Humane Corrections: What More Can We Do?

 

Lots to learn at this week’s annual conference of the International Corrections and Prisons Association in Belgium- including for me that Anvers and Antwerp are one and the same place. 900 people from 70 countries exchanged knowledge, views and some at least colds in a lively, varied and well organised event.

I’m not sure that Humane Corrections: What more can we do? was the ideal theme for the US exhibitor looking to sell delegates electrical weapons (albeit low voltage) to prevent escapes and assaults. But the conference programme as a whole included many positive and thought provoking experiences from across the globe on how to use prisons less, organise them more compassionately and prevent people going back after release. 

Some of the most impressive involved efforts to overcome huge challenges of congestion and understaffing to improve healthcare and human rights compliance in Africa;  and to keep the system functioning in Ukraine where 11 prisons have been wholly or partly destroyed since the Russian invasion. There were some encouraging signs of innovation in richer and more stable countries too, despite the often populist and punitive political climates, (referred to by Belgium’s brand new Justice Minister in his opening remarks).

So what were my takeaways from the event?

On using prison as a last resort, we were reminded that the expansion of probation and similar services by no means guarantees a reduction in the use of prison; and that community corrections impose burdens on people subject to them which can often be underestimated. Innovative ways of getting legal aid to people in prison who might be eligible for release may be a more direct way to reduce overcrowding in low income countries.

As for prisons themselves, small scale detention houses for young people (in Germany) and adults in Belgium seek to provide a normal living experience for residents, achieving security through staff relationships, resolving conflicts by discussion and promoting community reintegration. Such a model is costly up front but not long term if it prevents recidivism. But do the residents need to be locked up at all? There’s much in common with a halfway house approach although applied at the start rather than the end of a sentence. Promoted by Rescaled, the movement  is well worth watching, not least for its focus on ecology and sustainability.

A similar philosophy lies behind the new Brussels prison at Haren which is trying to create a fairly open regime for a mainstream, non-selected and more difficult population. Small living units of 30 people, a softer approach through personal officers and giving prisoners the regime they can handle as soon as possible mark it out from the three prisons it has replaced.

In neighbouring Netherlands, efforts are underway to humanise even deeper forms of custody by reforming solitary confinement  on the back of  an independent study – an excellent example of open and transparent engagement with research. Impressive too are Dutch efforts to improve the quality of food for prisoners and extending opportunities for them to be involved in preparing it.

There was not such good news about how people come out of prison.  Questions were raised about the proper role of individual risk assessment in determining whether someone should be released early, notwithstanding its crucial role in deciding how best they should be managed once back in the community. Sadly, lack of suitable and stable accommodation all too often undermines successful reintegration efforts, not least in the UK. We can look forward to inspiration on this at next year’s event in Singapore, a global pioneer in second chance programmes involving a wide range of government, civil society and private sector partners.

Such organisations were reasonably well represented in Antwerp, with an impressive keynote from Penal Reform International setting the scene for the deliberations and important contributions from the ICRC, and from a US advocate promoting voting rights for prisoners. It was heartening to see UK NGO One Small Thing win the ICPA President’s award.

But to answer the Conference’s question, more can be done to give a voice to people who have themselves been in prison. Not just of course at an event like this where there was some but perhaps not enough. But in the development of policies, practices and oversight relating to people in conflict with the law.

 

Prison Capacity: Two Oddities

 

Lots of historical precedents for Alex Chalk’s policy manoeuvrings today. William Whitelaw introducing short sharp shock detention centres to offset more generous parole arrangements came to my mind.  And two oddities in Chalk's speech have stuck there.

First his totally false claim that the reason the prison population is nearly double the level it was three decades ago “is not principally because of the growth in the sentenced population”.

The Ministry of Justice wrote three years ago that “virtually all of the prison population increase since 1993 has been due to the increased number of prisoners sentenced to immediate custody.”

I’m genuinely puzzled why Chalk either doesn’t know this or if he does why he would wish to mislead Parliament about it. And why civil servants would allow him to say something which is factually untrue.

Second his wheeze on early release. He told MPs he’s decided to use the power in section 248 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to allow the Prison Service to move some less serious offenders out of prison on to licence up to 18 days before their automatic release date. This section allows the Secretary of State to release a fixed-term prisoner on licence if he is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist which justify the prisoner’s release on compassionate grounds. Explanatory notes say that the kind of exceptional circumstances are where the prisoner is suffering from a terminal illness.

I wonder if it’s even lawful to use the power in the way he now wants to.

Prison Places : Emergency Measures and Long Term Sustainability

 

I’m currently involved in work on a strategy to prevent and combat prison overcrowding. Its themes are familiar enough - keeping people out of prison through more diversion, less pre-trial detention, and better community based sanctions; encouraging shorter and more consistent sentences; and developing opportunities for safe and, where necessary supervised, early release.  

Yes, there’s a strand on developing the prison estate, but much more focus is on reducing demand for prison places than increasing their supply – and on the need for better planning and coordination across the criminal justice system.  

Needless to say the work is not in the UK but in Eastern Europe. But as England and Wales runs out of prison space, the strategy could be useful closer to home once it’s finalised next month.

None of the short- term options for the government here to deal with the crisis they face are palatable. The one announced so far- delaying sentencing people who have been on bail -must look the least bad and should produce an immediate impact on receptions in prison. If that happens, in some cases it might be possible for the Probation service to use the time to fashion a community based sentence that avoids the need for prison altogether.

What else could be done? About a thousand people a month enter prison serving sentences of six months or less. Suspending more short sentences could reduce demand in local prisons. But many short term prisoners have long histories of offending and have, for whatever reason, not responded well to community supervision.

One reason may be the parlous state of probation which, like the prison service to which it is nowadays organisationally yoked, is lacking staff, and performing poorly.  Electronic tagging too has failed to fulfil its potential and has faced some logistical problems.  Despite this, making yet more prisoners eligible for Home Detention Curfew at the end of their sentence could be on the cards.  

Freeing prisoners a few weeks early would certainly create headroom and Lord Chancellor Alex Chalk may have to announce it when he faces MPs on Monday. But he will be reluctant to reintroduce anything too much like Labour’s End of Custody Licence which from 2007-10 gave prisoners serving less than four years a further 18 days off the length of their sentence. The Conservatives said at the time the scheme  “risks public safety, sends the wrong message to criminals and further undermines confidence in sentencing”. But it freed up 1,200 much needed places.

Other countries use a range of measures to reduce prison pressures, most of which one can’t see working here. The Coronation in May would have been the time for an amnesty of some kind but I dare say it didn’t cross anyone’s mind. In 2012 Brazil gave prisoners the chance to cut their sentence by 48 days if they read 12 works of literature. But administering any schemes which directly reward individual prisoners with time off for work, education or rehabilitation can give rise to unfairness and take up staff time.

Norway used to allow certain prisoners to wait at home before starting to serve their sentence- the so called queuing system. Research found it allowed prisoners to prepare for their imprisonment, but they suffered uncertainty and powerlessness. Political pressure to end the queue led to the deal to rent space abroad which Chalk quoted in last week’s surprise announcement of a similar plan here.   

Whatever steps are taken to get through the immediate crisis, a more sustainable approach is surely needed for the future.

Labour’s answer in 2007 was the Sentencing Council which it hoped “would provide a more effective, integrated and transparent planning mechanism that reconciles prison capacity with criminal justice policy.” That role was effectively removed from its mandate, and it has done little to slow the seemingly inexorable process of sentence inflation. It needs to play a much more leading role in doing so.

Greater sustainability could also be achieved through Justice Reinvestment - a more devolved approach to the organisation and funding of prison and probation which incentivises local agencies and organisations to prevent crime and reduce demand for imprisonment.   The House of Commons Justice Select Committee produced an excellent report on it 2009 which argued that “the prison population could be safely capped at current levels and then reduced over a specified period to a safe and manageable level likely to be about two thirds of the current population.”

Whoever forms the next government should dust it off.

 

 

  

Unfree Movement of People

 

I’m not surprised by much in penal policy but today’s plan to rent prison space abroad is astonishing in many ways.

Politically, the headline “Foreign prison rental to ensure public protection”, appears to make safety contingent on the availability of cells overseas- an odd position for a tough on crime party which its opponents are bound to seize on.  

After all, the commitment is to “enter exploratory discussions with potential partner countries in Europe” about as far as you can get from a done deal. Necessary laws will be passed as soon as parliamentary time allows, usually code for some time /never.

Administratively, negotiating the arrangements will be fiendishly difficult. How will prisoners be chosen, whose laws will apply to their imprisonment, what systems of complaints and inspection will be in place?

If the scheme ever did get off the ground how would host state prisons ensure rehabilitation, prevent linguistic and cultural isolation, and enable contact to be maintained with families? And then there’s the costs.

It smacks of desperation born of planning delays for three proposed new prisons and an unwillingness to contemplate the kind of emergency early release programme which the last Labour government were forced to introduce in 2007. It marks a spectacular failure on the part of the Justice Ministry and arguably of the Sentencing Council whose original purpose was to help align supply and demand for prison places.

A few days after the Chief Inspector called for the closure of one in ten prisons in England and Wales, there will be wry smiles as Europeans read that Brits would be moved to their country’s jails only if they meet British standards. They’ll be asking if they have any poor enough to pass the test.