Votes Count in Cutting Crime

With a general election charging towards us all at an alarming rate, behind the endless to and fro of Brexit games are other issues that we know will be debated and right in the middle of this is crime and punishment. We have had a foretaste of the level of that discussion and frankly it is not encouraging. The Home Secretary Ms Patel and PM Johnson tell us they want their police to inspire “terror” in criminals. So the 20,000 new recruits they say they will appoint are coming to wreak terror on those they suspect of breaking the law while Johnson creates 10,000 new prison places for those they catch. What does that say to the country?

The discussions on new prison places show they’re not intended to ease the appalling overcrowding and shocking conditions in which people languish but to lock more people up, demand longer sentences and allow for changes in parole and release on licence. We are apparently looking to build super prisons, giant structures which anyone with any thought can see will add existing problems of management to the outcomes seen in such edifices in the way the huge housing estates, constructed to solve housing shortages, replaced a housing crisis with a social crisis and in many areas are now being demolished. These super prisons will be in areas inaccessible for family visitors being out in the country because planning permission cannot be gained in built up areas due to resistance from residents and the police.

There had been sensible proposals in the recent past but they no longer seem a priority. The idea of scrapping sentences of less than 6 months seems to have flown out of the window with the change in Justice Secretary and Prisons’ Minister and all we have is sound and fury all aimed to get headlines in the tabloid press who use examples of serious criminal activities to imply these relate to the overwhelming majority of people locked up. The debate gets packaged up and presented as between the tough “law and order” advocates wanting more and stricter prisons with long sentences and the woolly liberal do gooders who want short sentences in holiday camp type facilities. This false proposition must be countered.

Anyone who has been in prison or knows anything about what goes on inside and, more importantly, what happens on release knows that those advocating better conditions with rehabilitation, training and even restorative justice schemes are arguing for this approach to get a genuine reduction in crime, not because they are softies. The oft repeated platitude that “prison works because you can’t rob people while you are behind bars” all too often ends with the newly released person drifting back into crime when they get out because they have limited options being homeless, jobless, feeling hopeless and having lost family, friends and indeed hope. Those arguing for education and training, addiction support and improved probation services know that such investment will slash reoffending which is far too high in Britain. And all opportunities must be taken to emphasise this. The choice is not between tough treatment and softy systems, but between failed policies and an approach which everyone who knows anything realises will work as it does in other countries.

There are examples of “good practice” promoted by the Prisons Service or individual establishments but I am unimpressed by them, even though they are first class for the small groups who participate, because they are not part of an overall joined up policy. I have seen superb catering schemes, sports, fitness, gardening and more but as they are isolated, they have a limited scope and are easily picked off through lack of resources. There must be a central policy that ensures all centres run meaningful projects and that all staff, not just specialists, are involved. There is already a lot of great work done by Education Departments, unappreciated; good officers are not supported and encouraged; staff training is inadequate.

Sensible proposals for affordable changes have been made by organisations such as the Prison Reform Trust including consistent staffing on wings so that prisoners know which officers will be on duty and when and improvements to complaint handling. These do not cost money, just a change in mind set. They would make a difference. And every effort must be made to retain quality and experienced officers and to involve them in training new ones. This does not happen enough. Invest in people and not just in buildings.

Poor administration and management leads to unfairness and that leads to tension and potential violence. Priority should quite rightly be given to prevention of drugs entering the prison system and to stopping violence by prisoners but it is clear that instead of seeking to get on top of these matters the shortages of staff and in particular lack of experienced staff leads to management day by day just hoping nothing goes wrong. Where there are too many lock downs it is resented as is refusal to allow access to libraries, a frequent complaint, which impairs personal development. There is the appalling lack of support given to those about to leave but with no fixed home to go to. A disgrace.

Then there is the absolute inhumanity of IPPs (Imprisonment for Public Protection). This is a sentence which has no fixed release date. Originally introduced by David Blunkett in 2003 these were a reaction to cases where serious violent and/or sexual offenders were being released at the end of their sentences only to reoffend and certainly to the distress of families of victims. Reading the press, and probably the minds of most politicians, you would think that those on IPP are dangerous serial criminals responsible for major harm to others, but this is not true. Too many judges turned short sentences for crimes such as robbery or drug dealing with a 5 year tariff into IPPs because they expressed concern at potential future action of the person sentenced. A parole board can overturn the IPP but have been reluctant to do so to protect themselves against press attacks for being soft on crime.

It is a cruel punishment that can no longer be imposed on new arrivals inside but is still carried by so many who were under this regime in 2012 when it was identified as effectively illegal under European Human Rights. It is ironic that the new Justice Secretary, Robert Buckland, was on the Parliamentary Committee that recommended their abolition but will not commit to scrapping them and replacing them with fixed tariffs which would have to, of course, match the crime committed and not any potential crime. IPPs are the sort of system anticipated by George Orwell in 1984. There are still thousands of people in prison who should have been released after maybe 5 years but have no hope of getting out. There can be no doubt that if you are in prison and you have a friend or colleague in there facing such a blatant unfairness it poisons the atmosphere for all. These should not have been introduced, even David Blunkett who was responsible agrees with this, and should have been scrapped completely 7 years ago when new IPPs were stopped.

So the debate must focus on failure of what we have compared to the clear benefits of what could be found as by abolishing short sentences we would drastically reduce overcrowding and also release resources leading to improved discipline and opportunities. Changes in rotas can give consistency in management. Good officers can be better rewarded and involved more in rehabilitation programmes which can be fully funded by the savings from reduction in the number of prisoners. Proper detox can take place and when people leave prison they can be kept off the streets and sent out with somewhere to stay and a renewed confidence and hope in their lives. Also improved ways to keep in touch with families and loved ones whilst inside is essential to keep families together so people leave to a stable home and a future. You do not build up a person in prison by severing their ties to what was good in their previous life. You destroy what is good in them and replace it with nothing.

We have the highest percentage of people in prison in the western world but the worst rate of reoffending. The two things are clearly linked. Scrap short sentences, free up space and resources, plough it into rehabilitation and stop blatant unfairness. This approach must be shown as a crime reduction strategy and not a soft option. Being locked up away from your lives and friends is the punishment. What then happens can be the redemption and path to a positive future. And that is self-evidently good for the sake of everyone in the community.