I see it's reported in the Guardian that Martin Narey, former Director-General of the Prison Service has had a go at his former boss Jack Straw during a Labour Party fringe meeting. He castigated him for rubbishing the current Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke in the Daily Mail following his speech on the need to reduce the prison population. Apparently the meeting got a bit testy, especially when Jack was trying to explain the rise in prison population under his watch from 62,000 to 85,000. Basically he seemed to be saying it wasn't anything to do with him but just the consequences of Labours "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" stance. Despite him saying his policy had been to try and stabilise prison numbers, I seem to remember that it was Jack who was quite keen on the idea of building three super 'Titan' prisons holding two thousand inmates each.
Martin Narey went on to suggest that Justice Secretaries can either "talk prison numbers up or down" and that courts respond accordingly. It's an interesting concept that the 'mood music' is important and can actually reflect sentencing outcomes. I hadn't thought of it in quite that way, that sentencers are affected directly, but Narey says that when Douglas Hurd was Home Secretary he "talked down" the prison numbers by about 4,000 in the late 1980's. He says it's important to set the scene and I think I have to agree, but as to a direct connection, surely not?
In defending his period in office, apparently Jack went on to say he was convinced that "75% of the prison population were persistent violent offenders who were a danger to the community and who deserved a measure of respite care, which was afforded by sending them to custody for a few weeks". I think many may find that a surprising analysis of the situation, certainly not one I recognise, and a rather worryingly simplistic approach from a former Justice Secretary.
But then it was Jack Straw who famously went ballistic when he found a copy of 'Radical Non-Intervention' by Edwin Schur on a probation officers bookcase. It is said it was due to that encounter that he set about changing the culture of the Service with such gusto, turning us into a 'Law Enforcement Agency'. He made a speech to a conference of newly-qualified probation officers a couple of years ago saying how proud he was of the change in culture within the Service. So, in my estimation, that admirably demonstrates how little he knows about anything and his retirement from mainstream politics was well overdue in my opinion.
Well done Martin for putting the boot in.
When you're on-stage, with an audience in your grasp, give them what they want: it might be reinforcement or challenge, but they will react. As Home Sec (or Justice Sec), talk about prison in the way you want it to be (politically, personally, imaginatively). When you're the voice of NAPO, tell it how it is from your own perspective, regardless of the 'membership' that put you there. When you're suddenly the Chief Exec of a Probation 'Trust', feel the power coursing thru your veins & tell it like you think it should be, regardless of the years you might have been on the shop floor. When you're a newly qualified someone with control over someone else's life, let the power flow through you, brother or sister!!! Ed can't wait... I couldn't wait... but 19 years later I regret how I reacted in those first few months. Jim - your TPO/newly qualified colleague will probably feel the same with hindsight; and Jim, you might also remember that 'buzz' in the early days of being handed power. It takes time to come to terms with... and a reason we needed to retain the 'apprenticeship' concept for this role; and a reason that we needed to retain the social work values of this role. They are (I believe) the values that keep us grounded and prevent us from being seduced by the bullshit of management-speak, or by the managerialism of NOMS; or by the capitulation of the less-than-powerful unions we rely on (e.g. "if we sacrifice hard-won annual leave entitlement for a few quid, we'll beat management").
ReplyDeleteI can't speak for all sentencers, but for my part (and in my experience of talking to others on my bench) I don't think anyone sentences according to "mood music" or Ministers' whims. We try to sentence within the framework given, or vary that according the specifics of the case. Of course, the guidelines might change according to whims, but I know of no-one and no instances where someone who deserved jug didn't get it, or vice versa, depending on cost or availability of places - or the bleatings of the Daily Wail.
ReplyDelete