Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, is right in that we need to rethink the concept of imprisonment.
What comes out of his initiative is another matter. We will have to wait and see.
The decision to imprison people should be based on reason, scientific research and best practices, not on cost and not on the availability of spaces.
Letting people out early or not imprisoning them just because there is no money, all things being equal, is not acceptable. It is irresponsible and lazy. We do need to guard against this because there is always the risk that an initiative that indirectly means cutting prison places promotes that to become the end in itself, not out of the wellbeing of society or Law and Order, but of impatience or the need to exhibit results to coincide with the election cycle. I suspect five years is not a long time to produce measurable results in this field.
If the State begins to undermine what, in truth, is their prime directive, then it is undermining its reason for being, its sole legitimacy for raising taxes. That is not acceptable. We are now at risk of this happening.
What is certain is that imprisoning people for taking drugs or prostitution is absurd. Vast numbers of people could be removed from the criminal justice system by ending the criminalisation of these activities. If there is concern about drug takers, for example, then they should go directly to the rehabilitation stage. Locking a drug taker up in jail serves no rational purpose. Giving them a criminal record, likewise. If people really cared about prostitute welfare, they would focus on support facilities in the community, not lock them up, especially when many have dependent children.
The overriding aim of our criminal justice system (police, courts, prisons) is to enable citizens to go about their lawful business without let or hindrance. This should be implemented, primarily, by upholding the Rule of Law, which is about property rights, freedom of speech, of Association/Disassociation and, when within the system, presumption of innocence, habeas corpus and adversarial trial by a jury of one’s peers.
Imprisoning people is considered by many as a means to that end, not an end in itself. It is part of the deterrent effect. Prevention is better than cure. Cure is better than stabilising treatment. Prison is deterrent and punishment, a form of negative prevention, and a stabilising treatment via exclusion from society. Rehabilitation is cure and proactive future prevention. Good education is proactive future prevention and, as part of Rehabilitation, a cure.
The long term view then should be on ensuring we have a viable Educational system and a functioning rehabilitation service. The de facto monopoly of State education has not served us well and we have made our case to deal with this elsewhere.
Punishment and rehabilitation are two separate things and should require separate accommodation, different conditions and even institutions. There is no point trying to rehabilitate people who are living side by side with those newly convicted undergoing punishment. There is no point placing those beginning rehabilitation in with those who are well on the way to reform. What is essential to the whole purpose of the system is how those convicted will behave once released. This may, in some cases, mean fundamental habilitation. Common sense would then suggest that if the punishment makes habilitation or rehabilitation harder, then the form or even existence of punishment needs a review.
Rehabilitation in separate facilities need not be as secure as normal prisons and should free up resources for the rehabilitation process in general. If someone has poor impulse control, no sense of respect for themselves or others, until better mechanisms or therapies are found, we should not discard old approaches or suggestions out of hand based on some kind of prejudice. Consent by the individual is of course required – rehabilitation without consent could well be a form of inhumane treatment or torture. We also have to ensure that rehabilitation is not a Trojan Horse for political or social indoctrination.
When reforming the prison system, one also needs to look into the whole area of custody.
The threat of detention in a violent establishment while awaiting trial is a very powerful form of coercion at the disposal of the State and this coercion should be unacceptable to any civilised individual. Even after conviction, the potential, arbitrary actions of other inmates should not form part of any punishment, implied or otherwise.
Ensuring we are keeping like with like – first offenders, non-violent, violent, those on remand with no previous criminal convictions – should be seen as one way to stop the spread of criminality, improve the success of rehabilitation and protect the innocent. It might sound like I am treating criminality like a form of infection. I do not consider criminality as an infection, but it is common sense to isolate as far as practicable regardless of if it is even a meme or not. Many people commit crime because they are easily manipulated or influenced, so it makes sense to not make that situation worse.
The aim is the same – to enable those re-entering society to return being or become law-abiding, self-reliant, productive individuals as soon as possible. It might well be that a convict could go directly to forms of rehabilitation, though this needs to be used with caution and sensitivity in regards to any victims of the crime committed. The general deterrent effect should never be forgotten. Prisons should not be squalid, but housing people in conditions that are better than the living conditions some law abiding taxpayers or even the conditions of the convicts have come from could be seen as perverse, undoing disincentives to commit crime.
I do not condemn Kenneth Clarke’s announcement, but right now they are just words, at a time when budgets are being cut. We have justification and a duty to be sceptical.
2 comments:
Some very good points in here, especially:
- the illogic and injustice of releasing prisoners early due to overcrowding
- the lunacy of imprisoning people for prostitution and the consumption or sale of drugs
- the need to keep rehabilitation separate from punishment (Daniel Hannan also made this point recently)
- the good sense of keeping like with like (first offenders, non-violent, violent, those on remand with no previous criminal convictions)
- prisons should not be squalid, but nor should they be too comfortable
Personally, I think a stint in solitary confinement would be appropriate as part of the punishment phase.
I also think that some people should never be let back into mainstream society. I understand that Transportation worked quite well until the Australians (understandably) put a stop to it. Certain crimes should guarantee permanent exclusion from civilised society, but it seems both pragmatic and humane to give a measure of independence and self reliance to those who are permanently banished.
NEVERTHELESS, THE CIVIL LAW is and must be neutral about who has a more noble or rewarding faith. The breakaway parishes ought to win every Office 2010facet of the lawsuit not becauseMicrosoft Office 2010 their beliefs or their politics are better, Microsoft wordbut because both lawOffice 2007and equity, along with common sense, are on Microsoft Officetheir side.Microsoft Office 2007 Not only does Virginia state law (the Division Statute)Office 2007 keyexplicitly apply to just such a Office 2007 downloadsituation as now exists, but the history Office 2007 Professionalespecially of The Falls Church argues against the claims of Outlook 2010the Virginia Diocese with which theyMicrosoft outlookhave disassociated.Microsoft outlook 2010First, The Falls Church wasWindows 7 founded, formed, and developed long before the diocese, or the national Episcopal Church, even existed.
Post a Comment