I’ve forgotten the term for when people say or do seemingly inconsequential things which reveal some deeper and more inconvenient truth. I’ve been struck by
three in criminal justice this week
Let’s start with the judge who gave an 83 year old man with prostate cancer a 14 month prison sentence for contempt of court arising from a
bitter divorce. Of its kind it was a serious offence. When I suggested on twitter that there must be a better alternative than prison, one lawyer
commented that the case involved “numerous, persistent, contumacious breaches of court orders, compounding a determined failure to engage with original proceedings. It can be a real problem in the family court”. Another said “Frankly I'm more sympathetic to most burglars I have met”.
Anyway it was a bit in the sentencing remarks that struck
me. “Nobody” the judge said “wants to see a man of that age going to prison
unless it is genuinely necessary.” Very
true. But isn’t there a troubling implication there that it might be okay for younger, fitter men to be locked up in the absence of a genuine necessity. Maybe I’m
reading too much into it, but the case strengthens the argument – recently made
by Oxford sentencing experts Julian Roberts and Lyndon Harris for a Penal Audit:
“a cross-party examination of the prison estate with a view to determining whether there is any consensus about the proportion of prisoners who could have been sentenced to a community-based sanction”.
The second giveaway, is the Justice Secretary’s evidence to the Justice Committee last week. In the course of questioning about the size the prison population- its not the metric on which he wants to be assessed-, David Gauke told MPs “clearly, if prison numbers were stable or falling, it would give us scope to deal with some maintenance issues". Because prison numbers didn’t rise as normal in the first two months of the year “it enables us to undertake repairs and so on”.
The second giveaway, is the Justice Secretary’s evidence to the Justice Committee last week. In the course of questioning about the size the prison population- its not the metric on which he wants to be assessed-, David Gauke told MPs “clearly, if prison numbers were stable or falling, it would give us scope to deal with some maintenance issues". Because prison numbers didn’t rise as normal in the first two months of the year “it enables us to undertake repairs and so on”.
Again, that sounds okay until you realise that
the minister is in effect admitting that the ability to provide acceptable living
conditions requires a fall in prison numbers- or a buffer in the system as he
put it. He is not talking about the space to apply a new lick of paint but
dealing with squalid cells without emergency call bells, and hundreds of broken
windows. As for meeting a key international norm observed by prison systems in many
much poorer countries- keeping remand and sentenced prisoners separately- we
are nowhere near in England and Wales.
The third revelation this week came on youth justice. The MOJ told the Justice Committee that the two new pilot secure schools they are building will offer a therapeutic environment where education, healthcare & physical activity are key; this will distinguish secure schools from current youth custody provision & its predecessors. Really? My initial response is that it's insane to set up these new centres at the same time as the local authorities are having to close some of their facilities for disturbed young people in communities throughout the country.
The third revelation this week came on youth justice. The MOJ told the Justice Committee that the two new pilot secure schools they are building will offer a therapeutic environment where education, healthcare & physical activity are key; this will distinguish secure schools from current youth custody provision & its predecessors. Really? My initial response is that it's insane to set up these new centres at the same time as the local authorities are having to close some of their facilities for disturbed young people in communities throughout the country.
Actually that’s exactly what Tony Blair said 25 years ago when Secure Training Centres were first proposed- though it didn't stop his government continuing the
insanity. Secure Children’s Homes are now seldom mentioned as part of the youth
custodial estate. They should be its cornerstone.
No comments:
Post a Comment