Should fewer people be jailed



Should fewer people be jailed?

“We will make it clear that anyone convicted of a knife crime can expect to face a prison sentence.”[1]

These were David Cameron’s own words as published in the Conservatives’ 2010 manifesto. These few, yet powerful, words may have been the deciding factor that earned the Tories the public’s precious votes, but now – now that they’re safely in position – they appear to have taken a completely different stance on dealing with crime and its consequences. The recently announced Ministry of Justice budget cuts will, unsurprisingly, severely affect the crime and justice system of the United Kingdom and overcrowding is already a serious problem in our jails today. But will jailing fewer people and releasing prisoners really prove to be the best solution? It’s not an easy call to make. The evidence from other countries seems to illustrate that fewer people in jail means a higher crime rate and a society in which the safety of the public is put at risk.

Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke has just three years to fully implement a £1.6 billion[2] cut on the Ministry of Justice’s annual spending. With the average annual cost of one prisoner’s upkeep nearing £40,000[3], it’s not surprising that releasing prisoners seems to be a reasonable way of adjusting to and dealing with both the overcrowding and the substantial budget cuts. However, what the Ministry of Justice are not so eager to share is that the average criminal costs society £280,000[4] every year. According to recent studies by the Home Office, the average criminal commits 140 crimes a year, each of these costing on average £2000[5]. With this in mind, Clarke’s argument that keeping prisoners in jail is too expensive would appear to be completely invalid.

Clarke also supports this solution as he believes that community services are not only cheaper, but more effective forms of rehabilitation for offenders. Nacro and CRI, the crime reduction charities, agree. Nacro helps thousands of people every year and claims “providing opportunities for rehabilitation offer[s] them [offenders and those at risk of offending] the best possible chance of turning their lives around”[6]. So far it sounds like the public will be in good hands with charities such as these at the helm, but upon further investigation, it could be that these ‘softly, softly’ approaches to rehabilitation are too good to be true.

In the wake of an Ofsted inspection in June 2007, the success rates of Nacro’s work were revealed to be less than startlingly impressive. Their ‘Entry to Employment’ yearly apprenticeship scheme was revealed to have just a 19.4% success rate in 2005/2006. Although their long-term success rates remain very low[7], the success rates of these yearly apprenticeships and other programmes seem to be on the rise, giving the public a more optimistic outlook on the future of their country.

The evidence produced in other countries, however, does not bode well for the crime reduction charities’ hopes of a safer society after the prison population reductions are implemented. Countries across the world – such as Denmark, Canada and the Netherlands – that have cut their prison populations recently have all suffered an increase in crime[8]. This would seem to be the perfect evidence that Britain could soon be heading the same way. It’s obvious that overcrowding is a serious problem, and it’s also obvious that there is a massive amount of money which needs to be saved within the Ministry of Justice, but surely there are other ways of approaching these issues without the potentially detrimental effect on society. The public’s safety should be the most important factor in Kenneth Clarke’s decisions. With the recent announcement of the closure of three prisons, it seems that the drastic changes to the crime and justice system could be hitting the public sooner than expected.

The Justice Secretary argues that “closing outdated and expensive prisons is an important step in our strategy to provide a secure and modern, fit-for-purpose prison estate, while improving efficiency and value for the taxpayer”[9]. While it may be true that the prisons are outdated, it’s unknown whether it can be said that, in the long run, reducing our total prison capacity will be of benefit to society. It is imperative that the public remains safe – and there are ample police officers to ensure their safety – despite the overcrowding and decreasing budget the government is dealing with. Nacro, as one would expect, is welcoming the news. The chief executive of Nacro, Paul McDowell, has expressed his approval of the announcement that three British prisons are to be shut down, and the UK’s prison capacity reduced by nearly 850[10]. He has also announced that “Nacro believes prison should be reserved for the most violent and serious offenders”[11]. So where should the line be drawn? McDowell seems to suggest that there is a level of violence that should not lead to imprisonment. One would expect the majority of people to agree that any violent crime should lead to imprisonment, and that it is unreasonable to allow offenders to escape jail because their crimes are not considered violent or “serious” enough. This gambling with public safety could lead to a further decline in public trust in the justice system. Kenneth Clarke may think that community sentences are more effective than imprisonment, but polls have revealed that 60 per cent of the public think that community sentences are simply not harsh enough. To further contradict Clarke’s opinions of and plans for the justice system’s future, 57 per cent of those polled were opposed to reducing the prison population and 74 per cent wanted more prisons built[12]. Although Clarke has no say in the drastic changes to the Ministry of Justice’s annual spending, by combating it in the way he plans to, he seriously risks further damaging the public’s opinions of the UK’s crime and punishment system.

Ultimately, however, it may be more than just the public’s opinions that could be damaged. Violent criminals could be of further risk to the public as the infamous budget cuts are also to hit the police force. There could be up to 17,000 jobs lost from the police, and in the worst-case scenario Britain could have up to 60,000 fewer full-time police officers, civilian staff and community support officers[13]. This, combined with the 6500 offenders who could be released from jail early and the thousands who will avoid jail in the near future, provides an unsettling prediction of the U.K’s future. Criminon, the crime reduction and rehabilitation programme, hopes to provide an alternative to prison. It aims to “eliminate those factors which produce and precipitate criminal behaviour”[14], and, according to several who have completed the programme, it is working. Criminon’s underlying Scientology influences, however, have been subject to much controversy, and the organisation has been accused of “recruiting” prisoners into Scientology, a religion which itself is shrouded in distrust and scepticism.

The fact of the matter is that although prison may not provide the ideal basis for the rehabilitation of offenders, while prisoners are secure in jail, they cannot reoffend. Public opinions are clearly in favour of more prisons being built rather than offenders being released and with numbers of police officers being reduced Kenneth Clarke seems mad to be suggesting that not only are fewer people to be jailed, but imprisoned offenders are to be released. This gamble with public safety is surely to follow in the footsteps of the various countries around the world whose reduction in prison populations saw a significant increase in crime. The only question that remains is whether it will be worth it.

1,281 words.

Bibliography

The Conservatives’ Website

1.

The Guardian Newspaper Website

2.

Ofsted Inspectors and Regulators

3. (id)/99984/(as)/50170_321763.pdf

The Telegraph Newspaper Website

4.

BBC News Website

5.

Nacro

6.

7.

Criminon

8.

Defence Security Services

9.

-----------------------

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7] (id)/99984/(as)/50170_321763.pdf

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download