Prisons

Recent articles in the press have focused a lot on prisons. Firstly, the mother of Charlie Gilmour (son of Pink Floyd guitarist caught swinging from the cenotaph and attacking a Royal Convoy) has been outspoken in the criticism of his sentence. Secondly, the former labour MP Jim Devine has just been released (looking much better for it) prompting an article by Jonathan Aitken on adjusting to post-prison life. Looking further into the past, there was the controversy caused by Ken Clarke when discussing sentencing reforms.

Prisons are something I have always been curious about. Part of me has always wondered if I would survive being locked up (that said, I don't intend to find out). Ever since I can remember, I have had strong views on the subject of punishment and how it should be used. Consequently, when the opportunity for I prison tour arose as part of my legal studies I took it. Let me say from the off; they are not nice places. The cells would be cramped for one person, they house two. There is no privacy. Curtains meant for the purpose have almost invariably been torn down in failed suicide attempts. Doors always being shut means it smells. Inmates are locked up for most of the day (up to 23 hours) with meals being eaten inside the cells. Concrete and bare surfaces dominate. The atmosphere is electric. Although I never once felt directly at risk during the visit I got the impression I was in a tinder box awaiting a spark. Anybody who compares prison to a hotel is very much mistaken.

That said, there are some aspects of prison life that do leave themselves open to question. The food allowance per inmate is greater than the food allowance for soldiers on the front line. They have free access to a fully-stocked gymn with fitness instructors. Television is provided as a matter of routine with it only being removed in special circumstances (whether there is anything worth watching is a subject for lengthier discussion). Working or undertaking learning in the prison environment - as far as I can tell - is optional however inmates are allocated allowances based on behaviour ranging from £5 per week to up to £50 per week which can either be saved, used in the prison tuck shop or spent on items such as games consoles. Staff are also forced to bend over backwards for inmates who know how to play the system. This seems a shame since the attitude of the staff I spoke to was exemplary. Their view was that the loss of liberty was the punishment and they were there to keep things running smoothly and ensure everyone was safe. The respect they showed for inmates was genuine and not dictated by a government directive and, in my view, is an extremely healthy part of the system. By treating people as people and not commodities, they will hopefully engender some self-respect and the desire to change.

I believe prison has three goals: punishment, public protection and rehabilitation. They seem obvious but it's worth stating anyway. The problem arises in the way that these are administered. To start with, I think short sentences are counter-productive. I have no access to official statistics but I know from anecdotal experience of working in a criminal defence law firm that individuals can be imprisoned repeatedly for short periods. These sentences are usually for similar offences and upon release, similar behaviour usually starts again. I believe that short sentences are not sufficiently harsh to act as a deterrent (more an occupational hazard to quote the title sequences of "Porridge") to the offender or others. Furthermore, short sentences do not give sufficient time for an individual to make use of rehabilitation services within the prison.

As mentioned previously. Prison should be a punishment. It should also be there to protect the law-abiding public from criminals. I think longer sentences would have the dual role of reducing re-offending and deterring would-be criminals from such acts. People, I think, would be less likely to commit crime if faced with the loss of a substantial chunk of their life. To this end, I also think that life should mean life in the most serious of cases. Anything less undermines the severity of the punishment. In the same vein I would question the use of open prisons for anything other than offenders in the last few months of a long sentence as a means of integration into the outside world.

The implementation of sentences also needs reform. Concurrent terms in my view are pointless. This is where multiple offences have been committed by one individual. Sentences for each offence are given however the Judge orders they run concurrently. To my mind, this is not only pointless but unjust as it will make no material difference to the offender who will simply serve the longest one. Although the academic distinction is there, I doubt many people would spend much time considering it. In a similar vein, I think the routine early release of offenders makes a mockery of the Justice system. Why would people take a Judge seriously when they openly say one thing yet implicitly mean another? This contradiction seems short-sighted. Early release has the power to be an excellent tool as the ultimate reward for those that show consistently exemplary behaviour and energetic commitment to rehabilitation. It should be a privilege, not a right.

Rehabilitation seems to me to be an important step in the prison process and in the prevention of re-offending. It should be a process of education and growth. One of the obvious starting points would be to assist new inmates in breaking substance abuse habits be it drugs, alcohol or smoking. Sadly, I suspect lack of resources come into play here as they do with most healthcare initiatives. Some might suggest prisoners should go cold-turkey however the process of substance withdrawal is so excruciating that this can only rightly be regarded as torture. What's more, placing people in this desperate situation will only fuel the trade in contraband. Contact, where appropriate, with victims should also be encouraged to promote understanding of the consequences of the crimes committed.

Education in the traditional sense is also essential. As well as an opportunity to beat destructive addictions, prison should be an opportunity for individuals to gain the skills necessary to function in and contribute to society. This starts with basic literacy and numeracy and extend to vocational training. To complement this, ties need to be formed with outside agencies so that those leaving prison with skills have the opportunity to put them to use outside and experience direct benefit from them. Local councils employing prison trained mechanics would be an obvious example but there are many others. The advantages to the individual are obvious; not only are there the fiscal benefits of being employable on the outside, I would guess that there would be psychological benefits as well. I also think the state would benefit as, by investing in training and rehabilitation, they would hopefully reduce re-offending and therefore the cost not only of housing prisoners but also of the prior judicial process. Naturally, the rewards of participating in rehabilitation during a sentence should not be confined to the period after sentencing but should have positive consequences for the inmate during the sentence. Strategies like this exist already but unfortunately they are expensive, short-sentences mean that individuals who could benefit are not in a position to do so to any great degree and the links with the outside world are not as strong as they could be.

As an aside, I read of one prison recently that has opened a restaurant run by prisoners in their grounds. This seems like an ideal solution as it confers a skill, a sense of purpose and (by working during the sentence) the possibility of a decent reference on release. It will be interesting to see if this scheme does affect re-offending in those that have had the opportunity to partake in it. Other ideas for such enterprises could be very interesting and, if successful, potentially offset the costs of the enterprise its self.

I know a lot of these ideas are not particularly new, nor revolutionary. They are also based on my opinions based on a limited experience of working in a firm specialising in this area of law and my own observations however I do not think they are without merit.

Will try and write something amusing soon.

JR