An interesting interview, but two comments stand out: “Building more prisons was not the answer, he insisted. We did not have the resources” and “If prisoners were being held miles away from their communities it would be much harder to continue treating them for drug problems upon their release”.
Both are weak arguments, and show the sort of defeatist attitude that constantly undermines our judicial system. If prison sentences are being awarded, the assumption must be that they are justified. On that basis, who could argue that the building of more prisons would not require the provision of more rescources? Why assume then, that they couldn’t be provided? It would have been the Home Secretary’s problem, after all. As for drug treatment, why assume it couldn’t be made available wherever the ex-prisoner calls home? To see this as a difficulty shows just how poor are the management skills of those in control of national policy. Instead, we are expected to feel sorry for prisoners who find themselves far from their “communities”. Well, there’s a simple way of avoiding that, isn’t there?
Then there’s the old saw “We need punishment, but punishment that will reduce the likelihood of reoffending”, as if it’s some argument against prison sentences per se. Surely, re-offending is quite difficult when in prison? Pretty foolproof, I would have thought.
No doubt, working with clowns like Blunkett took the patience of a saint, and Lord Woolfe is no doubt a congenial and compassionate man. Given the leadership required of an effective Lord Chief Justice though, he strikes me as a somewhat timid character, entirely lacking the drive and imagination needed to get the system working for the benefit and protection of the public at large. I suggest that such failings have been proved by events.
Here is a link to a speech by Lord Woolf in 2001 in which he reviews his report on prisons "ten years on."
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publ...04/
31012001.htm
It would be possible to take issue with several of the statements in Joshua Rozenberg's article but the central thrust is that the politicians are the most to blame. With that I agree.
Given our party political system, it is completely naive to think that sentencing will somehow cease to be a political football. Even the distasteful Blunkett could reasonably argue that he acted in support of public opinion when he legislated about tariffs for murder.
Recent posts on this very blog have amply demonstrated the divergence of views which arise over what is the right sentence for particular offences and about what conditions in prison should be like. [See the 3 previous posts for the evidence!]. Some of the views expressed are poles apart from the views of Lord Woolf as expressed both in his prison report and judicially.
Whilst it may be a counsel of despair, I do not see the current mess being resolved in any satisfactory manner since the politicians have the major role in changing things.
The Telegraph article is not very clear about Lord Woolf's view about control orders. The control order regime is operated by SIAC with its own procedures (e.g. special advocates etc). The "Diplock Courts" in Northern Ireland tried actual criminal "scheduled" offences and they have now been phased out. I would not like to see Diplock type courts in use in England and Wales even for terrorist offences. Our ordinary trial process has proved its worth over centuries even in times of major war. The jury has also proved its worth in some recent terrorist trials in England. As it is, the skids are under the jury with this government and few (if any) goverments have made as many attempts to limit or remove the use of the jury. New Labour do not require assistance from Lord Woolf in this regard!
"I suggest that such failings have been proved by events."
What, "events" such as falling crime levels? Still, at least you've got a viewpoint; it's an ignorant viewpoint lifted from scaremongering tabloids and entirely at odds with real life, but it's a viewpoint.
john b:
Perhaps you are referring to recorded crime figures; if so, that’s touchingly naïve, but not very accurate. Or was it the British Crime Survey, known to have under-reported three million crimes last year? Given your clear dislike of facts, perhaps you found comfort in some other vacuous nonsense from the Home Office? Still, I’ll return the compliment - at least you've got a viewpoint. It's poorly informed and lacking any perception, based on unreliable data and entirely at odds with real life, but it's a viewpoint.
Uninformed points, off the cuff, no particular order.
So when the legislature react to a court room defeat with legislation that overcomes the reasons for the defeat is that a bad thing? As long as the legislature can be voted out, that's a democracy. Or does the Noble Lord Advocate Judgocracy? Courts are a check and balance, not the executive and they should be careful of usurping that function.
Yup, the government failed to build sufficient prisons ahead of time. Doesn't mean the idea of more and longer prison was wrong, just badly implemented.
Actually, in the real world, release back into home community is THE fast track back to drug addiction. How many smack heads have told me they left prison clean but were back in the bag within a week of coming home to their old lives and old friends? How often have probation officers and social workers told me the same story? In this particular area, Woolf comes over as a badly informed 1st year social work student.
As I have said in my own blog, after over 100 years of academic and practical searching for the magic key (or keys) to reform & rehabilitation, society has drawn a blank. Unless I have missed something, every approach from soft to hard ends up being evaluated as not very effective. Never say never, but in the absence of an effective "key" I say if society deserves a rest from them, lock them up.
Oh no, I'm ranting again
When did we try 'soft'? Must have missed that one, it's been various isotopes of 'hard' right down the line since I've been paying attention. Mind you, it's going to be hard to extoll the benefits when people can't grasp that when society spends money rehabilitating an offender, it's not doing it for the benefit of the selfish offender but for the benefit of society.
The point about falling crime is that crime damn well should be falling*, we've had an economic boom and the two are fairly clearly linked. If, despite that, the prison population has risen to a point where it's bumping along at 100%, what on earth's going to happen when the economy goes into reverse? In the light of this, the projected prison numbers that came out the other month were complete hogwash, since they're hardly going to predict the numbers on the basis that Mr. Darling's going to drive the economy off a cliff.
* certain crimes, anyway, in particular theft, but other crimes that occur when people have time on their hands obviously increase with unemployment and thus with recession.
ZedVictor - You say "Then there’s the old saw “We need punishment, but punishment that will reduce the likelihood of reoffending”, as if it’s some argument against prison sentences per se." I don't think Lord Woolf was arguing against prison sentences, far from it, I interpret his words as saying offenders should be locked up - but only when that really IS the best way of stopping re-offending.
The following is a difficult and unpalatable concept for those who believe Clink is the only appropriate punishment for every type of wrongdoing. If Joe Scrote is 80% likely to reoffend if he does not respond to his community sentence, but 90% likely to reoffend after prison, does it not make sense to exhaust the possibilities offered by non-custodial sentences?
Of course Joe cannot offend whilst he is banged up, but the fact is that most offending is relatively low-level and does not itself attract lengthy sentences (sentences, let's not forget, decreed by Parliament). That's why 95% of criminal matters are dealt with by magistrates with limited sentencing powers. So Joe isn't going to be taken off the streets for more than 6 months at a time, which is why rehabilitation ought to be tried.
The alternatives are to increase sentences for low-level offending (2 years for shoplifting razorblades and bacon, anyone?) or adopt the USA's "three strikes and you're out" approach. Either way, it would make the current explosion in the prison population look like a minor blip. And if you look across the pond to the US, their draconian prison sentences do not seem to have done much to reduce the level of crime.
Again, in my simple way, I thought there was a cycle at Magistrates Court. They give the persistent criminal 2 or 3 goes with a "walk out" type sentence with a rehabilitation flavour. If this works, then hooray but if the criminal comes back then its a short cutodial. This then resets the system to a few more goes at non-custodial and so on until drugs rehab or overdose.
Is this about right? Its what I see happening but I may have the underlying thought processes wrong
Nice one Nightjack.
Thats exactly how it works. On an increasing basis, however, as a Programmes Manager for Probation, I come across people who really should be in jail for the stuff the've done and benches have simply capitulated in the face of really snidey defence solicitors and (of course) crowded prisons.
Problam is, of course, they don't (yet) do enough with these people when the've got them bolted down.
BTW......Isn't Joshua Rozenberg the guy married to Melanie Phillips, one of the swivel-eyed anti-palestinian, zionist, lobby-loons writing for the Daily Mail ?
Nice Guy I spect !
JVIP
In my neck of the woods (or at least in the court when I'm sitting) if Joe Scrote has already attracted a custodial sentence for a particular pattern of offending, we will usually not retreat back down the sentencing range when faced with fresh, similar offences committed not long after release.
You will see there are several variables in there: "usually" - because people's circumstances, and their reasons for offending, change; "similar offences" - it is not always appropriate to bang someone up for different offences where a different type of intervention might (sorry to bore the Daily Mail brigade here) break the cycle; "not long after release" - if someone has kept out of trouble for some years (yes it does happen) it might not be in society's best interest to stick them straight back inside because they had custodial sentences X years before.
Complicated, isn't it? That's why sentencing is done by human beings and not according to a computer program.
What is complicated about it? Any half competent programmer could come up with a computer program that would cover practically all eventualities, and I am sure that should our Robo Legum Magister arrive at a point outside its programming, it would be so designed as to summon a human juror.
The concept certainly has an appealing simplicty......
@Oi: the computer magistrate concept has already been tried in China: http://www.theregister.co.uk/200...ncing_software/
West Country JP: you say "If Joe Scrote is 80% likely to reoffend if he does not respond to his community sentence, but 90% likely to reoffend after prison, does it not make sense to exhaust the possibilities offered by non-custodial sentences?"
Why do you think any individual would be less likely to reoffend after a community sentence?
What effect would a community sentence have on him that a custodial one wouldn't?
I can appreciate this bit.....
Zichuan District Court chief judge, Wang Hongmei, added: "The software can avoid abuse of discretionary power of judges as a result of corruption or insufficient training."
Not that I believe British jurors are corrupt or untraind, but a few do have biases!
I would be interested in hearing more of this program. The article is very brief.
WCJP makes sense to me, irrespective of the rights or wrongs of his re-offending statistics. In particular, his point about the majority of offending being low level.
We are in a double-bind here. Anything more than a token prison sentence is ruled out for all but really quite serious offences, because that is the law as it stands. Short prison sentences do nothing except allow the offender to boast to his mates for a few months, learn how to do it better next time and cost us a lot of money for a few weeks off the streets. No prison sentence less than 2 years allows for much in the way of rehabilitation or education (average prisoner reading age somewhere around 9-10 years I believe), so, should we change the law so that the minimum tariff for any crime is 2-3 years? I don't see it happening - would you want 2-3 years for all the minor offending for which magistrates courts currently imprison people?
I believe the only way forward is to properly fund community sentences to prioritise rehabilitation and crime reduction in a more effective way. It costs about £40,000 pa to keep someone in jail and about £1,000 per community order, so there's plenty of room to get a better balance.
Actually, I wouldn't entirely surprise me if the magistrates courts lost their power to imprison in the fairly near future anyway - see Jack Straw's recent statements about short prison sentences. Trouble is, the Probation Service can't cope now and is scheduled for a further reduction in spending next year.
We will not get out of this situation until the 'majority' public voice accepts that there are alternatives to locking them all up and throwing away the key, or the government starts thinking strategically and stops listening to the redtops!
Quite right, Harry. Custodial punishment has been bollocksed up by politicians, not judges and magistrates. But I have to disagree with Harry when he says that sentencing across all offences is "ratcheted up" by the increase in the minimum sentence of the most serious offence. Surely each crime deserves its own punishment per se? What is the benefit of evaluating the punishment for each crime according to the general landscape of sentencing for criminal offences? Now I think about it, luxuries such as these considerations must have been dumped long ago by judges and politicians alike, consciously or otherwise: it's the only explanation for the absence of significant fluctuations in the prison population in recent years relative to demographic and social changes over a similar period.
NerdFJ - If Mr Scrote is given appropriate programmes to help him overcome whatever it is that causes the offending (eg: anger management; drug rehab; drink rehab etc) AND responds to them, it stands to reason he will be less likely to reoffend.
As JPs can only sentence to 6 months in gaol (maximum for one offence, though we can give 2 x 6 months in some circumstances) and this is automatically halved under the current rules, it doesn't give much (any?) scope for Joe to respond to treatment in prison (if any is offered); but as we can give community orders for up to 3 years and suspend sentences for up to 2, that gives us rather more scope for action.
Incidentally, it is likely that Jack Straw will remove our (only recently returned) power to give suspended sentences.
As for the Chinese computer program: given that the types of offences include "murder, rape, robbery and state security offences" I guess the program is quite simple as it has only one option - Guilty = Death penalty.
JVIP - your snide antisemitic attack on Joshua Rosenberg and his wife is as abhorent to me as any racist defendant I have ever had to sentence.
Amag,
I read all of the comments on here and I won't have racist stuff. I didn't think the comment was anti-semitic, so it stayed in. I always read articles by Rozenberg (I have even met him and discussed JP matters) and I always read Phillips, although I often disagree with her. She is robust and opinionated, and her sympathies are clear.
I can live with that.
@ ZedVictor - OK then, show me your stats that crime isn't falling. Oh, you can't, because there aren't any. Funny, that...
(digressionally, Rozenberg has always struck me as an extremely civilised, decent and amiable chap, whereas Phillips has always struck me as an insane harpy. I'd love to know how their marriage works...)
Sorry BS, On this unpleasant comment I don't agree with you. And I know this is off topic but nevertheless important. The Jewish community is constantly under attack from the 'liberal left' who consider this type of trendy subtle criticism somehow more acceptable than just coming out and saying what they REALLY mean. And please dont try and justify it on the basis that 'we are OK with Jews - its just Zionism we abhor -' I am sorry - when Jewish cemetaries are desecrated and Jewish kids attacked in the street for wearing symbols of their faith this 'fine distiction' doesn't seem to matter to the perpetrators - one is directly associated with the other. And the constant drip feed of such comments as posted by someone whom I had understood from their previous posts to be within the Probation Service disgusted me.
West Country JP: Sorry, I still don't follow your chain of reasoning.
You say that IF Mr Scrote is given appropriate programmes... AND IF he responds to them... he will be less likely to reoffend.
Yes, absolutely. But there are two IFs there. One of which is trivial, and one very big.
For the first one, you've mentioned nothing that couldn't be done in jail.
The second one is in Mr Scrote's hands. And where's the reason for him to change? If he's happy living on benefits and crime, and doing whatever he wants, surely he'll be almost as happy doing the same but with a few hours a week on these courses. Considerably happier than if he were behind bars and having to work. Where's the incentive?
For any of these interventions, delivered in the community, to 'work' in the sense that Mr Scote can be left unsupervised and will volutarily refrain from reoffending, then Mr Scote has to want to change. Experience suggests that, whether delivered in the community or in jail, they generally don't 'work' in that sense.
(There's a small bias, based on apples-and-oranges comparisons, that suggests a slight advantage for community over custodial, but the statistics don't support the weight usually put on them.)
OK, I take your point that on a communtity programme rather than jail you've got three years rather than three months to work with him. But do those things *really* go on for three months or more? and, if so, why couldn't they continue after release?
(I think maybe you're assuming knowledge that I don't have about how these courses work. Are there any links you could point me to?)
I'm still not seeing anyone show an improvement in outcome from a community sentence, that would be big enough to justify sacrificing the reduction in crime experienced by the community while Mr Scrote's inside for three months. Leaving him at large sacrifices the 'respite' benefits outlined by Nightjack and Blind Beak. I'd only feel comfortable sacrificing those benefits if there were to be a clear benefit in exchange, and I haven't seen a case made that it exists.
Re suspended sentences- I knew that power had been taken away, I wasn't aware that it had been recently returned so as to be able to be taken away again. This is crazy. A suspended sentence is such a good thing- deterrent to further offending, but allows the offender who wishes to reform to get on with his life. I presume the re-scrapping of it is another panic measure to get round the entirely predictable prison overcrowding crisis. I'm shaking my head sadly as I type this. When will the Government ever learn?
The notion that drug offenders don't do drugs in prison is ludicrous. Prison is one of the best places to get drugs nowadays.
Commenting by HaloScan
