Founded 1980
Chair:
Secretary:
Treasurer:
Graham Smith
Jan Thompson
Graham Mumby-Croft
Home
SENTENCING POLICY: SOME OBSERVATIONS
It's been a while since I wrote anything for the Newsletter so here comes a contribution. Needless to say, I would
have no problem with rejection or with liberal - or otherwise - editing. I served at HMP Bedford for several years back in 1978 as Principal Hospital Officer and so was particularly interested in Francis McGilway’s piece on the history of this Prison found within the pages of our Autumn issue. His mention of Albert Pierrepoint’s comment in his book that, 'Capital punishment, in my view achieved nothing except revenge,' and the article by Paul Laxton on 'Prison is no Place for Old Men,' came together, in my mind, for having a strong connection. For the record I served 36 years in 12 different establishments and, again for the record, I enjoyed every day - well, most days - of it. I retired 23 years ago and, apart from the RPGA and the daily radio and TV news, I have all but lost all touch with the Service. From what I hear the Service has changed out of all recognition and not, certainly not, for the better: but, all the same, I still have opinions and it is these I would appreciate being able to share.
Let me start by quoting from Pauls' article when he says that there is very little evidence that prison is a very effective deterrent for sex offenders. I might add that other research shows that prison holds very little deterrence for the vast majority of offenders. If we agree that this is the case then there are two important reasons for incarcerating offenders: to protect the public and to provide retribution. Both are perfectly proper although the protection of the public lasts only as long as the prisoner remains a prisoner and retribution is about satisfying the victims of crime and society at large and is not about distracting offenders from re-offending. I have often thought that open prisons do nothing to protect the public in that prisoners remain there at their own will - by and large - and, also, by and large, they are not persuaded that further offending is not on their future agenda. Of course, this does not include most 'white collar criminals' nor most older first- time offenders whose imprisonment meant shame and often the collapse of relationships with family and friends. The fact they have been apprehended and then sent through the justice system is most often quite sufficient to make the point; the point that crime does not pay. These offenders are unlikely re-offenders.
Clearly, there has to be some persuasion against offending but I believe that prison is not the threat many in our society believe it is. Damage to reputation, the fracturing of relationships and friendships and loss of economic value have to be uppermost in the minds of most of us, whenever thoughts turn to making a few dishonest bucks. Of course, deterrents are rarely going to influence the perpetration of crimes of passion. When intense anger surfaces, nothing but nothing says, ‘Hang on there, you’re likely going to make matters worse’. Lash out first, pick up the tab later, is how it works. So if Prison is not the deterrent we imagine it to be, what does Society have to do to punish and deter whilst protecting itself?
Long-term sentences for serious offences, such as peddling drugs or serious physical and sexual abuse will always be appropriate, as clearly justice is done and society has protected itself. The issue of how we deal with low -key persistent offenders such as petty crimes of acquisition, drug charges and domestic violence without having recourse to prison requires we find an alternative to short-term imprisonment. The list of these options is long and all have been tested. We know that education and personal counselling of a specialist and caring nature has benefits, but these commodities are thin on the ground and expensive. In the race for resources, offenders will always lose out when set against child care, homelessness and genuine poverty. The case for spending a lot in order to save even more is one we often hear. Even though the case for this simple equation is often true, the seed -corn funds for projects to stay re-offending is just not available. We often hear that the UK is the fifth largest world economy and so it is, but it remains an economy on the edge where every penny counts. Further taxation will be counterproductive even when it means targeting the wealthy. Austerity is here to stay and funds to provide meaningful alternatives to imprisonment will remain elusive.
We should continue to (and I dislike this expression) ‘think outside the box.’ Imagination, leadership and effective management hold the solutions: but then none of these three attributes are readily brought to bear in our attempts to reduce short term imprisonment, no matter how much we may think outside our boxes.
So it is over to Society. Prison only has a limited function. We have the right to protect ourselves and victims rightly want justice. As attitudes change and Governments respond, we may yet find meaningful alternatives. In the meanwhile, hopefully, I’ve described the issue by providing my opinion. This is all I can do, all I ever set out to do. Like global warming, it is easy to demonstrate the problem; another matter to provide the solution.
JOHN RAMWELL
John Ramwell
