Posts Tagged ‘Deterrence’

Community Payback Programmes

Tuesday, March 23rd, 2010

Why not join the discussion about community payback programmes at http://jailhouselawyersblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/moj-abused-community-payback-scheme-for.html

A proposal for a more cost-effective sanction than prison

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010

There’s been much comment recently about the ineffectiveness of prison sentences – in particular short sentences of a year or less. The Howard League for Penal Reform reports that it costs about £40,000 per year to house the average prisoner in England and Wales but that nearly two thirds of prisoners re-offend within two years of release from prison. To put this figure into context, £40,000 is nearly twice the pre-tax salary that the average employee earned in the United Kingdom in 2008 according to the Office for National Statistics. As the Rt Hon John Redwood recently noted in his blog, a victim of a theft not only suffers loss of property but has this loss compounded by having to pay for the convicted thief to spend time in prison.

Although there’s a growing number of alternatives to prison sentences (such as community programmes), many people – including many sentencers – still think that non-custodial sentences are too much of a light touch.

If we want to reduce the waste of taxpayers’ money on ineffective prison sentences, we need to develop more alternatives which the public and sentencers will be happy with. With this in mind, another string to the sentencer’s bow could be the ability to deny a convict the right to receive state benefits in cash.

Any cash benefits to which the convict is entitled would be received for a given period of time by means of a card.

It would not be possible to withdraw cash from the card or go overdrawn and the card would be non-transferable (i.e. it could only be used by the convict). It would be illegal for retailers to allow people to pay for products like alcohol and cigarettes using such a card, in much the same way that it’s illegal for retailers to sell alcohol to children. In this way, users of the card would be encouraged to spend state benefits on the things for which they are intended.

The card would also make it much harder to spend state benefits on illegal drugs because few street drug dealers are set up to accept plastic. In this way, the card would help to reduce the current outrageous redistribution of wealth from hard-working taxpayers to illegal drug dealers via the benefits system depicted in television programmes like The Wire.

Given that life in prison is often perceived to be more comfortable for prisoners than life on the outside, loss of liberty may not be seen as adequate recompense for many crimes. Accordingly, the ability to deny a convict the right to receive state benefits in cash for a period of time could be a further useful sanction for sentencers.

Those of a more liberal persuasion may say that it’s bad for someone’s self-esteem to have to use a card which identifies them as a convict. But is this any worse than the stigma attached to a prison sentence or a community sentence?

On the contrary, the card might help to improve self-esteem by discouraging spending on addictive substances like alcohol, cigarettes and illegal drugs. Indeed, the card could be a helpful reinforcement to addiction treatment programmes. Again, compare this to prison where illegal drugs are often readily available.

In small ways, the card could also help to improve financial literacy. For example, managing the account and calculating how much money remains available on the card. Improved financial literacy could also help to build self-esteem.

One day we might consider extending this use of card technology to the whole cash benefits system. In the same way that chip and pin cards helped to reduce the level of credit card crime, this card system could help to reduce benefit fraud, for example by a combination of chip and pin technology and having a photograph of the holder on the card.

If you think any of this sounds like a good idea, please let me know by posting a comment. Any improvements on the idea will also be gratefully received. If there’s enough of a positive response, I’ll be encouraged to write to the Ministry of Justice about the idea.


Shantaram

Monday, December 28th, 2009

One of the most memorable parts of Gregory Roberts’ enthralling novel “Shantaram” is when the head man of the Mumbai slum, Qasim Ali Hussein, neatly resolves a fight about religion between two neighbours and friends from the slum – one Muslim and one Hindu.

In front of the crowd of neighbours that had assembled around the scene of the fight, he orders the two men to work for the rest of the day cleaning the slum latrines. He then binds the two men together at the ankle using his scarf around one’s right and the other’s left leg “to remind you that you are friends and brothers, while cleaning the latrine will fill your noses with the stink of what you have done to each other today.” That evening, having convened a council of Hindu and Muslim friends and neighbours, he requires each man to learn one complete prayer from the religious observances of the other as their punishment for fighting about religion.

“In this way justice is done, because justice is a judgement that is both fair and forgiving. Justice is not done until everyone is satisfied, even those who offend us and must be punished by us. You can see, by what we have done with these two boys, that justice is not only the way we punish those who do wrong. It is also the way we try to save them.”

Qasim Ali Hussein’s wise solution seems to meet the five purposes of sentencing described in the Criminal Justice Act 2003: punishment (cleaning the latrines); reduction of crime and deterrence (cleaning the latrines in public and tied together); reform and rehabilitation (learning a prayer from each other’s religion); protection of the public (via the deterrence and reform mentioned above); and reparation (cleaning the latrines for the community’s benefit).

Why not compare this with a prison sentence under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006?

Punishment (prison – arguably more comfortable than cleaning latrines); reduction of crime and deterrence (sadly there are some people for whom prison is not a deterrent, whereas there are very few people for whom cleaning the latrines in a Mumbai slum would not be a deterrent); reform and rehabilitation (prison – yet approximately 65% of all prisoners released were reconvicted within two years according to a 2007 Home Office study); protection of the public (prison); and reparation (prison – at a cost to the taxpayers in the community of approximately £39,000 per prisoner per year).

Some of you may say, “Ah, but Qasim Ali Hussein only has to serve justice to a tiny city of around twenty-five thousand people compared to tens of millions of people in, say, England. No wonder he can tailor his solutions so well.”

Yet he didn’t have policemen or courts to assist.

Don’t you think that we could spend £39,000 per prisoner per year on something which addresses more effectively the five purposes of sentencing described in the Criminal Justice Act 2003?

A good start might be to channel more resources to community programmes such as those highlighted by the Howard League for Penal Reform’s Community Programmes Awards. Why not read more about the awards – and nominate for the 2010 awards right now – at http://bit.ly/9Cnybn.