Returning to the subject of prison, I’ve been hearing again in the media that most people in prison shouldn’t be there. This statement crops up so regularly that it almost takes on the status of a mantra. It’s usually followed by way of explanation by the comment “They are not violent or a danger to the public.” This, of course, begs the question as to what the purpose of punishment is, but that’s something I don’t want to get into right now.
I do think, though, that if we are to decide who should and who should not be in prison, it helps to start by identifying just who the prisoners are. I apologise here for not being able to say what percentage of prisoners fall into each of the categories, but I think the exercise is still useful.
Most obviously, since they are always referred to when saying the wrong people are in prison, those who have been convicted of the most violent offences, and those who represent a danger to the public form one group; a group that most people would agree should be there. Next, there is another large group whom it is generally agreed - by sentencers as well as the general public - should not be in prison. I refer to those whose offending is largely of a nuisance nature and arises out of mental health problems. Many years ago there was what was known as the mentally disordered offenders diversion scheme. It was an extremely helpful scheme which identified these people and, so long as their offence was not a serious one, referred them to the appropriate mental health services rather than bringing them to court. If occasionally such an individual did appear in court, we could stand the matter down whilst a member of the community mental health team was called to court to assess them, and they could still be diverted at that stage. Sadly, it long since fell victim to some cost-cutting exercise.
Then there are those prisoners who are in custody without having passed through the courts, terror suspects, failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants awaiting deportation. To these may be added a group of mainly female prisoners, the ‘drugs mules’ who have been intercepted at Immigration, convicted and sentenced to custodial sentences which they must serve here before being deported to their country of origin at the end of their sentence.
So who else are prisoners?
- Some offences are considered so serious in themselves that, even though they do not involve violence, society deems that only custody is appropriate. Two high profile cases of this kind in recent years would be Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitkin, convicted of perjury. Theft by an employee, particularly if large sums are involved, is another offence likely to attract custody because of the breach of trust involved. So, too, would fraud, forgery and the like. My guess is that this would account for a fairly small number of prisoners.
- Offences which would not normally attract custody, might be dealt with this way when committed by someone with a long history of such offences, who has not been dissuaded by other types of sentence.
- Next, we come to those people who will not comply with a sentence which requires their co-operation. This covers a whole range of offenders; those who persistently fail to pay their fines despite repeated court appearances to persuade them to do so; those who don’t turn up for their probation appointments, don’t do the unpaid work that the court has ordered, repeatedly go out during their hours of curfew, persist in driving when disqualified from doing so, repeatedly breach the requirements of an ASBO. Those, in other words, who seek to flout the court’s authority. Inevitably, the day will come when the court substitutes a sentence which does not require their co-operation.
- Finally, a similar group consists of people to whom bail is refused, or from whom it is withdrawn. Refusal occurs where the court finds that there are substantial grounds for believing that if given bail they will a) fail to attend court, or b) will commit further offences whilst on bail, or c) seek to interfere with witnesses, and where additionally the court is satisfied that these concerns cannot be dealt with by imposing conditions on the bail. Withdrawal occurs, where conditions have been imposed, but the person breaches one or more of those conditions.
- There are probably some other groups that I have overlooked, but they would not account for more than a small number of prisoners.
The question which those who argue that these people should not be in prison have to answer, it seems to me, is “How then would you dal with them?”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment