Government’s latest u-turn puts political goals ahead of effective jails

The coalition government’s considered approach to justice was welcomed by penal reformers, who considered it a once in a generation opportunity for change.

Jail

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”

  1. Ed's Talking Balls

    scandalousbill,

    I don’t know what a ‘troll’ is supposed to mean in this context. If it is someone who has a different view to yours, then I, like Anon E Mouse, take it as a compliment.

    I rarely agree with Labour policies but thankfully am not so tribal as to fail to recognise sense when I see it. Therefore, I actually agree with Labour on law and order and strongly disagree with Ken Clarke, other woolly Tories, the Lib Dems and, of course, The Howard League.

    The fact that the author of this piece so blithely referred to ‘a technocratic issue’ and ‘squabbling’ backs up Anon E Mouse’s view that a liberal attitude to law and order is held by those less likely to be affected by crime. And certainly, I would never joke about the possibility of a house being burgled four times in a month. I never want to be that person who is so detached from such a serious issue.

  2. scandalousbill

    Anon,

    A troll is what a troll does. Conjuring up the notion of a robbery every week, 4 times a month…., to attack the OP certainly is not a balanced debate on the facts or between different political positions.

    The OP specifically points to the futility of short term incarceration; the numbers you cite pertain to recidivism rates, i.e. re-offences committed after prison release. Not the same thing at all. On this point, the OP can claim agreement from such bodies as the Prison Governors Association (PGA) and NAPO (the Trade Union and Professional Association for Family Court and Probation Staff). Now unless you can convincingly maintain that these professional groups “know nothing about the real world”, it would seem that this position has gained traction with those entrusted with the management and administration of the penal system.

    The problem of recidivism is indeed serious. However, the linkage you, Old Politics and Eds Talking Balls make between re-offending and early release is spurious. Within the context of short term sentences, i.e. those under one year, is it really salient that re-offences occur in December as opposed to July? Is not the key problem the fact that re-offences occur, and at an increasing rate, the main issue?
    In fact, the reoffending rates of 70% could well indicate, within the context of your loving parroting of Michael Howard’s infamous statement, that Prison does not work all that well.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/04/jail-less-effective-community-service

    The solution proposed by Crispin Blunt in the article is ludicrous.

    “Reoffending rates among short-term prisoners remain unacceptably high. We will address this failure in the system by making prisons places of hard work which prepare offenders more effectively in the outside world.”

    I would argue a significant issue with recidivism is the reintegration of the released offender back into society. Incarcerating minor offenders, working them hard, and then placing back into the same situation from which they emerged, while satisfying a punitive desire to inflict punishment, and does nothing to correct the circumstances that lead to the original offence. You are equally likely to release a much more hardened and angry individual on the road to more serious offences. This is particularly true in the case of Youth Offenders, as even the Government has conceded in focusing upon aspects of social exclusion.

    http://enquire.hertscc.gov.uk/qol/2003/esocialexc03.pdf

    The fact that 71% of young offenders were not in work or education should focus our attention more on the need to address the more odious outcomes of social inequality, initiatives to prevent the creation of a lost generation, than “Prison Works” Chain gang-esque approach to inflict punishment which you seem to endorse.

  3. TIME Committee

    RT @leftfootfwd: UK Government's latest u-turn puts political goals ahead of effective jails http://t.co/mfi6RuR

  4. Anon E Mouse

    scandalousbill – No problem. Build more jails and bang them up for longer.

    I’m with Labour on this one – prison works and the government is wrong…

    (Having said that I wouldn’t put many groups in jail fraudsters for example pose no risk to the public so I’d hit them in the pocket and fine them so excessively they’d never do it again. Even the awful Geoffrey Archer should have lost his title and been financially squeezed until his pips squeeked…)

  5. scandalousbill

    Anon,

    You say:

    ” No problem. Build more jails and bang them up for longer.

    I’m with Labour on this one – prison works and the government is wrong…”

    But if “Prison works” as you say, why would you need to build more prisons? It seems to me that if that policy was successful you would need less and less prison space as the policy objectives are achieved and crime rates are reduced. Your words not only indicate that prisons are not working but a fundamental flaw and contradiction with your position.

Comments are closed.