Sunny,

Could you point that out to your ridiculous candidate for First Minister in Scotland?

He, clearly, hasn’t got the message,

Some might suggest that Labour are only reacting to Ken Clarke’s more liberal pronouncements and this indicates no real change of principle at all. As soon as the Tories tack rightwards on this to garner panicky voters, Labour will do the same.

The headline is very nice, but this is all empty rhetoric. Sadiq Khan may ask [following your link]: “Ken Clarke, is already warning of a rise in crime, but where are his solutions?”

But when all he has to say is:

“We aim to create a criminal justice policy that is principled, puts victims at its centre and prioritises stopping criminals from committing crime.”

(Would any criminal justice policy be deliberately unprincipled? Would it ignore victims? Would it only ever be reactive?)

These clumsy words mean precisely nothing until Mr Khan outlines what he proposes to do – what his ‘solutions’ are.

A little bit more background over on Next Left in previewing Sadiq Khan’s speech tonight
http://www.nextleft.org/2011/03/labour-should-support-lower-prison.html

“In a break with New Labour’s hardline rhetoric, Khan is to argue that the party should declare a new policy aim of jailing fewer people.”

So I see Khan never wants to be elected again.

“Sadiq Khan has also written a comment piece arguing: A duty to the public must be to stop prisoners reoffending through successful rehabilitation. Although we reduced reoffending rates, they are still at almost 70%, so there’s still a lot more to do.”

That’s nice. In reality rehabilitation does not work. We cannot rehabilitate prisoners. And what is more, I think we should not try. Prisoners should not be punished for their thoughts and we should not try to violate the integrity of their personalities.

“We have to find a way to deal with the multiple mental health problems faced by over 70% of prisoners”

This figure is a lie. It is produced by adding all those prisoners who like a drink or some drug with those that have genuine mental health issues. The real figure is still high but it is probably closer to 12%.

“as well as dealing with the lack of skills and education of those in prison, so they can get a job, reconnect with family and find a home upon release. These three factors are essential in stopping reoffending.”

Yeah. Let’s see. We gave them a chance at twelve years of free education. They chose not to pay attention. Sure they have more time now and less to distract them, but why would anyone think we can make a dent in their lack of skills and education?

Nice spinning for Khan, Sunny, but he was asked repeatedly on Today whether he wanted to send fewer people to prison, and repeatedly declined to say so. The closest he came was saying that a cut in crime rates would reduce the number of people in prison – which is not in any way a “…more liberal prison policy”.

On Today he did say he wanted to see more intervention in prison – although he was vague on what this meant, despite being told point blank he was being “wooly”.

Even on prisoners with mental health issue, when asked if they should not go to prison, he dithered. Read his Guardian piece – he does not say such people shouldn’t go to prison, and offers no suggestion at all. He simply says “We have to find a way to deal with the multiple mental health problems faced by over 70% of prisoners…”, which is nice, and something I’m sure everyone agreed with before Khan opened his mouth.

He is – transparently, in my view – terrified of taking a lead for fear of being branded soft on crime, and totally without suggestions for what he would do. His only concrete statement is that cuts shouldn’t be made – which sits uneasily with his unavoidable acknowledgement that Labour’s approach had (at best) stalled.

And in that context, it’s interesting that he ignores one of Clarke’s key proposals: payment by results for non-governmental providers. Clarke hasn’t been reticent in taking a lead, to the ire of some Tory “right wingers” (read: social conservatives) who still stick to the idea that “prison works” without caveat.

I don’t expect better from Sadiq Khan, Sunny, but I do from you. This might be a good place for a critical friend to be pressing him for a genuinely liberal approach to law and order generally. I suspect that Labour chose the wrong man for that job, however!

It says much about New Labour that it got outflanked on liberal prison reform by the Conservatives.

Far from ‘unveiling’ a more liberal policy Khan seems to be spouting platitudes without any indication of how he intends to follow through. Those of us who regard reform as a priority need substance.

@ shatterface

It says much about New Labour that it got outflanked on liberal prison reform by the Conservatives.
Far from ‘unveiling’ a more liberal policy Khan seems to be spouting platitudes without any indication of how he intends to follow through. Those of us who regard reform as a priority need substance.

+1 and bears repeating.
What was the substance to Khan’s piece on CiF. How he can castigate fat Ken for not having solutions, when he himself proffers none, nor did any of Labour’s Home Secretaries/Justice ministers over the last decade plus utter any sentiments as liberal or progressive as the huh puppy wearer. Of course, Clarke could be talking completely insincerely, but new labour can’t claim clean hands in that respect.

Bah. The naysayers may naysay, but the point here is that Ken Clarke has shifted the prisons debate to the left (which, mysteriously, is also the side supported by evidence and sanity). And for all the dodgy things KC has done, this is an example of how he deserves respect – and the fact that Khan has decided to follow him rather than go down a crazy Blunket route is a good indication that Labour has learned from some of its follies.

Of course, Clarke could be talking completely insincerely, but new labour can’t claim clean hands in that respect.

I’m not sure Clarke is insincere, but will his proposals see sufficient support from his colleagues?

Good point ukliberty, but (and I can’t quite believe I’m saying this of a Tory) he’s at least talking talk that New labour singularly (and to their shame) shied away from when in power.

Ken Clark and Sadiq Khan should be praised for even drawing attention to the failings of the criminal justice system. Although anyone who wants to do anything about it will come up against the huge vested interests who have skin in the game of locking ever increasing numbers up. There is nothing that stands out more as a symbol of our failure as a society as the police and prisons. Yet, the politicians boast about how many more police we have employed and the additional prisons that they have built during their term in office. Bizarrely drawing attention to their own failings.

Lock the violent up and keep everyone else out of prison and close half of them down. It costs between £600-800 to lock someone up for a week. We could pay them 500 quid a week to stay out of trouble and we would still save money.

THat’s no thte way labourl ist see it, they say that Khan is acting tough on crime, yes teh popualtion went up abnd low and behold crime wnet down, similar new crimes were introudced Child grooming internet kid porn, human trafficking as such the prison popualtion should rise as the police were finally taking these things serious

9. john b – “The naysayers may naysay, but the point here is that Ken Clarke has shifted the prisons debate to the left (which, mysteriously, is also the side supported by evidence and sanity).2

The evidence suggests that whatever Ken wants, it will increase crime. Jailing people works. We have tried and tested this theory to death. All the evidence supports it. Letting them out does not.

12. Richard W – “Although anyone who wants to do anything about it will come up against the huge vested interests who have skin in the game of locking ever increasing numbers up.”

Not to mention the even larger number of people who have a vested interest in letting criminals out – judges, lawyers, policemen and so on.

“Lock the violent up and keep everyone else out of prison and close half of them down.”

What do you think we actually jail people for? To go in for the vast majority of people, you need to be a serious repeat offender. We could let all but the violent out and the prisons would still be full.

“It costs between £600-800 to lock someone up for a week. We could pay them 500 quid a week to stay out of trouble and we would still save money.”

It has obviously escaped your notice that we do pay them 500 quid a week, or thereabouts, in benefits and services. And of course they continue to break the law. We could pay them another 500 quid a week and there is no reason to think they would not continue to break the law. Crime is not a problem of poverty but of morals. They are scum. They need to be behind bars.

Jailing people works. We have tried and tested this theory to death. All the evidence supports it.

Erm, no. There is an enormous body of academic literature showing the opposite, and none supporting your belief. StuartHenry’s classic paper On the Effectiveness of Prison as Punishment is a good starting point. The consensus among people who actually devote their lives to researching correctional policy is *near-unanimously* that prison doesn’t work (a friend of mine has just finished her PhD in this area, so I’ve gained a fair understanding of how the research pans out).

Not to mention the even larger number of people who have a vested interest in letting criminals out – judges, lawyers, policemen and so on

That’s absolute genius. You think judges are deliberately soft on criminals so that they’ll do more crimes and therefore create job opportunities for judges? Is that what the voices are telling you…?

john b@ 15, I think you (and I) use a different meaning of “prison works” than SMFS.

What we mean is, does the measure prevent crime and reduce recidivism? What SMFS means is, does it prevent crime? Prison prevents crime while prisoners are locked up. But of course prisoners are one day let out. Perhaps SMFS doesn’t think any prisoner should ever be let out of prison.

15. john b – “Erm, no. There is an enormous body of academic literature showing the opposite, and none supporting your belief. StuartHenry’s classic paper On the Effectiveness of Prison as Punishment is a good starting point. The consensus among people who actually devote their lives to researching correctional policy is *near-unanimously* that prison doesn’t work”

Err, yes. Perhaps I should have added to that list bleeding heart academics with the judges. Let’s take this biased paper. Does he claim that prison does not work? He cites Charles Murray who establishes that when prison sentences are longer, crime goes down. And claims there may be no consensus and claims that there may be other factors. In other words he proves nothing except his own bias and shows your claim is wrong – there is not a consensus. He even admits that longer sentences may have played a role – “Clearly whether crime was reduced as a result of higher prison sentences or other factors is an open question, although the combination of factors probably had a significant impact.”

He also does not understand basic scientific methods. He claims that education is the best way to prevent crime. He points out “An Arizona Department of Adult Probation Study showed that probationers who received literacy training had 35% rearrest rate compared with a control group that had 46% rearrest, and those who received a GED had a rearrest rate of 24%”. Of course if he thought about it for two seconds he would realise he is not testing for education, but for those that complete their education. Getting your GED is hard. It needs commitment. Those who have already decided to go straight are the only ones likely to finish their GED. The others do not need it. So yes, education sorts out those determined not to commit crime from those who want to go on. There is nothing to suggest causation.

So I fail to see how this paper supports your prejudices at all.

16. john b – “That’s absolute genius. You think judges are deliberately soft on criminals so that they’ll do more crimes and therefore create job opportunities for judges? Is that what the voices are telling you…?”

Well more that they will create more jobs for their colleagues in Chambers. And I would prefer to think that their prejudices take them in a direction their financial interests lie. It would be a lot more of a struggle if lighter sentences cost them money.

17. ukliberty – “But of course prisoners are one day let out. Perhaps SMFS doesn’t think any prisoner should ever be let out of prison.”

Why should we let prisoners out? Suppose someone has committed three serious crimes. Three what used to be called felonies. Precisely why do they deserve any more chances? Why shouldn’t they die in prison?

Khaaan!

SMFS,

Why should we let prisoners out? Suppose someone has committed three serious crimes. Three what used to be called felonies. Precisely why do they deserve any more chances? Why shouldn’t they die in prison?

I’m wondering about the value in discussing this with someone who appears to think judges are soft on criminals to make more work for their mates in Chambers.

20. ukliberty – “I’m wondering about the value in discussing this with someone who appears to think judges are soft on criminals to make more work for their mates in Chambers.”

I object to that “appears”. I have no problem seeing why a private American prison company may have paid a judge to jail more youth offenders. Do you? Why is it that only profiting from political opinions you don’t like distort people’s decisions?

SMFS,

have no problem seeing why a private American prison company may have paid a judge to jail more youth offenders. Do you?

If the incentive is there, it seems inevitable that someone will go for it at some point.

Why is it that only profiting from political opinions you don’t like distort people’s decisions?

I hope you’re not attempting to mind-read because that’s not what I think at all.

I object to your characterisation, as I understand it, of “judges giving lenient sentences to benefit mates in Chambers” as happening as a matter of course rather than being a possibility or something that has happened as rarely as say the private prison in the US that bribed two judges.