Thanks to the Prison Reform Trust's 'Bromley Briefing' and my unblushing willingness to plagiarise, I offer you a few facts that may make you wonder if the use of imprisonment is quite rational:
7a. Cutting Crime?
Research by he Prime Ministers Strategy Unit claims that a 22% rise in the prison population has only reduced crime by some 5%.
7b. Abandoned
Only half of all women on Remand in prison receive visits from their family.
7c. Reform
97% of offenders expressed a desire to stop offending. The majority cited employment and housing as the key factors that could help them abandon crime.
7d. Children
Only 9% of children whose mothers are in prison are cared for by their fathers in their mother's absence.
7e. Phone Bills
Prisoners using the official payphones to call landlines are charged 9p a minute on weekdays and 8p per minute on weekends. Calling a mobile costs 20p per minute weekdays, 13p on weekends.
This is why we have a penchant for using illegal mobiles.
7f. WTF?
Nearly half of women in prison are sentenced for theft or handling stolen goods.
Does anybody ask the obvious question - is this imprisonment for non-violent crimes rational or reasonable?
In regard to the last one, the violence of a crime does not dictate how severe its consequences are. For example, the sale of counterfeit drugs is not a violent act, however, someone taking a non-effective drug can lead to their death, so such an action deserves a strong punishment. Equally, burglary is not violent. However, the violation of a persons home, somewhere they should be able to feel safe from the world, is extremely series. Both of these examples are non violent, and both are a great deal more serious than slapping someone. Both can be continued and would continue doing harm, so the sentence can be justified in that mammer.
ReplyDeleteTallguy, can the sentence always be justified, where children lose a mother to prison in many cases? Shouldn't we look a bit deeper into why these women have got involved in theft, and find more suitable restorative sentences? We need to break the generational cycle of crime; this will only happen if we can start tackling these issues radically differently.
ReplyDeletewell it doesn't seem to be a problem for children to lose their Father and why all the focus on women (some who are no doubt not even Mothers) when it ;ss fairly obvious the focus should be on men who are incarcerated at a far higher rate and are sentenced more harshly?
ReplyDeleteTallguy makes some very valid points. The sentence has to reflect the seriousness of the crime committed and in a lot of cases the examples which tallguy has provided are far more serious than many of the assaults (a violent offence) one sees in court on a regular basis.
ReplyDeleteJules, it is often the case that by the time these women are sent to prison they have committed a string of offences. It is, unless one commits a serious crime, very difficult to get sent to prison - especially when your record is still in single figures in terms of offences. The constant focus on woman is something which I despair at, surely the focus of society should be on why anyone commits crime and not just based on their gender (which is a random fact at birth).
The loss of a father to prison can be equally as damaging to many children as the loss of a mother would be. In some families the loss of a mother may be more damaging (probably because the father is absent most of the time anyway and the mother is the primary carer) and in other families the loss of both parents to prison may be more of a blessing than something which is damaging to the child.
Prison is about protecting the public. Violent offenders are only one dynamic of that. The public also need protecting from those who show a flagrant disregard for the rule of law by persistently offending. There are teenagers walking around with convictions well into the double figures who have probably never seen the inside of a prison other than to visit a mate or relative inside.
I am by no means a proponent of locking loads of people up, but sometimes it just gets to a point where everything else has failed and prison is the only alternative, even if it really only is to protect the public from a persistent offender.
The only reason I referred to women is that that is the topic of Ben's comment 7d and 7f. I'm well aware it's not a gender issue, I was addressing these particular points.
ReplyDeleteI can't agree that it is very difficult to be sent to prison unless one commits a serious crime, having personal experience to the contrary with someone I support. His crimes are petty theft, to feed his drug habit. I still maintain there are better ways of dealing with such people than just locking them up, thus causing even greater problems for them to deal with on release, such as relationship issues, homelessness, waiting for benefits to be sorted out (living on what in the meantime?). Addiction is an illness and should be treated as such, and mental illness of varying degrees is also a contributory factor in many cases.
Prison should not just be about protecting the public, it should be rehabilitating people or else prison is a waste of time and money if it just turns out people even more likely to re-offend than when they went in. As for teenagers, have you ever stopped to consider that it is the society they live in and the parenting they have received that has, in the large majority of cases, caused them to get involved in this offending behaviour? And as for the sad fact about them visiting relatives inside, this brings me back to my point about how prisoners' children are treated.
"I can't agree that it is very difficult to be sent to prison unless one commits a serious crime"
ReplyDeleteThat's not strictly speaking what I said, but rather what you thought I said. I've spent many an hour sitting in court rooms around the country and the reality is people have dozens of convictions before custody is even mentioned as an option, let alone actually handed down as a sentence. There has to come a point where, in order to protect the public from prolific offenders, that they are sent to prison. On one of my most recent trips to court someone was sent to prison after having no less than 103 separate convictions. This was the first custodial sentence given to them. They had been on every course, done every community sentence, had input from probation and social work, but yet they continued to CHOOSE to commit crime. In the end the Court had no choice but to send them to prison.
"is crimes are petty theft, to feed his drug habit."
I would struggle to believe that he was given a custodial sentence for simple "petty" theft having not first gone through all the alternatives to custody - drug rehab, probation, fines, cummunity service and so on. For a person to be given a custodial sentence for theft suggests a lengthy criminal record.
"I still maintain there are better ways of dealing with such people than just locking them up, thus causing even greater problems for them to deal with on release, such as relationship issues, homelessness, waiting for benefits to be sorted out (living on what in the meantime?)"
I agree that more has to be done for those who have been released from prison, but the fact that the post prison support is not there is not a reason to decide against sending people to prison.
"Prison should not just be about protecting the public, it should be rehabilitating people or else prison is a waste of time and money if it just turns out people even more likely to re-offend than when they went in."
rehabillitation is a worthy way in which to utilise the time a person is in prison, but in order for rehabilitation to work there must be a genuine desire on the part of the offender to rehabilitate. Too many people are being "rehabilitated" who have little or no intention of "going straight". Another recent example was an accused who was about to go back to prison for the sixth time in 3 years. He had undertaken qualifications in prison, he had a supportive family whose home he returned to each time (as put forward in mitigation). The prosecution pointed out to the Court his social enquiry report which stated he had admitted to the Social Worker that he enjoyed committing crime and wasn't going to stop.
"As for teenagers, have you ever stopped to consider that it is the society they live in and the parenting they have received that has, in the large majority of cases, caused them to get involved in this offending behaviour?"
Yes I have. However, that can only be an excuse for so long. At some point people, especially those over the age of 16, have to start taking responsibility for their own actions. We cannot continue making excuses for them for their whole life. When I'm in court and I hear mitigation on behalf of someone in their 40s who has a criminal record amounting to hundreds of offences that includes “they had a bad start in life” I begin to despair (not least because you can bet it’s been used each and every time they’ve been in court prior to that day). They’ve had plenty of opportunities to sort themselves out; they’ve simply refused.
The primary focus of prison is punishment (i.e. the depravation of liberty) followed closely by protection of the public. That is either protection from violent and dangerous individuals or protection from those who have what can only be described as a flagrant disregard for the rule of law.
Does anyone ever commit a crime in this country motivated only by selfishness, greed or hate?
ReplyDeleteWho hasn't committed a crime or sinned?
ReplyDeleteAlly, I know that nothing I could say would change your view, but please respect that I have worked with some of the most damaged young people in the country in a crisis residential unit, mentored young offenders, and support the young man I mentioned, for whom I am the nearest thing he has to family support. I do know that the reasons people offend are extremely complex, and it is not always just a case of being able to decide not to do so. How we are treated as a child has a huge impact on the adult we will turn out to be. People are not always able to 'sort themselves out' as you put it; they need compassion, patience, understanding and, dare I say, love. And I have seen these methods have results in young people.
ReplyDeleteJules,
ReplyDeleteI've lived in some of the toughest and roughest schemes in Glasgow where just about every family is broken in some significant way. Addictions were commonplace. The vast majority of people I went to school with have been inside at least once – most have been inside more than once and a couple are doing life.
Compassion, love, patience and understanding don’t mean that a person should escape the consequences of their actions. If they prolifically commit minor offences then in terms of punishment, deterrence and retribution a custodial sentence is the only option. The wider community need protected from these people until they decide to change the way they act in their communities. Those who abide by the law do not deserve to have their lives blighted those who decide to commit crime (and it is almost always a decision).
People do need to take responsibility for their own lives and actions. Yes, the state has a role to play as do charities and others, but ultimately unless a person decides to sort themselves out and go straight then no matter what anyone says or does things will not change. The decision has to come from the offender. Nobody can force a person to change their lives. Unless a person actually wants to do something about the reason they offend then things won’t change – that doesn’t mean we give up, but we do need to put more of a focus on those who do genuinely want to change rather than giving everything to those who don’t and almost nothing to those who do. There has to come a point where we stop excusing a person’s actions because of things that happened when they were younger.
Ally, I don't know what to reply to someone who has obviously got nothing left to learn in this life and has it all sewn up so perfectly. A prison sentence every year for the last 10 years has not helped my friend one iota, whereas my friendship and support is giving him a belief in himself and hope that one day he might 'break free', so my last word is that we will have to agree to disagree. No, my absolutley last word is that you need to be open to learn from the most unlikely people in your life, it is truly humbling.
ReplyDeleteJules,
ReplyDeleteThe primary focus of prison is not to help the offender! The primary focus of prison is punishment, followed by public protection, deterrence and finally rehabilitation. Simply because prison will not help an offender does not mean that a custodial sentence is not an appropriate disposal of a case. If you think that prison is about helping offenders then you have some learning to do.
Offering education and training in prison to those who wish to undertake such opportunities is a worthwhile way for them to spend the time they are in there, but it's not a magic cure. People have to want to change - that's a fact that is widely recognised.
I'm not going to be drawn into commenting on your friend's situation specifically as I know nothing about it. I write only in general terms. Far too often we forget about the victims of the crimes of offenders who go to prison and it becomes all about the offender. I'm certainly not a member of the "Offenders lose their rights when the commit a crime" brigade, but the focus has moved far too much in favour of the offender leaving the victim out of the picture.
Ally,
ReplyDelete"The primary focus of prison is not to help the offender! The primary focus of prison is punishment, followed by public protection, deterrence and finally rehabilitation."
Well quite. It strikes me that we have our priorities wrong there. Surely public protection should come first shouldn't it?
The problem is that public protection and punishment are usually mutually exclusive whereas rehabilitation, although it doesn't punish, does protect. So which do we value more? Revenge or reducing recidivism?
Ally, I've been a long time lurker here however the commonsense posts you make have urged me to respond and say that I agree with everything you say.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, of course one needs to hold the prison authorities to account with respect to what they do (on our behalf), however prisoners need to be held to account often for what they have done to be there in the first place.
Increase the prison population by 22% to reduce rape by 5%? sounds good to me, keep locking them up!
ReplyDelete7c: what a lovely big figure, an how heartwarming that so many of the offenders we pay around 40k a year to keep, have a DESIRE to stop re-offending!! Perhaps the question should have read "do you have to motivation and sheer drie to take the support offered to you, and do some of the legwork for yourself (because, let's face it, giving someone everything on a plate doesn't work, they need to take ownership of their own change process), go through some seriously shitty weeks/months/years ad come out the other side stronger, happier and less of a drain on society's resources?"
ReplyDeleteOr would you rather just keep committing petty crimes to fund your lifestyle, breaching conditional discharges, community order and suspended sentences, before trotting out the same old crap when you're next in court, that 'probation gave up on me, if you send me down I'll carry on offending, it won't work'. If that's the case, you do that mate, but don't come bitching and moaning into Court the next time you get caught, and make sure you pack an overnight bag!!!
I am not sure the order of priorities are the key point here. Punishment is pointless in itself unless it acts as a deterrent. But whilst people incorrectly believe that prisons are holiday camps this is diminished. And whilst rehabilitation is so limited and recidivism rates are so high, the will always be an incentive to keep prisoners inside for public protection...
ReplyDeleteUntil the public really understand the link between high crime rates and prison conditions it seems unlikely that there will be the political will to really achieve the 'rehabilitation revolution' that is needed.
Good post & interesting stats.
ReplyDeleteNot sure about the blanket suggestion that persistent offenders should escape prison as long as the offence is not violent. If they persist in taking the piss - then what?
Fair enough also to ask why and how they got like that - sure - much more needs to be done early on, especially with education.