The previous record of the offenders ~(lionised as brave political radicals by LC) shows that prisomn should come earlier ,be longer and be an austere expeince no-one would dream of repeating.
The problem now is the nice easy slither towards a custodial sentence via orders, court appearances,endless and expensive BS and with much feeling important all the way .
By the time prison comes it is a drug addled breeze with old mates
More tougher prison but above all EARLIER !! If we lose the tribe of handwringers that inhabit the long period between first offence and any punishment then so be it.

As you say, any effective strategy would require a long-term commitment of resources. These would have to go to communities that are highly vilified. A succesful strategy would make many lives better by improving people’s prospects and reducing crime, but can you imagine tomorrow’s Daily Mail headline if the millions of pounds necessary annually for years to come for this to work was announced today?

A succesful strategy would make many lives better by improving people’s prospects and reducing crime, but can you imagine tomorrow’s Daily Mail headline if the millions of pounds necessary annually for years to come for this to work was announced today?

Fuck the Daily Mail, you are never going to get the right-wing to commit to anything other than long, harsh prison sentencing – unless it involves beating convicts, or even executiing them.

The problem is with an illiberal wing of the Guardian reading class which chose to throw a collective hissy-fit the last time Clarke proposed reforms. They’d rather live in a fantasy world where New Labour isn’t commited to the Jack Straw school of retributive ‘justice’ than admit Clarke might, for pragmatic reasons, have reached conclusions the liberal left should have reached on principle.

Prison is massively counterproductive: its hugely expensive, it doesn’t reform, and it severs any positive link convicts might have had to lawful society, rendering them more alienated and more unemployable than before. It should be a last resort for people who pose a genuine menace to others. Otherwise community sentences and reintegration into society should be the preferred course.

“Citing evidence that three quarters of adults sentenced for riot-related offences came to court with a previous criminal history, he calls for ‘radical changes’ to refocus penal policy on rehabilitation, and create robust community sentences that command public support.”

The problem is that the evidence he cites, as a basis for everything that follows, is open to question.

It may well be that three-quarters of those charged have previous convictionsd, but the reason many have been charged is because a) they have been identified on the basis of fingerprints; b) they have been identified from CCTV coverage. Only people previously charged with offences have given fingerprints to the police, so this necessarily skews the percentages in favour of Clarke’s argument. Similarly, the police scanning the CCTV can, self-evidently, identify those they already know, and if we assume most will be known from previous run-ins with the police, this also skews the figures.

Add into this mix the fact that around 27% the adult population (18-45) has some kind of conviction anyway, and that in deprived areas that percentage will be higher anyway, and you don’t need to be too much of a statistician to work out that the whole ’3/4 of those charged are criminals, therefore our key problem is that there’s a ‘criminal class’ (Clarke’s words).

As it happens, I do think some of the thinking around rehabilitation is ok, though its outsourcing via the magic of social impact bonds and private providers is really open to question, given what we know about private providers skill at gaming the the necessary measurement systems (no room for full analysis here). Nevertheless, I’m wary of any solutions which start from a ‘the riots were solely criminal activity by an inured criminal class’ assumption. ‘Cos they weren’t.

2nd last para was incomplete – should have ended ‘is handy poitically, but not necessarily true’ or some such.

Aargh, should have said 27% of ‘adult male population’ has criminal record (source: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb401.pdf)

More haste, less speed -sorry to clog comments board

@1 – Oh, because shitty jail conditions in countries like Thailand stop…wait, no, they DON’T stop re-offending.

Never mind that a proper, early investment of money would stop the “nice easy slither”, before people get sucked into the cycle of prison. You’ll end up with higher crime and spending much, much more on prisons and jails, but that’s just fine with you, they’re poor and don’t count.

Clarke is not arguing for more effective rehabilitation for offenders. He is BLAMING HMPS and NPS for failing to stop reoffending as though it’s down to incompetent management or staffing and threatening to further privatise everything in sight.

In fact, reoffending may be related to some or all of the following:

- No jobs or very menial jobs available in prison
- Staff shortages reducing unlock time and thereby reducing productive time in prison / staff shortages causing discipline problems (has no one bothered to look at the cock ups with HMP Ford etc?)
- Prisoners serving stupidly short sentences / not serving any sentences in favour of pissing ridiculous non-custodial sentences like unpaid work.

And he wants more of this shit? More private firms, less staff, worse terms and conditions for staff meaning lesser quality staff who don’t see the service as a career.

I’m all for it rehabilitation, but there had better be a real shake up in how those offenders not consigned to prison are provided with housing and how that housing is supervised, as a way to make sure these people actually get up out of bed in the morning, clean themselves, eat and come to work. Not to mention get them home at an appropriate time, ensure they’re not spending whatever money they made in prison or get from their families isn’t being pissed away on drugs.

And when they are consigned to prison, rehabilitation requires top notch health, mental health, education and job services. These are precisely the areas that this shit-for-brains government has been attacking, and that’s before we even talk about the men and women who wear the service uniform.

@1:

Yeah. Let’s throw even more teenagers into prisons and show them that treating people like sh!t isn’t right – by treating them like sh!t.

I doubt if there’s any impirical research which has ever shown that you get people to behave better by behaving worse towards them.

Every prisoner is someone’s son or daughter, and has the right to be treated fairly, equitably and with the proper regard for their dignity. Unfortunately, almost every Home Secretary and Justice Secretary since Merlyn Rees has magnetised the needle of the public’s ‘moral compass’ so that it now reads permanently due Thoughtless Vengeance.

I had had high hopes of Clarke (one of the saner HSs of recent times, alongside Hurd), especially after reading the Breaking The Cycle Green Paper. Unfortunately, a combination of ‘events, dear boy, events’ and being undermined by his own colleagues means that much of what was of value in that Paper has already been ditched.

For all the undoubted benefits of rehabilitation, however, there is a bigger problem which hasn’t been widely considered; namely the immediate prejudice faced by ex-prisoners. This is not merely prejudice from the public at large; it has been estimated that some 60% of employers will not employ ex-cons under any circumstances whatsoever, so training prisoners in preparation for ‘the world of work’ would have little benefit for them, and would merely mean they would be even more frustrated at their lack of progress into said ‘world’ after their release.

Tying in with this is the second set of prejudices, which form part of the judicial system itself; namely the length of time someone has to wait before a conviction can be regarded as ‘spent’. Most sentences of under 30 months have to be declared for ten years after conviction. All sentences of 30 months or more are permanently unspendable. So, to give a recent example at hand, the lad who got six months for the bottles of water will be 33 before he no longer has to declare that one; and what I’m surprised we’re not already calling ‘The Facebook Two’ will always have to declare their convictions.

(In my submission to the MoJ on their Green Paper, I suggested a form of ‘time off for good behaviour’ whereby this period would be reduced proportionately for continued acceptable conduct).

These timescales have stood unchanged since the original Rehabilitation of Offenders Act from nearly forty years ago, despite the increases in overall sentence lengths since then. Unless they are reviewed, then getting a criminal conviction will increasingly become a life sentence of lousy prospects, so rendering any rehabilitation effectively meaningless.

When one also adds the growth in the number of exceptions to the above provisions, and to the rapid increase in the use of Criminal Record Bureau checks (which were, we were told, only to protect ‘the vulnerable’, but are now used routinely by prospective employers and voluntary organisations alike), we have made the notion of ‘paying your debt to society’ and then being allowed a fresh start into an impossible dream for most ex-cons. We have yet to reap the full consequences of this as a society, but rest assured that we will.

@ 9

Interesting thoughts, thank you. Personally, I’d go further on “spent” convictions. I reckon that, if we want rehabilitation to actually work, we need to make sure that ex-convicts have a full range of opportunities available to them – which they just won’t have if they have to declare previous crimes to potential employers. I’d like to see criminal records done away with entirely, and replaced with a register for those whose crimes show that they are a danger to vulnerable people (rapists and so on), which is accessible to employers recruiting for jobs where this may be relevant.

However much they may appear to have turned over a new leaf, you don’t want a rapist working with vulnerable people. But it probably is a good idea, in the long run, to let petty shoplifters work in shops. Better they should at least get the chance to redeem themselves and find lawful employment.

Ah good old “community service” allow me to raise a couple of points. Firstly what would they be doing? Picking up litter, cleaning off graffiti? What of those who are employed to do that who are now competing with a free service? Perhaps they could be elevated to ‘management’ level and be in charge of these groups.

Secondly what does this mean socially that this sort of job/work is being used as punishment? Again how does this reflect on those who are currently paid to do it?
Seriously would you ‘punish’ a group of convicted rioters by forcing them to work at the London Stock Exchange, as till operator at a supermarket, or runners at a film shoot?

I’m not saying I’m against the idea of rehabilitation and community service; just that it needs closer examination beyond the knee-jerk.

@ 11 FlipC

Your point about competing with and/or insulting people who work in these industries already is a good one. Problem is, the only way I can think of to ensure that community services responsibilities aren’t equivalent to existing jobs is to make convicts do pointless things that nobody would dream of actually paying for.

With good organisation, you could ensure that community service never stepped on the toes of workers: we employ people to clean the street, for example, but we certainly don’t clean EVERY street (look outside!). I agree that it would be tricky to ensure that this never led to job losses, though.

I’m less concerned about the offence issue. If people get offended that their job is also done by convicts, I think that we should first explain that the whole point is getting cons to do useful jobs, and, if that doesn’t work, politely say “Tough – it’s a good idea and we’re not going to shoot ourselves in the foot just because you’re in a sulk about it.”

@12 Chaise Guevara. You grasp my first point, but miss my second.

It’s not that the people whose jobs they’re doing would get offended as this being convict’s work, but the fact that socially this type of work is considered as that of being suitable for convicts as a form of punishment in the first place.

@ 13 FlipC

Well, isn’t it something of an assumption that the nature of the work is in itself supposed to be a punishment? We’re not talking about chain gangs here. Isn’t the punishment simply the fact that you are forced to work for no money? Insofar as the nature of the job is important, I always thought it was supposed to be a way of “giving back to the community” – cleaning the streets being a good example of this.

@11. FlipC: “Ah good old “community service” allow me to raise a couple of points. Firstly what would they be doing? Picking up litter, cleaning off graffiti?”

Provocative, thoughtful points, FlipC. I’d start off by analysing whether community service is punishment, rehabilitation or pay back, or a bit of all three. What is the sentence intended to achieve?

You mention that litter picking and graffiti cleaning are things that people are paid to do. They are also things that people do voluntarily — the crowd that clean up the canal near to my home make sure that they have a good time doing it. There is reward in the process as well as the result.

“Again how does this reflect on those who are currently paid to do it?”

That depends on how community service is presented. If litter picking in itself is intended and generally regarded as punishment, it is disrespectful to the people who are paid to clean our streets. If the exercise is about rehabilitation or pay back, the justice system has to be clear about intent.

—
Alas I suspect that community service has become a judicial sentence, part of the tariff, and that magistrates have stopped thinking about its original purposes.

The blogger Devil’s Kitchen told us about his experience a few months ago; http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2011/05/personal-note.html Adopting classic English understatement, he writes “I got sentenced to 80 hours Community Service; this bit I almost enjoyed…”. He adds that he would consider working in the charity shop voluntarily.

Remember also that community service is not cheap. The offender has to be found a place (charity shops are unlikely to take on somebody convicted of theft, for example) and be supervised. I reckon that we are kidding ourselves if we consider community service as pay back.

@14 – And the difference in being forced to work for no extra money (and usually for commercial companies) in “work placement” schemes is?

@12. Chaise Guevara: “Problem is, the only way I can think of to ensure that community services responsibilities aren’t equivalent to existing jobs is to make convicts do pointless things that nobody would dream of actually paying for.”

That was the reason why convicts were once sentenced to break rocks and dig ditches. Machines could do the job a lot more effectively, and the manual labour was pointless and onerous. For the minor offences that receive community sentences, a pointless but civilised alternative might be “school detention”; don’t play with your mobile phone, don’t talk, just sit there and look at the bare walls for six hours. After all, the basic punishment (and disciplinary problem) that imprisonment provides is boredom.

As I waffled earlier, I am coming round to the idea that community service is useful for rehabilitation and useless for punishment and pay back. In which case, it is important that genuine community service opportunities are available for those who might benefit.

“With good organisation, you could ensure that community service never stepped on the toes of workers…”

That is true and I would be surprised if it was not already the case.

Leon Wolfeson@16

And the difference in being forced to work for no extra money (and usually for commercial companies) in “work placement” schemes is?

Because it’s seen as neither punishment, rehabilitation, or payback. That, as Charlieman picked up on, was my point.