As we have previously mentioned, Rory Stewart signalled a few weeks ago that the government is minded to effectively outlaw imprisonment of less than six months, a policy he expanded upon in a recent interview with Erwin James. It prompted the following letter:-
If the Ministry of Justice wants to see fewer short sentences, its focus should instead be on ensuring that effective community sentences, including appropriate options for women and treatment for people with mental health, drug or alcohol problems, are available in every area of the country. Magistrates should also be given the power to review the progress made by an offender serving a community sentence. This would enable us to impose community sentences with confidence, knowing that they will help offenders to turn their lives around.
John Bache
National chair, Magistrates Association
But lets look at the context. This from the Guardian:-
Rise in recorded crime is accelerating in England and Wales
The rise in crime in England and Wales is accelerating, according to police figures, which show a 14% year-on-year increase in offences recorded by forces across England and Wales. Knife crime has gone up even more steeply, by 21% in the 12 months to September, and gun crime has risen by 20%, according to quarterly figures released on Thursday.
Police chiefs said the increases – including a 32% rise in domestic burglary to 261,965 offences and an 18% rise in vehicle-related crimes (443,577 offences) alongside the sharp rises in violent crime – marked a turning point after more than 20 years of sustained falls in these categories.
“Today’s police officers are dealing with more complex crime, more safeguarding and protecting vulnerable people and an unprecedented terror threat, as well as tackling some of the genuine rises in knife and gun crime, robbery, burglary and vehicle-related crime – crimes which turn the trend on many years of reductions,” said chief constable Bill Skelly, of the National Police Chiefs’ Council.
Meanwhile, official figures show that the number of police officers in England and Wales has fallen by 930 in the past 12 months, to 121,929, the lowest level since comparable records began in 1996. Police officer numbers are now 22,424 below their peak in 2009, when there were 144,353 officers.
Then there's this from the Independent:-
Tens of thousands more crimes are not being prosecuted amid warnings of a worsening “crisis” in Britain’s criminal justice system. Almost 92 per cent of offences do not result in perpetrators being charged or summonsed in England and Wales, with the number of offences taken to court dropping by almost 30,000 in a year.
Lawyers, police officers and victim support workers interviewed by The Independent blamed a perfect storm of police cuts, rising crime, rows over disclosure, falling confidence and the backlash to a series of collapsed rape cases. Figures published by the Home Office show in the year ending September 2018 only 8.2 per cent of 5 million recorded crimes were prosecuted, down from 9.5 per cent the previous year. The lowest figures were for sexual offences (4 per cent), with only 1.9 per cent of recorded rapes prosecuted – down from 2.4 per cent the previous year. Nick Thomas-Symonds, Labour’s shadow solicitor general, said the statistics made “very worrying reading”.
“This is, sadly, no surprise given the swingeing government cuts to both police and Crown Prosecution Service budgets,” he added. “The government has to step up to the plate and provide the resources needed to properly support victims and ensure that no stone is left unturned in bringing people to justice."
The reason for closing almost half of investigations was that no suspect had been identified, but almost a third were listed as “evidential difficulties”. There was a sharp rise in the proportion of cases recorded as “victim does not support action”, increasing to 42 per cent for violence, 35 per cent with rapes and 29 per cent of sexual offences. The victims’ commissioner, Baroness Newlove, raised concern that lengthy delays, poor conviction rates, demands for phones and personal records, and the prospect of cross-examination were making women drop claims.
The reason for closing almost half of investigations was that no suspect had been identified, but almost a third were listed as “evidential difficulties”. There was a sharp rise in the proportion of cases recorded as “victim does not support action”, increasing to 42 per cent for violence, 35 per cent with rapes and 29 per cent of sexual offences. The victims’ commissioner, Baroness Newlove, raised concern that lengthy delays, poor conviction rates, demands for phones and personal records, and the prospect of cross-examination were making women drop claims.
“The very low percentage of rape and sexual violence cases that result in a trial is a huge concern, as are the increasing number of victims who do not want to endure the criminal justice process,” she said. “I am often hearing from victims of sexual crime that their criminal justice journey is as harrowing as the crime itself. This is just not acceptable. I fear we are letting these victims down badly.”
Finally, there's David Fraser who I notice has been plugging his latest contrarian book on the Conservative Woman website:-
The inescapable fact – growing leniency equals rising crime
From the late 1950s Britain’s official attitude towards crime began to change. Instead of being viewed as bad behaviour that needed to be punished and controlled, it was increasingly judged to be a symptom of a social or psychological malaise. The offender was seen as being forced into crime by poverty, inequality or other forces beyond his control which society could, and should, alleviate. Greed, laziness and the wish to dominate others were no longer recognised as the motives for violent crime. Persistent violent and dangerous criminals, who spurned hard work and thrift as the route to a comfortable standard of living, were rewarded with state protection from prosecution whenever possible, and the guarantee of their human rights, even in the face of their violence and law breaking. What was required, our ruling elites argued, was the application, wherever possible, of non-custodial sentences (even for violent offenders), such as the supervision of offenders in the community, to identify and alleviate the ‘underlying causes of crime’.
This has never worked, either to reform offenders or to protect the public. The re-offending rates of supervised criminals have steadily worsened. Forty years ago they were 41 per cent measured over two years. They are now at least 56 per cent measured over one year. This equates to millions of offences committed against the public every year by offenders trusted with their freedom. Further, between 1998 and 2014 there were at least 6,300 of the most serious violent and sex crimes, such as murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, committed by criminals on the probation service’s books.
Eighteen-year-old Opemipo Jaji, a violent sex offender, was convicted of making an indecent image of a child as well as robbing and sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl. Despite his obvious dangerousness, he was given 18 months probation supervision in the community. A few months later, Jaji, having made a routine visit to his supervisor, left the probation office at about 4 pm.
After about five minutes, he fell in behind an 11-year-old girl walking home from school. He followed her, chose his moment and dragged her into a park and subjected her to a violent three-hour assault. While this attack was taking place, his supervising officer would have been putting the finishing touches to his record entry covering the interview. Probably, at the very moment that he closed the file and sat contemplating how well Jaji was doing and the wisdom the courts had shown in not sending him to prison, Jaji was repeatedly raping the terrified child.
During the 1990s the probation service embraced the idea that ‘thinking skills’ programmes, designed by psychologists, could identify faults in the way offenders made decisions and so help them avoid crime. They were hopeful that years of failure could at last be reversed. But four years later the published results showed that not only had they had failed to reform the offenders on these programmes, but that in many cases their offending had increased.
What probation and other officials will not admit is that crimes are not committed because of faulty thinking skills, nor because of some pressing social or psychological need, nor because of problems associated with poverty and inequality, but because the offender chooses to commit them.
Although it is true that many criminals emerge from the poorer or less well-off sections of the community, it is wrong to interpret these conditions as factors which ‘cause’ crime. (An analysis carried out in 2011 found, contrary to what many believed, that countries with greater degrees of inequality and poverty had less crime than those which were wealthier and with more equality). Most people who choose to be violent and commit crime tend also to make life choices that generally keep them in the lower classes of our society. For example they refuse to work at school, are violent, ill-disciplined, demand instant gratification, and fail to plan for the future. This is not to say that they do not have access to money – crime and violence brings many of them a good income and their social station in life can be seen as an indicator of how they choose to live and spend their ill-gotten gains. The fact that the majority of children from poorer home backgrounds go on to live decent law-abiding lives bears out this truth. In 1926, when millions of working-class Britons lived in dire poverty, our violent offender rate was 4.4 per 100,000 of the population. It is now over 1,400.
Swathes of legislation have allowed courts to avoid using imprisonment for increasing numbers of convicted criminals. Yet we are told ‘we send too many offenders to jail’, and many now believe this is a truth written in stone. But it is a trick created by measuring the numbers in prison against our general population. When computed this way, it suggests that our imprisonment rate, per 100,000 of the population, has been rising.
But a moment’s reflection tells us that most of us do not commit crime and are not in that group of persons liable to be sent to jail. Therefore, this calculation tells us nothing about how lenient or severe we are in our use of prison for criminals. A more accurate imprisonment rate can be obtained by expressing the prison population against the number of crimes committed. The following graph shows that our imprisonment rate, when calculated in this way, has, since the 1950s, fallen not risen, and that we are not the ‘prison-obsessed nation’ that the anti-prison lobby would have us believe.
The opposite is the case. Only 28 per cent of offenders convicted of a serious crime are given a term of imprisonment. The public are left to rub shoulders with the remaining 72 per cent, except, of course, the justice elite, whose gated communities in cities and country retreats provide them with a level of security not available to the majority. Generally, they are not affected by crimes committed by those they campaign to keep out of jail. Many who are sentenced to imprisonment do not stay in long. The average sentence length for ‘violence against the person’ crimes is just 23 months, which in practice means 11 months, because almost all sentences are subject to 50 per cent remission.
We do not need psychologists to tell us that if you reward bad behaviour you will get more of it. We should not be surprised that violent crime is escalating. The offenders have taken their cue from us.
Based on over 30 years research of government sentencing policy and work in the criminal justice system, David Fraser’s book demonstrates that the State’s increased reliance on alternatives to imprisonment has allowed all categories of violent crime to flourish in Britain; that, the homicide rate, for example, doubled between 1964 and the turn of the millennium; that the numbers of life threatening attacks have increased rapidly over the last 40 years, and that justice officials have hidden this development with a blizzard of deceptive statistics whose purpose is to mislead rather than inform the public.
Anti-prison groups and other apologists for offenders tell the public that violent offenders can be ‘managed’ in the community under supervision to the probation service, that prison doesn’t work because it makes offenders ‘worse’. The analysis presented here shows that none of this is true. Readers will be informed that contrary to the misleading propaganda regularly fed to the public, that parole is a cruel absurdity and should be abolished, that criminals under probation supervision as an alternative to imprisonment, commit hundreds of murders and other serious crimes every year, while the governments own figures, kept away from the public eye, makes it clear that long prison sentences are our best protection against violent (and other) crime, and are effective in encouraging criminals to reform.
The book demonstrates that the death penalty was an effective deterrent to homicide but its purpose is not to argue for its reintroduction. But by acknowledging its effectiveness, we can argue the case for a re-vamped sentencing system that is as effective as was the fear of the hangman’s noose. Evidence shows that the adoption of a 2 or 3 strike sentencing system resulting in mandatory long prison terms would provide the public with a much greater degree of protection. Other English speaking countries who have, in response to public demand, legislated this type of system have found that it discourages further violence and has produced startling reductions in crime.
David Fraser was a senior probation officer and criminal intelligence analyst with the former National Criminal Intelligence Service (now The National Crime Agency). He has had many articles published along with two well received books, the first of which was recommended for the George Orwell Prize in Literature. It provoked wide interest in this country and abroad and was commended to the House of Commons during a speech by an MP. David Fraser is married with two adult children and two grandchildren and lives in the South-West of England.
From the late 1950s Britain’s official attitude towards crime began to change. Instead of being viewed as bad behaviour that needed to be punished and controlled, it was increasingly judged to be a symptom of a social or psychological malaise. The offender was seen as being forced into crime by poverty, inequality or other forces beyond his control which society could, and should, alleviate. Greed, laziness and the wish to dominate others were no longer recognised as the motives for violent crime. Persistent violent and dangerous criminals, who spurned hard work and thrift as the route to a comfortable standard of living, were rewarded with state protection from prosecution whenever possible, and the guarantee of their human rights, even in the face of their violence and law breaking. What was required, our ruling elites argued, was the application, wherever possible, of non-custodial sentences (even for violent offenders), such as the supervision of offenders in the community, to identify and alleviate the ‘underlying causes of crime’.
This has never worked, either to reform offenders or to protect the public. The re-offending rates of supervised criminals have steadily worsened. Forty years ago they were 41 per cent measured over two years. They are now at least 56 per cent measured over one year. This equates to millions of offences committed against the public every year by offenders trusted with their freedom. Further, between 1998 and 2014 there were at least 6,300 of the most serious violent and sex crimes, such as murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, committed by criminals on the probation service’s books.
Eighteen-year-old Opemipo Jaji, a violent sex offender, was convicted of making an indecent image of a child as well as robbing and sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl. Despite his obvious dangerousness, he was given 18 months probation supervision in the community. A few months later, Jaji, having made a routine visit to his supervisor, left the probation office at about 4 pm.
After about five minutes, he fell in behind an 11-year-old girl walking home from school. He followed her, chose his moment and dragged her into a park and subjected her to a violent three-hour assault. While this attack was taking place, his supervising officer would have been putting the finishing touches to his record entry covering the interview. Probably, at the very moment that he closed the file and sat contemplating how well Jaji was doing and the wisdom the courts had shown in not sending him to prison, Jaji was repeatedly raping the terrified child.
During the 1990s the probation service embraced the idea that ‘thinking skills’ programmes, designed by psychologists, could identify faults in the way offenders made decisions and so help them avoid crime. They were hopeful that years of failure could at last be reversed. But four years later the published results showed that not only had they had failed to reform the offenders on these programmes, but that in many cases their offending had increased.
What probation and other officials will not admit is that crimes are not committed because of faulty thinking skills, nor because of some pressing social or psychological need, nor because of problems associated with poverty and inequality, but because the offender chooses to commit them.
Although it is true that many criminals emerge from the poorer or less well-off sections of the community, it is wrong to interpret these conditions as factors which ‘cause’ crime. (An analysis carried out in 2011 found, contrary to what many believed, that countries with greater degrees of inequality and poverty had less crime than those which were wealthier and with more equality). Most people who choose to be violent and commit crime tend also to make life choices that generally keep them in the lower classes of our society. For example they refuse to work at school, are violent, ill-disciplined, demand instant gratification, and fail to plan for the future. This is not to say that they do not have access to money – crime and violence brings many of them a good income and their social station in life can be seen as an indicator of how they choose to live and spend their ill-gotten gains. The fact that the majority of children from poorer home backgrounds go on to live decent law-abiding lives bears out this truth. In 1926, when millions of working-class Britons lived in dire poverty, our violent offender rate was 4.4 per 100,000 of the population. It is now over 1,400.
Swathes of legislation have allowed courts to avoid using imprisonment for increasing numbers of convicted criminals. Yet we are told ‘we send too many offenders to jail’, and many now believe this is a truth written in stone. But it is a trick created by measuring the numbers in prison against our general population. When computed this way, it suggests that our imprisonment rate, per 100,000 of the population, has been rising.
But a moment’s reflection tells us that most of us do not commit crime and are not in that group of persons liable to be sent to jail. Therefore, this calculation tells us nothing about how lenient or severe we are in our use of prison for criminals. A more accurate imprisonment rate can be obtained by expressing the prison population against the number of crimes committed. The following graph shows that our imprisonment rate, when calculated in this way, has, since the 1950s, fallen not risen, and that we are not the ‘prison-obsessed nation’ that the anti-prison lobby would have us believe.
The opposite is the case. Only 28 per cent of offenders convicted of a serious crime are given a term of imprisonment. The public are left to rub shoulders with the remaining 72 per cent, except, of course, the justice elite, whose gated communities in cities and country retreats provide them with a level of security not available to the majority. Generally, they are not affected by crimes committed by those they campaign to keep out of jail. Many who are sentenced to imprisonment do not stay in long. The average sentence length for ‘violence against the person’ crimes is just 23 months, which in practice means 11 months, because almost all sentences are subject to 50 per cent remission.
We do not need psychologists to tell us that if you reward bad behaviour you will get more of it. We should not be surprised that violent crime is escalating. The offenders have taken their cue from us.
David Fraser
--oo00oo--
This about the book and author:-
Anti-prison groups and other apologists for offenders tell the public that violent offenders can be ‘managed’ in the community under supervision to the probation service, that prison doesn’t work because it makes offenders ‘worse’. The analysis presented here shows that none of this is true. Readers will be informed that contrary to the misleading propaganda regularly fed to the public, that parole is a cruel absurdity and should be abolished, that criminals under probation supervision as an alternative to imprisonment, commit hundreds of murders and other serious crimes every year, while the governments own figures, kept away from the public eye, makes it clear that long prison sentences are our best protection against violent (and other) crime, and are effective in encouraging criminals to reform.
The book demonstrates that the death penalty was an effective deterrent to homicide but its purpose is not to argue for its reintroduction. But by acknowledging its effectiveness, we can argue the case for a re-vamped sentencing system that is as effective as was the fear of the hangman’s noose. Evidence shows that the adoption of a 2 or 3 strike sentencing system resulting in mandatory long prison terms would provide the public with a much greater degree of protection. Other English speaking countries who have, in response to public demand, legislated this type of system have found that it discourages further violence and has produced startling reductions in crime.
David Fraser was a senior probation officer and criminal intelligence analyst with the former National Criminal Intelligence Service (now The National Crime Agency). He has had many articles published along with two well received books, the first of which was recommended for the George Orwell Prize in Literature. It provoked wide interest in this country and abroad and was commended to the House of Commons during a speech by an MP. David Fraser is married with two adult children and two grandchildren and lives in the South-West of England.
A jarring read, particularly that by David Fraser. I imagine that his views are supported by a large percentage of the general public and his writing is powerful. His views need to be part of the debate, they have significant support, but I think the approach to the problem of criminality requires a more nuanced understanding and with that thoughtful investment in a wide range of services of which community sentences are but one of many.
ReplyDeleteWhat Fraser fails to mention is that crime is a construct, and offences are often linked to those pesky social & environmental factors. Because of this, the less fortunate will commit more crimes, because they don't have the wealth or education to avoid the system (the drug user with no job has to steal to fund his habit. The stock broker with same habit can afford not to steal)
ReplyDeleteHowever, if we are going to deliberately ignore all the independent variables of poverty, upbringing, unemployment etc in shaping criminality, then surely white collar crime most fits David Frasers basic theory that crime is a individual choice. This crime, is mainly hidden in the fabric of capitalist values. But it's impact is far reaching (we are still in the grip of a financial depression caused by white collar crime).
For those caught in the revolving door of the CJS, a short sentence is at worst an inconvenience, at best it provides a short respite from a chaotic lifestyle.
ReplyDeleteMany I believe, if given the choice would choose a short custodial over many types of community punishment.
I read a warning from the Lawers today about the legal system being so under funded that its creating a situation where those with money are able to escape justice.
It's services being made available and the provision of some means of opertuity that Rory should be looking at. Getting rid of short sentences may reduce the prison population slightly, but on its own will achieve nothing for those being diverted.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/rich-criminals-can-buy-freedom-13907887
'Getafix
Rich criminals can 'buy freedom' because CPS can no longer afford top lawyers
DeleteThe justice system is so crippled by Tory cuts that rich criminals will soon be able to buy their freedom in court, barristers warn. The Crown Prosecution Service can ill afford to pay top QCs to prosecute criminals after its budget was cut 37% since 2010, the Criminal Bar Association said.
But defence lawyers typically get around £200 per hour, or up to £400 an hour for a top lawyer on a big case. It means those who can afford them are more likely to walk free, said CBA chairman Chris Henley QC. He said he gets “daily emails” from barristers who are now unwilling to prosecute.
Prosecution fees were slashed in 2012 by around a third, the CBA says, meaning that fees in 2019 are lower than they were in 2006. QCs get around £80 an hour, junior barristers £20 to £40 an hour.
CBA spokesman James Rossiter said: “In some cases – robbery, grooming – there may be instances where barristers cannot afford to do it. If you have the CPS prosecuting on a fraud or drug-dealing case, the defendant may be a wealthy person with access to good lawyers. Prosecutors may not take on the case because the fees are too low, and those who may take it on might not have the best experience. We’re going to get to the stage where the guilty are walking free.”
Barristers are considering strike action. Cuts to police, the CPS and the Ministry of Justice, led by Lord Chancellor David Gauke, have resulted in thousands of cases being missed, they say. About 80,000 cases were brought to crown court last year, down from 100,000 in 2014-15. The CPS budget was £491million last year, from £672million in 2009-10 – a real terms 37% cut, the CBA said.
It said the legal aid system is also in crisis, with more people defending themselves in courts after changes including a new means test. Fees for legal aid work fell 80% last April, it added. Mr Henley said: “Those who can afford to pay can choose barristers who no longer do legal aid work.”
A Government spokesman said: “We are confident the CPS is properly resourced.”
The CPS said: “It has been a challenge to adapt to a 30% reduction in staff. However, against every key measure, the CPS has managed to maintain its performance.”
Put Tories in the dock for criminal cuts to our legal system which help the rich
DeleteEveryone must be treated the same in the courts regardless of wealth
Your right to justice should not depend on the size of your bank account.
For decades our legal system has been based on the principle that anyone, rich or poor, is treated the same. This whole premise is now under threat because of Tory cuts.
Leading barristers say fees have fallen so low they fear innocent people will not be able to get proper representation in court, while those wealthy enough to afford a top-class defence lawyer will be able to buy their freedom.
The scale of the damage caused by this Tory Government does not stop there.
Cuts to legal aid have shut people with housing problems or employment issues out of the justice system. Budget cuts mean fewer crimes are investigated by police, while a cash-strapped CPS is prosecuting fewer cases.
This is the legacy of Conservative austerity: criminals going free, the innocent penalised and wealthy able to buy preferential treatment.
The evidence is clear. Ministers are guilty of bringing our justice system to its knees.
“We do not need psychologists to tell us that if you reward bad behaviour you will get more of it.” What a disappointing and reductionist argument from someone with a Probation background. It reminded me of the rhetoric of the Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro so steeped are David Fraser's critiques of anything more sophisticated than ‘lock ‘em up and throw away the key’ approaches. We do need psychologist to help us understand risk. Paedophilic and other forms of criminality may not be able to be changed and we the law abiding have to manage it in a humane way, remember the criminals can be our family members. Psychological approaches can also inform us how early relationships with caregivers can nurture anti social tendency’s and how these can be understood moderated and inform accurate assessment of risks to the public.
ReplyDeleteI found it surprising that a former Senior Probation Officer has sought to boil criminality down to a 'choice' (to be or not to be) without at least expanding on the idea, acknowledging that choices are not simplistic calculations. Changing or choosing behaviour as if it were always a simple matter of a polarised, freely made and calculated individual choice, a flick of a switch, really does not stand up to scrutiny.
ReplyDeleteWhilst I am not against the use of custody to protect the public, deprive offenders of their liberty as a punishment, a reflection of society's desire to have some form of retribution in the name of justice etc. I did find the idea that custody in its present form and more of it is the means by which the wrong behavioural choices can be best deterred. Again does not stand up to scrutiny.
Overly simplistic Mr Fraser, as is banning short custodial sentences Minister.
Prisons are merely ‘warehousing’ offenders, says peer
DeleteLord Brown says 'warehousing' has replaced rehabilitation in the prison estate, saying our jails are 'truly in crisis'
PRISONS
Latest
Prisons are merely ‘warehousing’ offenders, says peer
Lord Brown says 'warehousing' has replaced rehabilitation in the prison estate, saying our jails are 'truly in crisis'
September 13, 2017
By Adam Forrest
@adamtomforrest
The UK is simply “warehousing” offenders in prisons without preparing them for a life beyond crime
That’s the stark judgement of one of the country’s former Supreme Court justices, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. The crossbench peer said overcrowding has left the nation’s prison estate “truly in crisis.”
Lord Brown said the government need to look again at sentencing policy to reduce the numbers and types of offenders sent to jail.
“The percentage of our population serving prison sentences is almost twice that in Germany, let alone Scandinavia, and very substantially higher than in most of the developed world,” he said. “Our standard sentences are routinely substantially longer.”
It is small wonder that prison riots and disturbances are no longer a rarity
Lord Brown said many prisons suffered from lack of workshops, educational facilities and the preparation needed for their release to stop the cycle of reoffending.
“In short, warehousing has largely replaced rehabilitation,” he said. “It is small wonder that prison riots and disturbances are no longer a rarity; prisons are dangerous places.”
Lord John Bird, The Big Issue’s founder is a keen supporter of prison reform and has long spoken of the problem of “warehousing” the poorest in society.
Bird wants government to focus on a prevention agenda, tackling poverty at its root to help stop social problems reoccurring over and over again. He has proposed a prevention unit in Whitehall working across health, education, social services, police and prisons.
In his latest online column, Bird said: “If we want to reduce the prison population, we have to stop producing the people who make up the population.”