The coalition government’s considered approach to justice was welcomed by penal reformers, who considered it a once in a generation opportunity for change.
By Frances Crook, Director of The Howard League for Penal Reform
The coalition government’s considered approach to the challenges in the justice system was welcomed by penal reformers, who considered this a once in a generation opportunity to deliver real change.
Plans designed to reduce the prison population by 3,000 men, women and children and make better use of effective community sentences were a necessary change in direction. But unfortunately the government has gone into reverse, putting political goals ahead of effective jails.
The difference between cutting sentences by a third or a half for those who plead guilty early on is a technocratic issue that would have had little impact on prison numbers.
Rather than squabbling about a third or half of a sentence, we should admit that the real problem is in sending too many people – and the wrong people – to prison in the first instance, and we should push for more courageous sentencing that would keep people out of jail altogether.
More than 60,000 people enter the prison system each year on a short term sentence (pdf). Sent to prison for not paying the council tax for example, or for flouting the smoking ban, people are given their release forms along with their induction papers.
Howard League research published yesterday (pdf) shows that people actually prefer a short spell in prison to a community sentence as lying idle in a cell is the real ‘soft option’.
Community sentences can take years to complete, and are managed by a probation service stretched to the seams by the weight of numbers – even more than our prisons are. It means that in too many cases people get little support and fail to turn up: breaches of their sentence that then lead to prison. Why not, many think, simply take the hit and go to prison straight away and get it over with?
Consequently, Britain’s prisons are overcrowded and dangerous places for both prisoners and for staff. Budget cuts without cuts in the number of prisoners will put everyone at greater risk.
Last year 252 people died in prison, and many staff suffered violence at the hands of bitter and mentally ill prisoners. Long hours locked in fetid cells, idle and angry, leads to prisoners committing more crime on release.
This is still a precious opportunity for change, and the government’s green paper has been the subject of extensive consultation and debate. The government must stick to its guns and reform the system.
22 Responses to “Government’s latest u-turn puts political goals ahead of effective jails”
Ciaran Conaghan
Government's latest u-turn puts political goals ahead of effective jails: http://bit.ly/kD69pf writes @TheHowardLeague's Frances Crook
Anon E Mouse
Finally this government has woken up to the wishes of the public. I’ve been with Labour all along on this thing.
Prison works and this Howard League want to start employing people who come from sink estates and normal life instead of the university educated middle class backgrounds they all have.
Try having your house robbed 4 times in one month and you’ll see things differently but the workers at this league would know nothing about the real world. If the burglar was in prison he couldn’t rob people’s houses.
Simple as…
scandalousbill
Anon,
You say:
“Prison works and this Howard League want to start employing people who come from sink estates and normal life instead of the university educated middle class backgrounds they all have.
Try having your house robbed 4 times in one month and you’ll see things differently but the workers at this league would know nothing about the real world. If the burglar was in prison he couldn’t rob people’s houses”
You are confusing simplistic with “simple as”.
First of all your example cited is totally preposterous. A home robbed 4 times in one month must have the most efficient and forgiving insurance coverage known to man, not to mention phenomenally quick replacement provision. Your example is also interesting given that you have accused, derided and chastised others in previous postings with regard to presenting fabrications. It seems you are not so different from those you have called liars.
Secondly, the notion that if they are locked up you are safe pays no attention to the fact that unless you have blanket indeterminate sentencing, these people will get out eventually and there is much evidence to support the contention that they come out much more hardened in criminality than when they went in.
Thirdly your bellicose musings ignore certain principles of justice, such as having the punishment fit the crime.
It may also be useful for you,13 eastie and the other trolls to at least view the Howard League website before your ill considered bellyaching.
Anon E Mouse
scandalousbill – I have repeatedly asked this group to explain why my position is wrong with respect to the following statistic. Of the people let out early from jail under Labour…
16,334 of these offenders were serving sentences for violence against the person.
1,234 offenders were reported for alleged re-offending while on early release.
1,624 alleged offences were committed by offenders on early release.
125 offenders recalled for alleged re-offending or breaching the terms of their early release are still at large.
That means 1634 crimes were committed (at least) that wouldn’t have been committed had those criminals still been in prison.
Which just shows that I’m afraid to say you are wrong. I’m with Labour on this. Prison works.
And by the way the Gurnos Estate is in Merthyr Tydfil – the woman had no insurance and applied for 4 crisis loans in one month. She had nothing worth stealing. The loan money went into her arm or was smoked as crack and her children were taken off her. That situation is not unique and this group need to get real because working class people don’t need to be patronised by these bleeding heart liberals…
(And don’t call me a troll – I take it as a compliment on this site)
oldpolitics
“Oh and not so baseless: a quick google search produced”… someone who was sent to prison for owing the Government a 5-figure sum, imposed after they continually allowed the smoking ban to be regularly breached at premises under their control.
A bit different from the implication that people were being thrown in prison for lighting up.