By Raj Gonsalkorale

Generally speaking, punishment makes men hard and cold; it concentrates; it sharpens the feeling of alienation; it strengthens the power of resistance”
― Friedrich Nietzsche, German philosopher and writer 

In the first instance, this article is about crime and punishment in general and not about specific crimes or categories of punishment. To begin with, taking crime in general, it will be useful if readers, their friends and families could place themselves in a position where a loved one, a son, daughter, a spouse or a good friend, has committed a crime and been sent to a prison for many years, and even for life, as a lawful punishment for the crime committed. A question that could be asked, or should be asked, is whether the loved one should spend the rest of his/her life or most of it, in a prison or get a chance for rehabilitation and to reenter society as a redeemed person.

Considering the status of Sri Lankan prisons that are in the news today, no one could wish any loved one to go to prison, and even a fleeting thought of committing a crime should not enter anyone’s head. But, in this imperfect world, there are many who do not consider consequences of committing crimes for numerous reasons. Experiencing life in prison does not seem to deter some from committing crimes either.  

The article focuses on two issues. One, the major contributor to the current overcrowding in prisons and secondly, the broad principle of rehabilitation vs incarceration as a punishment.

Sri Lankan prisons reportedly house close to 40,000 prisoners according to the department of census and statistics, and the department of prisons. The atrocious conditions in overcrowded prisons have been highlighted in the media, and a review of those held in remand, reportedly 73 % of the total prison population, or nearly 30,000 persons out of the 40,000. Looking into ways and means of reducing this number is an immediate task that should be considered by the government as it can greatly assist in reducing the prison population and overcome the overcrowding being experienced now. Of the approximately 73% of inmates held on remand in Sri Lanka, the vast majority are accused of narcotics-related offences. According to declarations from the Ministry of Justice and prison authorities, drug possession, trafficking, and dependency tracking constitute the primary drivers behind the state’s severe pre-trial detention backlog. An urgent review of this category is essential as in all likelihood these alleged offenders are very likely to become even hardened criminals if they are stuck in overcrowded prisons along with those convicted of crimes like murder, rape and major human rights violations as well a drug trafficking.

Besides this, it is interesting to note that if say, 50% of those in remand are released on bail subject to appropriate legal conditions, the overall prison population will be reduced by close to 15,000, greatly assisting in reducing overcrowding in prisons.

Re offending and rehabilitation

Statistics from the Sri Lanka Department of Prisons and independent criminological studies indicate that the country faces a significant challenge with reoffending, with long-term reoffending rates sitting between 45% and 52.5%. Based on this statistic, it does appear that imprisonment as a measure to punish criminals as a correctional measure fails one in two prisoners.

Besides the personal and social cost of crime which is immeasurable, to the perpetrator, to the victim and the loved ones around both, and the society in general, the economic savings possible from reducing reoffending based on the current 50% re-offending rate.

• With a total prison population of roughly 40,000 inmates, including alleged offenders, a long-term 50% reoffending rate means that 20,000 individuals will eventually re-enter the prison system.
• Maintaining a single prisoner costs the state Rs. 715 per day (roughly Rs. 261,000 per year). Leaving 20,000 repeat offenders untreated costs the Sri Lankan taxpayer Rs. 5.22 billion annually just in recurring, avoidable prison maintenance costs.
• If a national rehabilitation and vocational program successfully cuts that long-term re-offending rate by half (lowering it from 50% to 25%), it prevents 10,000 people from returning to jail. This step immediately saves the state treasury Rs. 2.61 billion every single year in pure operational expenses. This is the return on investment that is possible purely from savings derived on administration expenses.
• The “Shadow Savings”: These numbers only cover feeding and housing prisoners. They do not factor in the millions saved by avoiding police logistics, court trial delays, and the fact that a rehabilitated individual could potentially become a taxpayer rather than a drain on state welfare

Amongst the countries that has a successful rehabilitation program, Norway has managed to reduce reoffending to less than 20%.

Major Drivers of Reoffending in Sri Lanka

Criminological papers published via ResearchGate identify specific institutional bottlenecks that complicate the justice system’s ability to keep former prisoners from returning: Three major issues impact on reoffending.

• Drug-related convictions: A massive influx of low-level drug offenders often crowds out the infrastructure required for proper, long-term vocational retraining.
• Overcrowded holding infrastructure: High numbers of remand prisoners create a punitive environment focused strictly on containment rather than rehabilitation.
• Lack of systemic reintegration: Social stigma and a historically underdeveloped post-release support network make it difficult for ex-convicts to find employment, steering them back toward crime

Rehabilitation as a healer

As Venerable Galkande Dhammananda, head of the Walpola Rahula Institute says, human beings carry mental wounds arising from numerous situations and healing such wounds transforms the mindset of individuals for them to be kind and compassionate individuals. Rehabilitation offers opportunities for mental healing, and it helps the individual to restore his or her dignity, and restores families, breaking the multi-generational cycle of trauma and poverty caused by incarceration. Viewing the justice system through a human lens changes inmates from financial line items or statistics into parents, children, and community members who have the capacity to change.

1. The Human Dignity and Human Rights Aspect

• Ending systemic degradation: Forcing humans into prisons operating at 300% capacity—where they face extreme heat, lack of clean water, poor sanitation, and disease outbreaks—is a violation of basic human rights. Rehabilitation treats prisoners with dignity, which is a necessary first step if one expects them to respect the rights of others upon release.
• Belief in mental healing: A purely punitive system assumes a person is permanently broken. The human perspective believes in the capacity for psychological growth, healing from trauma, and overcoming substance dependency when given the right mental health support and environment.
• Fairness for those yet to be convicted: With over 70% of Sri Lanka’s inmates held on remand (awaiting trial), thousands of legally innocent people are exposed to harsh prison environments. Rehabilitation and community-based supervision protect these individuals from being psychologically broken by a delayed judicial system.

2. Restoring the Family Unit

• Stopping family trauma: Jailing a parent leaves a child behind. Children of incarcerated parents are far more likely to suffer from severe emotional distress, drop out of school, face social stigma, and eventually fall into the criminal justice system themselves. Rehabilitating a parent protects a child’s future.
• Preventing Extreme Poverty: When a breadwinner is locked away, families—often already vulnerable—are pushed into absolute destitution. This financial collapse forces families into precarious situations, sometimes driving spouse or children into exploitative work or minor survival crimes.
• Mending Social Bonds: Punitive isolation severs a person’s ties to their support networks. True rehabilitation focuses on reconciliation, helping individuals rebuild broken relationships with their families and communities so they have a safe network to return to.

3. Healing the Community

• Release day of a prisoner is often terrifying for both the inmate and society. An untreated, unsupported individual is cast back onto the streets with no money, no skills, and immense shame, making re-offending a matter of survival. Rehabilitation could ensure they return as healthy, safe neighbours and employable persons.
• A vast majority of inmates come from backgrounds of severe poverty, abuse, or systemic neglect, and many suffer from untreated substance addiction. Punishing an addiction or a mental health crisis does not cure it; rehabilitation addresses the underlying pain that caused the criminal behaviour in the first place

Policy Interventions

Sri Lanka implemented the Community Based Corrections Act, designed to redirect minor, non-violent offenders away from congested facilities and into community service frameworks to actively lower the risk of repeat offences. Furthermore, organizations like the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) routinely partner with local authorities to modernise the state’s rehabilitation systems

Established primarily under the Community Based Corrections Act No. 46 of 1999, this model addresses critical structural issues—such as historically high prison overcrowding rates and a lack of effective traditional penal infrastructure. The intent of this Act is to pave the way for eligible individuals to serve their sentence while remaining integrated with their families and employment, instead of traditional confinement. The program is actively deployed across 125 magistrate and circuit courts nationwide. Because individual cases are handled locally by regional correction offices, data is managed across fragmented jurisdictions rather than a centralized, real-time public dashboards.

While the Department of Community Based Corrections provides a human-centric alternative, implementation challenges persist. Local criminological studies note discrepancies between policy and practice due to underfunding, insufficient qualified and competent monitoring staff, and an ongoing lack of public acceptance. To overcome these issues, organizations like the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) actively fund capability-building workshops.

The policy framework says that the program targets low-level, non-violent offenders, particularly individuals facing minor drug charges or those who are unable to pay court-ordered fines. A court cannot unilaterally impose a community correction order and requires the offender to consent to the alternative arrangement in place of jail time. The policy also says that before issuing an order, magistrate courts must evaluate a detailed pre-sentence report reviewing the offender’s specific needs, background, family income, and employment capacity.

Judging by the number of alleged offenders amounting to 73% of the prison population, it appears that the gap between policy and practice is very wide and needs urgent attention from the government. Independent human rights and legal assessments, including submissions to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), report that the community corrections system remains significantly underutilised by the local judiciary. Magistrates continue to favour traditional fines or custodial remand over community-based correction orders, keeping the active participant numbers low relative to the prison population.

Looking at the operational aspect of the policy, it appears that implementation is somewhat complex and requires a substantial organisation capacity as offenders placed on a Community Based Correction Order must adhere to strict, highly structured rules monitored by dedicated correctional officers: The conditions include

• Convicts and or alleged offenders have to perform mandatory community service for public institutions or local centres during their free hours.
• Compulsory Rehabilitation: Offenders are required to attend tailored drug counselling, anger management, or mental health therapy programs based on their initial assessments.
• Requirement to pay financial compensation directly to the victims.

While these appear commendable conditions for rehabilitation, they will require expertise and funds for successful implementation. If implemented successfully, the program will greatly contribute to rehabilitation of alleged offenders as well as offenders.

A rehabilitation program compared with incarceration

Feature	Standard Prison Environment	Community-Based Corrections
Living Conditions	High overcrowding, shared cells, and limited sanitation resources.	Offender remains at home, avoiding negative peer influences from career criminals.
Socioeconomic Impact	Complete loss of income, heavy stigma, and severing of family ties.	Preserves employment, financial support for dependents, and family stability.
Primary Systemic Goal	High-security containment and physical isolation.	Direct behavioural rehabilitation, community restoration, and active resocialization.

As stated at the outset, the objective should be to look at alternatives to incarceration where possible, feasible and desirable. In the first instance, an immediate review of those in remand could potentially relieve the prisons from overcrowding to a significant degree. The Community Based Corrections Act No. 46 of 1999 could be reviewed, strengthened and implemented more effectively than at present. Secondly, rehabilitation from a human angle should be considered as it will have better chances of transforming the mental state of many individuals who could rejoin their families and society as productive, law abiding, kind and compassionate individuals.