The Strengths and Challenges Faced By Incarcerated Genocide Perpetrators: Supporting Reconciliation in Rwanda

Background:

Limited data exist concerning the strengths and challenges of incarcerated people in Rwanda following their participation in the 1994 genocide. Such understanding can help program and policy makers prepare génocidaires for successful re-entry into the communities where they previously killed, and ultimately support country-wide reconciliation processes. This mixed-methods study answers two questions: 1) What are the demographic (i.e. gender and age) and psychological correlates (i.e. family contact, anxiety, depression, somatization, hostility, and post-traumatic stress symptoms) associated with génocidaires’ readiness to reconcile? 2) What are the génocidaires’ plans, concerns, and expectations for re-entry?

Methods:

Drawn from three prisons, a total of 302 génocidaires participated in the survey and 75 participated in a structured interview. Over 80% of the participants were aged 45 years or older, over 60% were male, and the average length of sentence was 16.5 years. The survey consisted of 1) the Kellner Symptom Checklist determining physical, emotional and somatic symptoms over the previous two weeks; 2) the PTSD Civilian Checklist (PCL-C) examining post-traumatic stress symptoms experienced in the previous month; and 3) a Readiness to Reconcile scale assessing attitudes towards post-genocide forgiveness and reconciliation. An interview protocolexplored programmatic support received during incarceration, concerns about release, and hopes for the future among the génocidaires. Given literacy and eyesight difficulties, trained Rwandan trauma counselors read survey questions to participants and conducted interviews. Multiple regression models estimated the relationship between study variables and readiness to reconcile. Thematic analysis was conducted to analyze the interviews.

Results:

Survey resultsshow that being male, age, having family contact, higher anxiety, depression, and hostility were not predictive of higher reconciliation scores. Having ill health (p<.05), having a longer sentence (p<.05) and having a high PTSD score (p<.05) were all predictive of higher reconciliation scores. Notably, the PTSD scores among the participants are high, with just under 64% meeting the PTSD criteria.

Qualitative interviewresults indicate that participants plan to draw on supports from children, spouse, siblings, parents, neighbors and fellow inmates after being released, and the majority were planning to return back to the community where they were born and lived prior to the genocide.  Concerns about release included another conflict that leads to genocide, not being welcomed back by neighbors because they had yet to connect with the victim’s family, finding shelter as the génocidaires home was destroyed, finding work and avoiding poverty, and conflicts concerning land-sharing that had occurred during incarceration. Many génocidaires aspired to work alongside fellow Rwandans to help rebuild their country, and develop themselves and their family. While many felt it hard to plan for their release while incarcerated, they identified that money, support rebuilding houses, and advice would be most useful.

Conclusions:

As the post-genocide Rwandan society continues to nurture reconciliation, a comprehensive strategy is needed for the génocidaires who will soon return to the community. Study findings support the implementation of case management and trauma-informed services to incarcerated genocide perpetrators. Such services will bolster the progress already made through reconciliation efforts.