf-rms/no57-23.pdf

Kathryn, J. F. (1999). Criminal Types Cognitive Treatment for Violent Offenders in Prison.
The Sociological Quarterly, 40. 3.

Kenya Law. (2006). Republic vs. Thomas Patrick Cholmondeley. Criminal Case 55 of 2006.

177
Kiehl, K.A. & Hoffman,M.B. (2011). The Criminal Psychopath: History, Neuroscience,
Treatment and Economics. Jurimetrics.

Kim, I., Benson, B.L., Rasmussen, W.D. & Zuehlke, T.W. (1993) An Economic Analysis of
Recidivism among Drug Offenders. Southern Economic Journal, 60, 1.

King, N J. & Brynn, E.A. (2014). Alleyne on the ground: Fact finding that limits Eligibility
for Probation and Parole Release. Vera Institute of Justice. University of California
Press.

Kingston, D.A., Yates, P.M. & Firestone, P. (2012). The Self-Regulation Model of Sexual
Offending: Relationship to Risk and Need. Law and Humanity. American Psychology-
Law Society-Singer.

Kiprono, W., Ngetich, K. & Mwangi, W. (2015). Challenges facing Criminal Justice System
in relation to witness protection in Kenya. Journal of Humanities and Social Science.

Kivoi, D.L.& Mbae, C.G. (2013). The Achilles’ heel of police Reforms in Kenya. Social
Science, 2,6.

Klare, H.J. (1966). Changing Concept of Crime and Treatment. London: Pergamon Press
Limited

Klus, J.F. (1998). Handbook on Probation Services: Guidelines for Probation Practitioners
and Managers. UNICRI Common wealth Secretariat.

KNBS. (2014). Economic Survey. Nairobi: GOK.

KNCHR. (2005). Beyond the open Door Policy: status report on prison reforms in Kenya.

Krejcie, R.& Morgan, D. (1970).Determining sample size for research activities. New York
Free Press.

Laisa,W.P. (2013). Factors influencing recidivism in government of Kenya prisons: The case
of Meru Prison. (Unpublished MA Project). University of Nairobi, Kenya.

178
Leach,R.M., Burgess,T. & Holmwood, C. (2008). Could Recidivism in Prisoners be Linked
to traumatic grief? A review of the evidence. International Journal of Prisoners
health. 4,2.

Lemert, E.M. (1951). Social Pathology. New York: McGraw Hill.

Levin,S.C& Ramachandran.S. (2013).The Interplay between Forfeiture and Restitution in

Complex Multivictim white collar crimes.White Collar Sentencing. Sentencing
Reporter 26, 1.

Lipsay.M.W,Chapman.G.L& Ladenberger. N.A (2001) Cognitive Behavioural Programme

for offenders-What works in preventing crime? Systematic reviews of Experimental
and Quasi- Experimental Research. The Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science, Vol 578, -Sage Publications.

Mageka, A. (2015). Police Reform in Kenya: Challenges and Opportunities. CSG. Insight No
9.

Maltz, M. D. (2001). Recidivism. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press Inc.

Marelize, S.(2003). A Classification System and an Inter-disciplinary action plan for the
Prevention and Management of Recidivism. (Doctoral Thesis) University of Pretoria.

Mbuba, M.J. (2004). Juvenile Recidivism: Analysis of race and other socio-demographic
predictors within the three intervention modalities in the state of Louisiana. (PhD
Dissertation) Louisiana State University, Louisiana.

Mbugua, M. J. (2011). The Effects of Prisons reforms on inmates Discipline in Kenya: The
case of Nairobi Remand Prison. (Unpublished MA Project)University of Nairobi,
Kenya.

McNeil, W.A. (2010). 2009 Florida Prison Recidivism Study, Releases from 2001 to 2008.
[email protected].

179
Mednick, S.A., Gabrielli, Jr. W.F. & Hutchings, B. (2008). Genetic factors in the Etiology of
Criminal behavior. In McLaughlin, E., Munice, J. & Hughes, G. (2008).
Criminological Perspectives: Essential Readings (2nd Ed) Los Angeles: Sage
Publishers, USA.

Melella, J.T.,Travin, S & Cullen, K. (2016). Legal and Ethical Issues in the Use of
Antiandrogens in Treating Sex Offenders. American Academy of Psychiatry and the
Law.

Miles, B. M., Huberman, A.M. & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A methods
source book (3rd Ed) . California: Sage Publications, USA.

Milgram, A., Holsinger, A.M.,Vannostrand, M. & Alsdorf, M.W. (2015). Pretrial Risk
Assessment: Improving Public safety and Fairness in Pre-trial Decision making. Vera
Institute of Justice. University of California Press.

Miller, J.A. (2010). Sex Offender Civil Commitment: The treatment Paradox. California Law
Review, 98, 6.

Miscellaneous Civil suit Number 5 Otieno Clifford Richard vs.H.E Mrs. Lucy Muthoni
Kibaki. Retrieved from www.kenyalaw.org.

Mnjama, N. (2013). Corruption, Court records and Justice Administration in Kenya. Faculty
of Humanities, University of Botswana.

Morgan, R.D., Flora. D.B., Kroner, D.G., Mills, J.F.Varghese, F. & Steffan, J.S. (2012).
Treating Offenders with Mental Illness: A research Synthesis. Springer.

Morse, S.T. (2011). Mental Disorder and Criminal Law. The Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology, 101,3.

Muga, E. (1975). Crime and Delinquency in Kenya. Nairobi: East African Literature Bureau.

Muneeni, K. (2011). Challenges faced by the Judiciary in the implementation of its Strategic
Plans in Kenya. 6th Aibuma International Conference.

180
Municipality of Middlesex Centre. (2013). The report of Community Service Advisory
Committee.

Murray, J. & Farrington, D.P. (2008). The effects of Parental Imprisonment on Children.
Chicago Journals.

Mushanga, T. (1976). Crime and Deviance: Introduction to Criminology. Nairobi: Kenya

Literature Bureau.

Musyoka,W. (2013). Criminal Law: Nairobi: Law Africa Publishing Limited.

Nagin, D.S., Cullen, F.T. & Jonson, C.L. (2009) Imprisonment and Re-offending, Crime and
Justice, 38, 1 Chicago Journals.

Nally, J.M., Lockwood, S., Taping, H. & Knutson, K. (2012). The post-Release Employment
and Recidivism Among different types of offenders with a different level of
Education: A 5-year Follow-up study in Indiana. Justice Policy Journal, 9, 1.

National Prison Project. (1992). Corrections Digest USA.

Nicholson, L. (1994), Monetary Penalties in Scotland. A Research Based Review. The

Scottish Office Central Research Unit.

Nyongesa, R.A. (2013). Challenges of Strategy Implementation at Kenya Police Service.

(MBAResearch Project) University of Nairobi.

O’Beirne, M., Denney, D. & Gabe, J. (2004). Fear of Violence as an Indicator of Risk in
Probation Work: It’s Impact On Staff Who Work with Known Violent Offenders.
British Journal of Criminology, 44, 1.

O’Leary, C. (2013). The Role of stable accommodation in Reducing Recidivism: What does
the evidence tell us? Safer Communities, 12 (1), 5-12.

Odegi – Awuondo, C. (2003). The Industrial Criminal.HEKIMA Journal of the Humanities

and Social Sciences,2.

181
Odera Oruka, H. (1985). Punishment and Terrorism in Africa. Nairobi: Kenya Literature
Bureau.

Odhiambo. E. (2010). Factors that hinder female recidivists from resettling into their various
communities after imprisonment. (Unpublished M.A. Project) University of Nairobi,
Kenya.

Okech, .C. (2015). The Evolving Probation Practice in Kenya: Past, Present and Prospect.
Retrieved from www.Cep-probation .org.

Okon, E.E. (2013). Legal and Scio-Ethical Issues in Punishment. Journal of Law policy and
Globalization.

Okoth-Opondi, C.A. (nd). The Effective Re-settlement of offenders by strengthening

‘Community Re-integration factors’: The Kenya’s Experience -145th International
Training Course-Participants and Observers Papers. Retrieved from
ww.unafei.or.jp/English/pdf/RS_N082_09PA_Opondi.

Okwara, L. (2013). Probation Quality Assurance manual. Probation Department, Nairobi.

Oloo, K. O. (1999). The Production of Property Related Crimes in Kenya, An Econometric

Investigation. (Thesis) University of Nairobi, Nairobi.

Omboto, J.O. (2010).Challenges facing the Control of drugs and Substance Use and Abuse in
Prison Institutions in Kenya: The Case of Kamiti Maximum Prison. (Unpublished MA
Project) University of Nairobi, Kenya.

Omboto, J.O. (2013a),The challenges facing Rehabilitation of prisoners in Kenya and the
mitigation strategies. International Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 2.2.

Omboto, J.O. (2013b). Poverty and Greed in Perspective on Crimes’. International Journal
of Research in Social Sciences, 2, 4.

Omboto, J.O. (2015),The capital offenders’ punishment and Death Sentence Dilemma in
Kenya. International Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 4, 9.

182
Omeje, K. & Githigaro, J.M. (2010). Challenges of State policing in Kenya. University of
Peace.

Omondi. B. (2015). Non-custodial Sentences as Avenue to Decongest Kenyan Prisons.

Academia.

Omuya, L. (2015). A decade of Police Reforms and future of policing in Kenya. Usalama
Reforms. Forum-Safer world.

Osayi, K.K. (2015). Socio-cultural factors Affecting Re-integration of Discharged prisoners

in Anambra State, South East Nigeria, International Journal of Social Science and
Humanities, 5, 1.

Padmore, J. (2015). If we replace probation officers with machines re-offending will rise.
The Guardian, April 6, 2015.

Paranjape, N.V. (2005). Criminology and Penology. Allahabad: Central Law Publications.

Patheric, W.A., Brent& E.T., Ferguson, C.E. (2010). Forensic Criminology. UK: Elsevier
Academic Press.

Phelps, M.S. (2011). Rehabilitation in the Punitive Era: The Gap between Rhetoric and
Reality in the US Prison Programmes. Law and Society Review,.45, 1.

PHQ. (2014). Prison Headquarters’ Registry Records.

Picardi,C.A.& Masick, K.D. (2014) Research Methods : Designing and Conducting with a
Real World Focus. London: Sage Publications.

Playfair, G. & Sington, D.(1965). Crime, Punishment and Cure. London: Martin Secker and
Warbug Ltd.

Polisky, A.M. & Shavell, S. (1999). On the Disutility and Discounting of Imprisonment and
the theory of Deterence. Journal of Legal Studies, 28, 1.

Prescott, J.J. & Rockoff, J.E. (2011). Do Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws
Affect Criminal Behaviour? Journal of Laws and Economics, 54, 1.

183
Prinsloo, J.H. (1996). Exploration of Recidivism in South Africa .ActaCriminogica,.9, 1.

Probation Act Cap. 64 Laws of Kenya. Nairobi: Government Press.

Payne J. (2007).Recidivism in Australia: Findings and future research. Australian Institute of

Criminology, Australian Government. Quasi-Experimental Research .The Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Sage Publications, 578.

Ray. L .(2013). Violent Crime. In Hale, C., Hayward, K. &Wahidini, E.W. (2013).
Criminology (3rd Ed)

Reid, S.T. (1994). Crime and Criminology (7th Ed). New Yolk: Harcourt Brace Publishers.

Reifen, D. (1972). The Juvenile Court in a Changing Society – Young Offenders in Israel.
Jerusalem.

Republic vs. Thomas Patrick Cholmondeley Criminal Case Number 55 2006. Kenya Law
Review 2015.

Rice, M.E & Harris, G.T. (1992). A comparison of Criminal Recidivism among
Schizophrenic and Non- schizophrenic Offenders. Elservier.

Rickert, J.T. (2010). Denying Defendants the Benefit of a reasonable doubt: Federal Rule of
evidence 609 and Past Sex Crimes Convictions. The Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology. 100, 1.

Robinson, D. (2000). Project Horizon: How Utah is Reducing Recidivism. Journal of

Correctional Education, 51, 2.

Robinson, G., Burke, L. & Millings, M. (2015). Criminal Justice Identities in Transition: the
case of Devolved Probation Services in England and Wales. The British Journal of
Criminology.

Rothman, A.E. & Schwarcz, S.L. (1993). Commercial Law: A higher form of commercial
law? Fordham Law Review, 62.

184
Rutter, T. (9th April 2015). Probation Service Split: “Staff are sharing into the abyss” The
Guardian.

Salenkin,R.T., Rogers.R, Ustad, K.L.& Sewell, K.W. (1998). Psychopathy and Recidivism
among Female Inmates. Law and Human Behaviour, 22,1.

Schnittker, J. & John, A. (2007). The Long –Term Effects incarceration on Health. Journal of
Health and Social Behaviour, 48, (2) 115-130.

Schnittker.J& John. A (2007) The Long –Term Effects incarceration on Health. Journal of
Health and Social Behaviour. Vol. 48, 2.

Schoeman, M.I. (2002). A classification system and inter disciplinary action plan for the
prevention and management of recidivism. (PhD Thesis). University of Pretoria,
Pretoria.

Scott, Terri-Lynne. (2010). Offender Perceptions on the value of employment. The journal of
Correctional Education, 61,1.

Senna, J.J &Siegel, L (1993).Introduction to Criminal Justice. New Yolk: West Publishing
Company.

Shapland, J., Bottoms, A., Farrall, S., McNeill, F, Priede, C. & Robinson, G. (2012) The
Quality of Probation Supervision: A literature Review: Centre for Criminology
Research, University of Sheffield-UK.

Siegel, L. J. (1983). Criminology (3rd Ed). USA: West Publishing Company.

Siegel, L. J. (2006). Criminology (9th Ed). Canada: Thomson Wadsworth.

Silverman, I.J. & Vega, M. (1996). Correction: A comprehensive View. West Publishing
Company.

Skardhamar, T. & Telle, K. (2012). Post –release employment and recidivism in Norway.
Journal of Quantitative Criminology,28,4.

185
Skardhamar,T., Savolainen, J., Aase, K.N. & Lyngstad, T.H. (2015). Does Marriage Reduce
Crime? Chicago Journals

Soothill, K. (2010). Sex Offender Recidivism.Crime and Justice, 39, 1.

Ssebuggwawo, A. (2010). Community Service and Recidivism: A study of the Legal and
Institutional frame work in Kampala District Unpublished MA Thesis). Makarere
University, Kampala.

Stalans,L.J., Yarnord, P.R., Seng, M., Olson, D.E. & Repp, M. (2004) Identifying Three
types of violent offenders and Predicting Violent Recidivism While on Probation: A
classification Tree Analysis. Law and Human Behaviour.

Starr, S.B. (2015). The New Profiling: Why Punishing Based on Poverty and Identity is
Unconstitutional and Wrong- The Risk Assessment Era: An Overdue Debate. Federal
Sentencing Reporter, 27, 4.

Steiner, B. (2008). Maintaining prison order Understanding causes of inmates Misconduct

with and across Ohio Correctional institutions (PhD Thesis)-USA-PhD Thesis-
University of Cincinnati.

Stojanovski.V (1999) Surgical Castration of Sex Offenders and its Legality: The Case of
Czech Republic. Faculty of Law, Masaryk University.

Stuckey, G.B. & Garland, N.M. (2000). Criminal Evidence for the law Enforcement Officer
(4thEd). New York: McGraw Hill.

Subramanian, R. & Shames, A. (2013). Sentencing and Prison Practices in Germany and the
Netherlands: Implications for the United States. Federal Sentencing Reporte,r 27, 1.

Sugihara, H., Horiuchi, N., Nishimura, N., Yamaguchi, A., Sato, S., Mishimura, I.,
Nagashima,Y., Nishikawa, M. & Saito, F. (1994). An Overview to Alternatives to
Imprisonment in Asia and Pacific Region. In Zveki’c, U. (1994). Alternatives to
Imprisonment in Comparative Perspective. UNICRI.

186
Takata, K.K. (2004). History of Asset Forfeiture. Criminal Justice Division. State of
Hawaii,USA.

Tam, K.Y. &Heng, M.A. (2008). Rehabilitation for Young Offenders in Hong Kong
Correctional Institutions. Correctional Education Association.

Tannenbaum, F. (1938). Crime and the Community. Ginn: Boston.

Tella, D.R. & Schargrodsky, E. (2013). Analysis of the Recidivism rate of offenders treated
with Electronic Monitoring and the Recidivism rate of offenders released from prison
in the province of Buenos Aires-Argentina-Journal of Political Economy, 121, 1.

Tengstrom, A. Grann, M., Langstom,N. & Kullgren, G. (2000). Psychopathy (PCL-R) as a

Predictor of violent Recidivism among Criminal offenders with Schizophrenia. Law
and Human Behaviour, 24, 1.

Terry,T.(2013). Sex Crimes.In Hale. C, Hayward. K. & Wahidini, E.W. (2013) Criminology
(3rd Ed.)

Tewkbury, R.A. (1997). Introduction to Corrections, New York: McGraw Hill Company

The Daily Nation Newspaper 6/10/2015- “Bill gives Uhuru powers to hire, fire police chiefs”

The Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006 Laws of Kenya-NCLR, 2007.

The Standard. (November 6, 2015) Warden nabbed for sneaking drugs, p28.

The Standard. (October 27, 2015) Prisoner Clobbered to death by warders, p2.

TheStandard. (October 26, 2004) 60 percent pardoned offenders jailed again.

Thorn, P.M. (2009). Reducing the Rate of Recidivism among recently released women: The
perceived role of Religion, Chicago School of Professional Counseling.

Tiger, R. (2011). Drug Courts and the Logics of Coerced Treatment. Sociological Forum, 26,
1.

187
Travis, A. (March 30, 2015). Probation officers face redundancy in plan to replace them with
machines. The Guardian.

Traynor, P. & Wincup, E. (2013). Drug, Alcohol, and Crime. In Hale. C, Hayward. K,
Wahidini. E.W. (2013). Criminology 3rd Ed.

Tuckness, A. (2010). Restitution and Restitution in Locke’s Theory of Punishment. The

Journal of Politics, 72, 3.

UN. (1949). The Geneva conventions.

UN. (1955). The Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.

UN. (1976). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

UN. (1990). The Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures: The Tokyo Rules.

UNICJRI. (1997). Promoting probation internationally. UN.

UNODC, KPS. (2012). Rapid Situational Assessment of HIV Prevalence and Risk
Behaviours in Kenyan Prisons. KPS.

UNODC. (2012). Introductory Handbook on Prevention of Recidivism and Social re-

integration of offenders-Criminal Justice Series-United Nations-New York.

Vacca,J.S. (2004). Educated Prisoners are less likely to Return to Prison. Journal of
Correctional Education, 54 (4).

Vanderloo, M.J. & Butters, R. (2012). Treating Offenders with Mental Illness: A review of
the Literature. The University of Utah. Utah Criminal Justice.

Venter, J. H., Hoffman,S. & Goudine.G. (2006). Factors that influence adult recidivism: An
exploratory study in Pollsmoor Prison. South Africa Journal of Psychology,36, 2.

Walters, G.D. (2012). Substance abuse and Criminal Thinking: Testing the Countervailing,
Medication and Specificity Hypothesis. Law and Human Behaviour, 36.Springer.

188
Ward, S.A. (2009). Career and Technical Education in United States Prisons: What have we
Learned? Correctional Education Association.

Ward.T. (2009) Punishment and Correctional Practice: Ethical and Rehabilitation

Implications. Policy Quarterly Vol. 5 Issue 2.

Weaver,B. (2014). Control or Change? Developing Dialogues between desistance research

and public protection practices. Probation Journal, 61(1).

Williams, K.S. (2001). Criminology. New York:Oxford University Press.

Wolf, L J. (1990). Report on Prison Disturbances April 1990, 1991, to Her Majesty’s
Stationary office, London.

Wright,V. (2010). Deterrence in Criminal Justice: Evaluating Certainty verses Severity of

Punishment.-The Sentencing Project-Research and Advocacy for forum, USA.

Yekini, A.O. & Salisu, M. (2013). Probation as anon-custodial measure in Nigeria: Making a
case for Adult probation. African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies, 7.

Yung, C.R. (2011). Sex Offender Exceptionalism and Preventive Detention. The Journal of
Law and Criminology, 101, 3

Zveki’c. U. (1994). Alternatives to Imprisonment in Comparative Perspective. UNICRI.

189
 APPENDICES

APPENDIX I: RESPONDENTS’ QUESTIONNAIRE ON RE-CONVICTIONS

Respondent no________________________
Dear Respondent,
My name is John Onyango Omboto. I am a PhD student in Criminology at the University of
Nairobi. The purpose of this questionnaire is to collect information on recidivism among
prisoners at Kamiti Maximum Security Prison and Langata Women Prison. The information
received from you will be treated with utmost confidentiality. Your identity will be kept
anonymous because you are not required to reveal your name both during the interview and on
this questionnaire. Kindly note that your honesty in answering the questions in this questionnaire
is vital in helping the study understand the problem of recidivism.
Instructions;
 Please give honest and correct answers to the questions.
Thank you.
SECTION A: BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Tick for the appropriate information in the box

1. Gender- Male□ Female□
2. Age in years - 18-30 □ 31-40 □ 41-50 □ 51-60 □ 61- 70 □ 71- 80 □
81- 90 □ Above 90 □
3. Marital Status -Married □ Single □ Divorced □ Separated □ Widowed □

4. Highest formal education level- None□ Primary □ Secondary□ College □ University □

SECTION B: INFORMATION ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS

4 How would you describe the house you lived in? □ Permanent □ Semi-permanent
□ Makeshift
5 Is the premises your own or rented?□ Own □ Rented

6 Before your arrest what was the nature of your work? …………………….

190
7 What was your salary or income in Kenya shillings per month? ……………

8 Do you own a piece of land?.........If yes, what is the size?

SECTION C: THE LINK BETWEEN THE INITIAL PUNISHMENTS AND

SUBSEQUENT REOFFENDING
9 How many times have you been convicted? 2 times □ 3 times □ 4 times□ 5 times □
6 times □ over 6, Specify….
10 How long did it take for you to be arrested by the police from the time you committed your
very first crime? Days □ Weeks □ Months□ Over a year □
Can’t re-call □
11 How long did it take to be sentenced by the court from the time you committed your very
first crime? Days □ Weeks □ Months□ Over a year □
12 Which punishment were you awarded for this very first conviction? Imprisonment □Fines
□Forfeiture of property □Suspended sentences □Compensation □
Restitution □Probation service □Community service order □ If none of the above, please
explain?.........................................

13 In your honest opinion, can the punishment stop you from future criminal activities?
Yes □ No □ Explain your answer …………………………………………
14 Were you aware of the punishment prescribed by the law for the first and subsequent crimes
you had committed before their commission? Yes □ No □ Explain your answer…………
15 How long did it take before you were arrested and convicted again for the second offence
after the completion of the initial punishment? Days □ Weeks □ Months□
Over a year □ Can’t re-call □
16 Do you in any way feel that your reoffending is linked to the initial punishment you were
awarded at your first conviction? Yes □ No □
Explain your answer …………………………………………
17 Do you think you would not have re-offended if you received a different kind of punishment
from the initial punishment? Yes □ No□
Explain your answer …………………………………………
18 Why do you continue to commit crime despite being punished? .....................................

191
SECTION D: TYPOLOGY AND SEVERITY OF CRIMES WITH RE-CONVICTIONS
19 Which crime/s were you convicted of at your very first conviction? .................................

20 Which crime/s were you convicted of at the sub-sequent re-conviction/s?

……...…..…........................
21 Why did you commit the same/ different type of crime in No 21 and 22?..........................

SECTION E: PUNISHMENT AND CONTROL OF RECIDIVISM

22 Why are you in crime, and which measures can assist recidivists to get out of crime all
together? …………….……………
23 In your opinion, how can the treatment of first time convicts be more effective, so that they
don’t recidivate? ………………………………………………..

End: Thank you for accepting to participate in this study.

192
APPENDIX II: RESPONDENTS’ PSYCHO-SOCIAL APPRAISAL INVENTORY

INSTRUCTIONS:
Grade yourself as quickly and as honestly as possible by ticking the number that applies to
you; don’t meditate for too long before you answer. The first answer that comes to mind is
normally the correct one.

(i) Information on the Personality

1. I am happy, cheerful and satisfied with my life- 1 2 3 4 5

2. I make good decisions - 1 2 3 4 5
3. When I fail I don’t lose hope - 1 2 3 4 5
4. I believe I am in control of my life - 1 2 3 4 5
5. I feel guilty when I do something wrong- 1 2 3 4 5
6. I feel I should be punished for the wrong things I do-1 2 3 4 5
7. People like me-1 2 3 4 5
8. I am easily angered-1 2 3 4 5
9. When I am angry I can’t control myself-1 2 3 4 5
10. I prefer solitude-1 2 3 4 5

(ii) Information on drug and alcohol Use

Note: Skip this section if you have never taken any alcohol and or drugs
1. I only drank when I was with friends-1 2 3 4 5
2. I couldn’t resist taking alcohol-1 2 3 4 5
3. I got into trouble because of my drinking-1 2 3 4 5
4. I took drugs when I was with friends-1 2 3 4 5
5. I feel it is not bad to use drugs-1 2 3 4 5
6. I had to use drugs-1 2 3 4 5
7. I used drugs to be popular-1 2 3 4 5
8. I got into trouble because of drugs-1 2 3 4 5

193
 9. I found it fun to use drugs-1 2 3 4 5
10. I take illicit drugs and substances in prison-1 2 3 4 5

(iii) Information on interpersonal relations and discipline

1. I resist the bad influence of my friends-1 2 3 4
2. I tell my friends when I think they are wrong-1 2 3 4 5
3. When I am with my friends I pretend to be contented-1 2 3 4 5
4. There is a special person that respects and cares for me-1 2 3 4 5
5. I can count on a special person when things go wrong-1 2 3 4 5
6. I can talk to a special person about my problems-1 2 3 4 5
7. There is a special person who is a source of comfort to me-1 2 3 4 5
8. I prevent bad things from happening to other people-1 2 3 4 5
9. I do make other people happy-1 2 3 4 5
10. I have been charged or punished by the prison authorities for indiscipline-1 2 3 4 5
(iv) Information on family relations
1. Our family spend time and we have fun as a family together-1 2 3 4 5
2. I can be honest with my family members-1 2 3 4 5
3. My family help me out when I am in problem-1 2 3 4 5
4. I share my secrets and what happens to me with the family members-1 2 3 4 5
5. We do have family gatherings/ celebrations-1 2 3 4 5
(v) Information on upbringing during childhood
1. I shared my feelings with my care giver-1 2 3 4 5
2. My care giver and I spent time together-1 2 3 4 5
3. I could be honest with and confide in my care giver-1 2 3 4 5
4. When I got into trouble my care giver stood by me-1 2 3 4 5
5. I could chart and talk freely with my care giver-1 2 3 4 5

194
 (vi) Information on marital relationship
NOTE: Ignore this section if you are not married
1. My partner and I spend time and have fun together-1 2 3 4 5
2. My partner and I share secrets and feelings -1 2 3 4 5
3. My partner and I do things together-1 2 3 4 5
4. We discuss the issues that concern our marriage with my partner-1 2 3 4 5
5. We fight with and verbally abuse each other with my partner-1 2 3 4 5
(vii) Involvement in community affairs and acceptance by members
1. I am involved in the affairs of my community-1 2 3 4 5
2. I have cordial relationship with my relatives and people in the community-1 2 3 4 5
3. I get support from the community members-1 2 3 4 5
4. I care about my community-1 2 3 4 5
5. I feel prestigious about my community-1 2 3 4 5
6. I have a positive bond with my community-1 2 3 4 5
7. My community member respect me-1 2 3 4 5
8. My friends and relatives visit me here in prison-1 2 3 4 5
9. My relation with the police, relatives and community members was good despite the first
conviction-1 2 3 4 5
10. I had been falsely accused, arrested or prosecuted though innocent due to my first
conviction-1 2 3 4 5

Note: Some of the items in this section have been developed from Schoeman (2002) on the
profile of a South African recidivist.

195
APPENDIX III: KEY INFORMANTS INTERVIEW GUIDE

Recidivism is a serious problem in many countries. I request that we discuss it in regard to

Kenya under the following questions:-

1) Does recidivism depend on the type of initial punishment, If yes why, and if no, why not?

2) What is the typical profile of a recidivist in Kenya?

3) Which crimes do the recidivists in Kenya commit, and do they commit the same or more
serious crimes with re-convictions?

4) What challenges do the convicts face towards their reformation and rehabilitation after
the initial punishment?

5) In your view, what do you think are the best strategies for managing recidivism in
Kenya?

6) In your opinion, how can the treatment of first time convicts be made effective, so that
they don’t recidivate?

196
APPENDIX IV: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE

I request that we discuss the problem of recidivism in regard to Kenya under the following
questions:-

1) Is reoffending influenced by the initial punishment a convict received for the first crime?

2) What are the characteristics of recidivists in Kenya?

3) Which crimes do the recidivists commit?

4) Do the recidivists engage in the same crimes with reconviction?

5) Which challenges hinder reformation and rehabilitation after offenders’ initial

punishment?

6) How can the problem of recidivism be controlled?

197
APPENDIX V: UNIVERSITY RESEARCH PERMISSION LETTER

198
APPENDIX VI: RESEARCH AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM NACOSTI

199
APPENDIX VII: RESEARCH CLEARANCE PERMIT

200
APPENDIX VIII: LETTER TO PRISONS ON RESEARCH PERMISSION

201
APPENDIX IX: PRISONS’ RESEARCH APPROVAL LETTER

202
APPENDIX X: CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION TABLE

p
df 0.99 0.95 0.90 0.10 0.05 0.01 0.001
1 .03157 .00393 .0158 2.706 3.841 6.635 10.827
2 .0201 .103 .211 4.605 5.991 9.210 13.815
3 .115 .352 .584 6.251 7.815 11.345 16.266
4 .297 .711 1.064 7.779 9.488 13.277 18.467
5 .554 1.145 1.610 9.236 11.070 15.086 20.515
6 .872 1.635 2.204 10.645 12.592 16.812 22.457
7 1.239 2.167 2.833 12.017 14.067 18.475 24.322
8 1.646 2.733 3.490 13.362 15.507 20.090 26.125
9 2.088 3.325 4.168 14.684 16.919 21.666 27.877
10 2.558 3.940 4.865 15.987 18.307 23.209 29.588
11 3.053 4.575 5.578 17.275 19.675 24.725 31.264
12 3.571 5.226 6.304 18.549 21.026 26.217 32.909
13 4.107 5.892 7.042 19.812 22.362 27.688 34.528
14 4.660 6.571 7.790 21.064 23.685 29.141 36.123
15 5.229 7.261 8.547 22.307 24.996 30.578 37.697
16 5.812 7.962 9.312 23.542 26.296 32.000 39.252
17 6.408 8.672 10.085 24.769 27.587 33.409 40.790
18 7.015 9.390 10.865 25.989 28.869 34.805 42.312
19 7.633 10.117 11.651 27.204 30.144 36.191 43.820
20 8.260 10.851 12.443 28.412 31.410 37.566 45.315
21 8.897 11.591 13.240 29.615 32.671 38.932 46.797
22 9.542 12.338 14.041 30.813 33.924 40.289 48.268
23 10.196 13.091 14.848 32.007 35.172 41.638 49.728
24 10.856 13.848 15.659 33.196 36.415 42.980 51.179
25 11.524 14.611 16.473 34.382 37.652 44.314 52.620
26 12.198 15.379 17.292 35.563 38.885 45.642 54.052
27 12.879 16.151 18.114 36.741 40.113 46.963 55.476
28 13.565 16.928 18.939 37.916 41.337 48.278 56.893
29 14.256 17.708 19.768 39.087 42.557 49.588 58.302
30 14.953 18.493 20.599 40.256 43.773 50.892 59.703

Source: Adapted from Table IV of R.A. Fisher and F. Yate (1974).Statistical Tables for
Biological, Agricultural, and Medical Research, 6th Ed. Longman Group, Ltd., London.

203
APPENDIX XI: KREJCIE & MORGAN TABLE FOR DETERMINING SAMPLE SIZE

204