Half of convicted sex attackers, violent criminals and burglars are avoiding prison despite government pledges to end “soft” sentences, official figures have revealed. More than 65,000 serious criminals walked free despite being convicted of a range of offences including rape, sexual assault, manslaughter, grievous bodily harm and robbery. Just 53 per cent of convicted paedophiles who abused children under the age of 13 were jailed in 2012, while half of drug dealers also escaped jail. Overall, just one in four criminals were sent to prison when lesser sentences were taken into account.
The figures are likely to embarrass the Conservatives. Chris Grayling, the justice secretary who has positioned himself as a Tory traditionalist on law and order in contrast to Ken Clarke, his more liberal predecessor. One senior Tory backbencher said the figures demonstrate that there is a "malaise" at the heart of the criminal justice system, while Labour described the number of offenders avoiding prison is an "insult" to victims of crime.
Sadiq Khan, the shadow justice secretary who obtained the statistics in a parliamentary answer, said that government cuts are undermining the justice system. He said: "Some of these crimes are so serious and violent that members of the public rightly expect them to lead to a prison sentence.One of the concerns is that this is being done in order to save money. Justice done on the cheap like this risks prisoners reoffending rather than being reformed which means more victims and misery.This will be an insult to many victims of crime who want to see those who committed crimes against them properly punished and rehabilitated."
Mr Grayling, the justice secretary, said that the government is overhauling guidelines to ensure criminals receive tougher sentences in future. He said: "Since 2010 those who break the law are more likely to go to prison for longer and we are continuing to overhaul sentencing to ensure that the toughest sentencing measures are available to the courts.
I'll take no lessons from a Labour party that let thousands of criminals out of prison early because they hadn't provided enough places, who let thousands of offenders off with a slap on the wrist caution instead of proper punishment, and who failed to get any money from prisoners' earnings for their victims."
Sadiq seems to be saying in effect that far more people need locking up, even though we have one of the highest incarceration rates of any western democracy and he's been tweeting about the lack of prison places:-
Prisons desperately short of space: 11 weeks in a row population has risen, hit 99.4% of capacity & just 509 places left
Chris Grayling has responded on the Conservative Home website:-
The irony wasn’t lost on me when I looked at the front page of the Daily Telegraph yesterday – a story in which Sadiq Khan, Labour’s Shadow Justice Spokesman, was expressing outrage at the sentences being given to some offenders, and complaining that the justice system was too soft. This was the very system that we inherited from Labour, which they presided over for more than a decade. If they were so worried about it, why didn’t they act then? Quite to the contrary, under their watch, they let thousands of prisoners out of prison early because they hadn’t provided enough prison places, they let thousands of offenders off with a slap on the wrist caution instead of a proper punishment, and they – to add insult to injury – failed to get any money from prisoners’ earnings for their victims.
The offences being put about need to be looked at in context. The categories of offences are a very big umbrella, so whilst it suited Labour to run a bit of scaremongering, the truth is that each category covers offences from the relatively minor to the potentially relatively serious. This is why a judge has the leeway to decide, for example that if two teenage boys who’ve never been in trouble before get into a bit of a dust up in the pub, it’s more appropriate to give them a community sentence rather than sending them straight off to prison.
But this latest twist on the very familiar electioneering political game brought this swift press release from Frances Crook:-
Sentencing statistics should not be manipulated to stoke up fear
Responding to press coverage of sentencing statistics today, Frances Crook, Chief Executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said:
“It is disappointing that these statistics are being manipulated to stoke up fear. It is clear that the most serious violent and sexual crimes are resulting in prison sentences.
“But the reality of these crimes is a lot more complex than some politicians would like us to believe. It may be a 15-year-old sleeping with his 14-year-old girlfriend, a ‘burglary’ involving a homeless person getting into someone’s shed or a ‘child abduction’ with a divorcee failing to return kids on time after an access visit.
“Prison is a simplistic answer in many cases. Police and judicial discretion are crucial within properly considered national guidelines. The truth is that the number of people behind bars has doubled in the past 20 years, with many people who have committed non-violent crimes being imprisoned needlessly.”
There are quite a few people concerned at what Sadiq Khan is up to. Here's our old friend tailgunner from over on the Napo forum writing on the subject and headed 'Disappointed with Sadiq'
Parliamentary Questions about the number of sex offenders, burglars etc who are sentenced to community penalties rather than custody seems set yet again fuel the tabloid appetite for punishment.
Undoubtedly we are headed for further swingeing cuts across the public sector in the next few years and this will include the MoJ , Prisons and Probation. So why pander to an ultimately futile and expensive ideology? Punishment is of course entirely appropriate but we should be primarily in the business of preventing re-offending and preventing the creation of future victims. Putting more mental health nurses into police stations is probably a refreshing dose of common sense in this respect.
The State of Texas has in recent years realised that 'hanging them and flogging them' is ultimately a fruitless pursuit - a realisation brought about by its sheer unaffordability even there - and so rehabilitation is gaining a greater foothold. One hesitates to suggest yet again following an American approach to justice, but sometimes they get it right.
We will be faced with more large financial cuts soon. If they are to be targeted and effective, then we should be aiming to reduce the prison population - not increase it. This will not create more victims or greater levels of re-offending - quite the reverse. Moreover there are great savings to be made by more careful and frugal use of electronic monitoring. This has been a huge cash cow for the likes of Serco and G4S and the Secretary of State is bent on greater not lesser use of this disposal as well.
Finally, an independent estimate of the cost of the TR programme puts it at around £125m. Much of this money has already been spent but savings could still be made if we stopped, drew breath and reviewed what we are doing.
Necessary savings can be made whilst at the same time reducing re-offending and reducing the numbers of future victims - but it takes political will on both sides of the House. The key is not to destroy the Probation Service but to build on what it is and what it does.
Undoubtedly we are headed for further swingeing cuts across the public sector in the next few years and this will include the MoJ , Prisons and Probation. So why pander to an ultimately futile and expensive ideology? Punishment is of course entirely appropriate but we should be primarily in the business of preventing re-offending and preventing the creation of future victims. Putting more mental health nurses into police stations is probably a refreshing dose of common sense in this respect.
The State of Texas has in recent years realised that 'hanging them and flogging them' is ultimately a fruitless pursuit - a realisation brought about by its sheer unaffordability even there - and so rehabilitation is gaining a greater foothold. One hesitates to suggest yet again following an American approach to justice, but sometimes they get it right.
We will be faced with more large financial cuts soon. If they are to be targeted and effective, then we should be aiming to reduce the prison population - not increase it. This will not create more victims or greater levels of re-offending - quite the reverse. Moreover there are great savings to be made by more careful and frugal use of electronic monitoring. This has been a huge cash cow for the likes of Serco and G4S and the Secretary of State is bent on greater not lesser use of this disposal as well.
Finally, an independent estimate of the cost of the TR programme puts it at around £125m. Much of this money has already been spent but savings could still be made if we stopped, drew breath and reviewed what we are doing.
Necessary savings can be made whilst at the same time reducing re-offending and reducing the numbers of future victims - but it takes political will on both sides of the House. The key is not to destroy the Probation Service but to build on what it is and what it does.
So, what about the LibDems? Are they going to be the party of common sense and rise above all this political point-scoring and scaremongering? As Harry Fletcher reminds us via twitter, we are rapidly approaching the third reading of the Offender Rehabilitation Bill:-
3rd reading OR Bill 14 Jan. Email MP now.Support Labour front bench amendments NO selloff without votes+ pilot before sale!
and the LibDems could easily decide to support the very sensible Labour amendment that ensures a TR pilot scheme must be arranged before any irrevocable decision is taken regarding full implementation of the proposed omnishambles.
Even at this late stage it's vitally important to e-mail your MP, and especially if they happen to be a LibDem!
I will get shot in flames for saying this but I am completely demoralised and I do not believe that at this stage that privitisation of probation can be prevented. Despite it being publicly known that there is a 25/25 risk that this TR nonsense will fail this crap is still going ahead.
ReplyDeleteWhat I am seeing now is staff who are also disillusioned. People who have been allocated to CRC wondering when they are going to lose their jobs. At the same time people who have been allocated to NPS (including me) who believe that they are safe. I do not believe that any job is safe nowadays. If cuts can be made to the police, fire service and NHS, why do many people and until recently me, think that probation jobs will continue to be safe under the new NPS. I really hope that something will happen to disprove what I have said or that someone will say something to change my mind, but I doubt that this will happen.
Cynical, I think you are right but the question for me is how bad is it going to get before people fight back. There is a limit and residence will kick in but by then probation will be a distant memory with the very very old.
ReplyDeleteI think the system is fucked and we await the young to rise up. Alas I'm not the only one thinking this because for the first time in England the government has purchased water-cannon; who do they have in mind?
What a nice Probation Officer talking about fighting the state , whatever next :)
I have a great deal of sympathy with this 'resigned to our fate' view and I definitely detect people are at a very low ebb. There're not many jokes on here nowadays. However, I have a pretty good picture of just how shambolic this whole thing is and the voluntary sector are definitely getting cold feet - not just at the prospect of a highly disaffected workforce, but also the penny is dropping that it's not going to be about mentoring, it's about supervision, compulsion and sanctions. They haven't got the stomach for this and won't be bidding.
DeleteYou may well be right cynical one, but I'm pressing on getting up the nose of the MoJ because I'm arrogant enough to know we're right and they're wrong. I intend giving this bloody shambolic half-arsed idea a good run for its money and if nothing else, ensure that history records we did our best.
Ah well, at least the 1% pay offer will make people feel better (see NAPO website for the new pay offer)..........
DeleteWell good for you. I find your forum very helpful and informative and it is also useful reading the views of other probation staff.
DeleteFrom Guardian article 8 Jan 2014 about water cannon:
Delete"[in his] letter to May, [Boris] Johnson then discusses funding: "Finally, I am aware that you have declined to make funds available for purchasing the interim water cannon solution as a national asset.
"Subject to the public engagement process … I am happy to make the necessary funds available to the MPS for the most economical interim solution that allows the commissioner to meet his desire to prevent disorder on the streets. I would expect to do this in February, following the [public] engagement."
The letter adds that there is public support for the deployment of water cannon.
In another letter, written on Tuesday by Stephen Greenhalgh, deputy mayor for policing, says a formal decision to go ahead with water cannon will be made next month.
Greenhalgh wants public consultation to begin within weeks, which will involve public meetings and talks with MPs, councillors and what he describes as "stakeholders".
It is believed the Met are in talks with German companies about supplying water cannon in time for this summer.
The Met has approached companies about hiring or buying second-hand water cannon from overseas to have the machines available as soon as possible.
The Met is interested in acquiring around three units."
Well they clearly know they are stirring up trouble and also that one very hot summer will light the powder keg. But come on ... Water cannon against their own people? And who will they consult? Businesses of course. I have the image of that lone guy in Tiananmen Square standing with shopping bags, trying to face down a tank.
DeleteWhen a govt needs to use cannon on its own people, it's lost. It's lost the argument.
My view as an allocated to NPS PO is that 50% of those transferring across will be redundant with 18 months. We are only there to allay political fears about "high riskers" for the time being and as soon as the initial split has bedded in, most of us will be gone. My main worry is to gain the enhanced redundancy package if possible before it is withdrawn. I have fought this TR omnishambles by every means possible, but acknowledge that I have no power in this process. Or so it may seem.... I have stopped taking on extra work and since the work to rule estimate I am working 25 hours less every month that I used to give for free ( yes I used to go into work at weekends). I am no longer walking the extra mile and in the short term no-one seems to have noticed. Eventually legal reps, the Parole Board and perhaps event the European Human Rights Court will notice what has not been delivered. Can't get into the prison at first ask for a sentence planning board? I now just make a delius entry explaining this and update the OASys without any reference to the offender, explaining in the OASys comments box that on x date I could not be accommodated by the prison. Yes this goes against all of my former principles but now I have to work within the resources allocated to me to do my job. I realised that I was the person keeping this from derailing by all of my extra effort and it mattered not one jot. I hate what I have become ( cynical, as described in earlier in comments above) and I must admit that I never would have believed that I would act in this way.I feel I am not failing my offenders, rather it has been made impossible for me to perform as I used to. I am very sad it has come to this but perhaps after all, this is the real way to derail TR......
ReplyDeleteYes it's so very sad - thanks for taking the time to explain, especially for readers who might not work in probation and don't understand the ethos.
DeleteStraying off topic, but the ugly sisters and government contracts are in more trouble.
Deletehttp://www.4-traders.com/SERCO-GROUP-PLC-9590148/news/Serco-Group-plc--G4S-and-Serco-failing-to-provide-housing-for-asylum-seekers-17778063/
Anonymous @ 21:08 – I totally agree with your view that the numbers in the NPS will be cut significantly after the date agreed with the unions (was it July 2015?). That is why I think the unions should be pushing the MoJ for the enhanced VR package to be open to more staff.
DeleteThe outsourcing companies G4S and Serco are failing to provide adequate housing for vulnerable asylum seekers or acquire habitable properties for them to live in, according to the government's spending watchdog.
DeleteThe government is seeking to recover rebates worth pounds 3m and pounds 4m respectively from the companies because of their poor performance, the National Audit Office has disclosed. It follows the introduction by home secretary Theresa May of an outsourced pounds 620m system called Compass to house 23,000 asylum seekers in Britain.
Auditors are concerned that the system has also led to some claimants who earn above the legal threshold being given homes while other more needy families are losing out.
The findings, published in a report released today, have been welcomed by charities which have become increasingly concerned by the way that the companies are managing the system.
The Refugee Council's chief executive, Maurice Wren, said: "Asylum seekers are often people who have fled horrifying experiences in their own countries and have lost everything.
"They do not get a choice where they live and are totally reliant on the Compass contractors to ensure that their properties are safe for them and their families to live in. Failure to provide adequate accommodation is always unacceptable. It's essential the Home Office sets clear standards, provides the resources required to deliver them and is tough on contractors who fail to meet them."
Auditors raised concerns after an inquiry into government contracts with private companies G4S, Serco and Clearel for providing accommodation for asylum seekers.
The Home Office provides accommodation and support for asylum seekers in the UK who are assessed as being destitute. As of April last year, the Home Office provided accommodation for around 23,000 asylum seekers with 60% receiving financial support from the department.
At the end of 2012, the former UK Border Agency (UKBA) replaced 22 separate contracts provided by 13 different suppliers with six contracts, which were divided between G4S, Serco and Clearel. The move was known as the Commercial and Operational Managers Procuring Asylum Support Services (Compass) project and was supposed to save public money.
G4S and Serco struggled throughout the transition, auditors found, causing continued uncertainty for asylum seekers.
WHilst what Mr Khan did does raise questions, personally anything that makes the tories and Grayling look bad is fine by me. Why has no one pointed out to Khan that the tories LAPSO Act (I think it was theirs) meant that people who breach their licenses get recalled for 28 days then re-released in the vast majority of cases. I work with PPO's and they are forever getting recalled and re-released due to breaching curfews and other conditions and it is doing no one any good, not them, not us and least of all the victims of their offending in between all this. If Grayling thinks he is tough on crime why did he bring in LAPSO? I favour this argument being used rhetorically against Grayling but I can't get thru to MR Khan to arm him with this for tomorow night on any questoins at 8pm.
ReplyDeleteIncrease criminal justice work cut staff? This govt is insane. £125 million the cost of this almighty shambles. Criminal. In realation to court work who will print the court list check every new case for known individuals? Check custody list. Obtain info from chaotic nonsensical CRCs and disappearing NPS. Discuss cases with legal reps. Chase breach info and PSRs that havn't arrived.Explain proposals to Mags and suggest, again, (politely)no they cannot do this or that just becsuse they want to. Photocopy reports because the court has lost them. Pop down to the cells to assess sentencing options. Complete the SFO paperwork because someone on an UPW order assessed as low risk was in fact using class drugs and has stabbed and killed someone. Interview four attenders for sentencing on the day. Console those who have lost their job / family / home. Take no lunch break because the court needs a referral. Be called dishonest in open court by that annoying legal rep. Be ranted at. Sworn at. Be told thank you by those whose experience in court has been terrifying buy probation staff has made it a little less so. Work beyond contracted hours without complaint because the court sits late. Back to the office to email / fax / phone results because He / she is vulnerable / dangerous / absconded. Print the court list for following day ... Check new cases ... Is Chris Grayling going to do all that while he cuts my job and pushes me into poverty and despair? SHAME on this Govt and its ignorant and dangerous plans. They can stick their new year message right where the sun will never shine.
DeleteI think courts need to be properly briefed up about TR as they won't be getting as good a service in the future as they are now. There will be more late reports from overworked POs that will b stretched to breaking point. As most PSOs are going to CRC less likely to get same day reports.
DeleteHow will enforcement officers manage with chasing up info from CRCs re breaches. Who will write breach reports?
Last point. Staff in CRC and NPS r guna b in for a rude awakening if they think that their bases will continue to be on their doorsteps. Offices will b closed to save muney and people wil end up commuting further away.
http://theboar.org/2014/01/10/serco-shadowy-tale-outsourcing/#.Us_fSLsRel0
ReplyDeleteThe outsourcing giant Serco – which holds a number of lucrative contracts providing services in sectors as varied as education, defence – and even maintaining Greenwich Mean Time as well as the “Boris Bike” scheme, has agreed to repay the government for overcharging on its contract to provide electronic tagging systems by around £50 million.
DeleteThe scandal, which saw Serco billing the government for offenders who were dead, already back in prison, or abroad, is set to become a political football, with senior Labour Party sources telling the Independent they would seriously consider stripping the company of its contracts – currently worth £61billion.
Serco’s meteoric rise over the last 25 years has seen it amass a quasi-monopoly in the public sector. Within the UK alone it operates six prisons and two immigration detention centres, it manages intelligence for the UK Border Agency and our ballistic missile defence system, as well as providing various NHS services in Suffolk and Cornwall. Serco’s also got its mitts in education and transport, running inspections for Ofsted and operating Northern Rail and Merseyrail train networks. In addition many local authorities choose to outsource to Serco; it could oversee refuse disposal, road maintenance, and even traffic light operation in a council near you. They also happen to be the largest air traffic controllers in the world, with over 50 towers in the US and the monopoly on Baghdad’s air traffic. And the list goes on and on.
The company’s trajectory is indicative of the ubiquity of outsourcing in Britain, and even further, the pervasiveness of privatisation. The management of public services by the private sector took off with Thatcher, but expanded exponentially during New Labour’s tenure. Blair’s 1997 statement “what matters is what works” seemingly sealed the deal. Scandal aside, how such a model (predicated on the cutting of costs but also fatally flawed though its obligation to make profits for its shareholders) was taken up by a supposedly “left wing” party points to a worrying diminution of ethical standards in British politics over the last 20 years.
Theoretically part of “the roll back of the bureaucratic state” and intended to inject some entrepreneurial and competitive spirit into the public sector, in reality outsourcing poses a serious threat to the quality of services. Serco managed to cut costs by 20 per cent in one of its prisons by putting beds in the toilets, and a child in Cornwall where it manages the NHS’s out of hours service, died of a burst appendix after a Serco phone operator told his mother to put him to bed instead of seeing a GP. A whistle-blowing doctor said he believed he was the only doctor on duty in the whole county. Despite this, Serco’s contract in Cornwall was renewed in 2012 for another five years.
The current scandal has seen its CEO and UK boss resign and it has warned its shareholders that profits look set to fall over the next two years; however some critics have compared outsourcing companies to the banks, claiming they are “too big to fail.” The Daily Telegraph even claimed, “Without Serco, we’d struggle to go to war.”
Compared to its main rivals – G4S (which failed to deliver security guards for the Olympics) Atos and Capita, Serco’s company structure is even more sinister. Each contract operates as a separate business thereby making it very difficult to ascertain what is actually going on. With fraud and managerial bungles arguably endemic, it begs the question, why is the government so intent on ramping up its outsourcing contracts? Austerity measures and its continuing commitment to the private sector play their part.
However Labour’s pronouncements should also be taken with a pinch of salt, in reality Britain is so enmeshed in Serco et al’s web that it will take a near reversal of current policy (indeed a fairly lengthy deep-rooted one) and some serious political clout to get us out of the thicket, the kind which, in my opinion, Labour is yet to display.