Response to: ‘Prison With A Purpose: Our Sentencing And

Rehabilitation Revolution To Break The Cycle Of Crime’

Security Agenda, Policy Green paper No.4

The prison reform proposal put forward by Kenneth Clarke on 7th December 2010
provides a major revision of the criminal justice system. The proposal seeks to
create ‘prisons with a purpose’ by way of a ‘rehabilitation revolution’ attempting to
break the cycle of re-offending, thus reducing crime rates and producing a
solution to the problem of overcrowding in prisons.

On the whole, we are in favour of this reform proposal as it aligns itself with core
principles of universal human rights, whereby prisoners are treated with dignity
and humanity. The proposal attempts to revolutionise the way that prisoners are
perceived by the British public, emphasizing that offenders are human beings
who have the ability to change. The socio-economic circumstances of prisoners
are taken into consideration by the proposal, which recognises that in order to
break the cycle of recidivism, extra support is needed upon discharge from prison
so that former prisoners have the ability to be resettled into society and to find
work.

Although we are in favour of the reform proposal, we put forward the following
comments for consideration and wish to raise certain issues below which may
require further exploration.

Punishment & payback

In theory, we support the suggestion that direct reparation should be paid to the
victims of criminal activity. We are also in favour of offenders being given work
duties that are appropriate to their employment history and capabilities. Using
prisoners for labour on community projects has the additional benefit of reducing
the burden on taxpayers, provided that it is done in an effective and intelligent
way.

Determining the most effective form of reparation for the victim of a crime is not
always a straightforward task. Reparation by monetary means will not
necessarily be the wisest option in certain circumstances. For example, if an
offender has committed a crime against members of their own family, such as
domestic violence; how can it be ensured that upon release they will not
pressurise these family members to return the reparation money? Furthermore,
many former offenders simply do not have the means to pay reparations.

Rehabilitating offenders to reduce crime

We are in favour of the proposed measures to rehabilitate offenders and agree

that they should be required to tackle the problems which were the root causes of
their offending actions/omissions.

We are concerned that however successful rehabilitation may be, offenders will
still face significant challenges. Upon release they are likely to face substantial
obstacles in relation to their reintegration into society due to the nature of barriers
such as CRB checking. How can social attitudes towards ex-offenders be
amended so that they are able to properly enter the work force and not be faced
with the embarrassment, rejection and discrimination which comes with their
past? This is perhaps a topic that is beyond the scope of the reform proposals,
but is certainly worthy of further exploration before the proposals are adopted.

Reforming sentencing

Human rights are concerned with the rule of law, where just law must be applied
consistently, impartially and with just procedure. Prison sentences should be an
accurate reflection of these values. Therefore, early release – having been a
recent short-term solution to the problem of prison overcrowding - has
undermined these values. The new minimum-maximum sentence period offers a
realistic framework whereby prisoners are incarcerated in accordance with a
framework provided by the sentencing court.

Human rights are interlinked with responsibilities. The system of ‘earned release’
not only means that prisoners are able to better themselves whilst incarcerated
by learning new skills, and completing specified steps; but through this system
they are also encouraged to personally adopt responsibility for the fulfilment of
these targets. This improves the public view of prisons by becoming “places of
education, hard work, rehabilitation and restoration”(p.46). The only caveat we
would add to this endorsement is that it will not be effective unless sufficient
resources are expended in order to ensure that prisoners have opportunities to
learn appropriate skills and knowledge while in prison.
It should also be considered that offenders are individuals with different learning
rates. Learning difficulties unknown to offenders or prison guards may create
problems when attempting to ‘earn release’ if they are required to learn certain
skills.

The proposal indicates that prison governors are to be given the responsibility to
decide who has earned the right to be released, claiming that these decisions
should be seen to be fair. It is also explained that in order to ensure this, parole
boards will be formalised. ‘Fairness’ is difficult to measure and its level in these
decisions should be unanimous. Measures need to be taken in order to ensure
consistency. We are in favour of parole boards being modelling on public
protection courts.

Working with communities to reduce crime

We are in favour of local people, voluntary and community sector providers

playing a more central role in criminal justice. We agree that the prison system
needs to be decentralized - which involves opening smaller clusters of local
prisons - as opposed to having prisoners retained in large over-populated sites or
out of date Victorian jails. The new proposal suggests that each prison or cluster
of prisons might contain different types of unit. As explained in the proposal,
offenders should be sent to their nearest local prison. This allows their reparation
and rehabilitation to take part in their local community.

We also believe that this is an important issue for women prisoners. Although
there are fewer female offenders, meaning that there are less female prisons,
provisions must be made so that where it is important for their family life; women
need to be incarcerated in close proximity to their family. In cases where female
prisoners are sent a considerable distance from their home and family this can
cause a considerable amount of distress, especially in cases where they are the
primary carer of the family.

Prepared by Zara Kletz, Fellow at René Cassin.