Canberra's Alexander Maconochie Centre made history when it accepted its first prisoners almost 10 years ago in March, 2009.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
It was the first prison ever designed and built in this country to comply with human rights obligations.
This high ideal, which was wedded to a longstanding desire to ensure ACT offenders did their time close to family and support networks, was used to justify the significant $130 million development cost.
Canberrans also paid an ongoing premium for their ethically sound prison. Before the AMC opened the ACT government had been paying NSW Corrective Services about $250 a day each to house prisoners over the border.
By January 2010 the cost per day per inmate at the AMC was averaging $504. Human rights compliance did not come cheap.
These are just some of the reasons a review that has found the AMC is in danger of breaching the human rights of inmates and staff due to overcrowding is so alarming.
A lot of money, time and effort was put into making the centre the best it could be. It now appears as if it has turned out to be little or no better than anywhere else.
With prisoner numbers routinely exceeding 100 per cent of capacity, remandees are being placed in cells with convicted offenders and, as a result of "lock ins" relating to staffing issues, inmates can be stuck in their cells up to 23 hours a day.
"My brain turns on itself and becomes the source of my worst pain and torture," one male detainee told the review, conducted by Correctional Services inspector Neill McAllister.
Many of the problems being experienced at the AMC, which have a particular impact on women and detainees on remand, are potentially exacerbated by overcrowding; itself the result of a higher rate of incarceration than was anticipated more than a decade ago.
More people are being sent to the AMC than it was designed to hold. Once there, many seem to staying longer than had been expected.
While Mr McAllister chose not to make recommendations, arguing the ACT government knew the best way forward, it would seem logical to attack this problem on three fronts.
The first, which is reportedly already underway, is to review sentencing options in order to deal with offenders in a community setting. This would take pressure off the AMC on the one hand and result in better rehabilitative outcomes on the other.
The second, also being attacked with some vigour but less success, is dealing with the recidivists who make up part of the longterm jail population.
The third plank in improving the lot of the 500 or so inmates already in custody is more accommodation. While the measures the government announced last week may bring numbers down over time, they will have little immediate effect.
The AMC will never function in the way it was intended to while it is continually bursting at the seams, but there are no easy solutions.
Canberra began this journey with high hopes and the best of intentions. Having come this far it is important to stay the course.