Parole reforms locking people out of rehabilitation
The slow drip feed of hard information from the Ministry of Justice about the impact of changes to the parole system continues. In this blog, Peter Dawson, director of the Prison Reform Trust, examines what these latest numbers tell us.
A recent parliamentary question by Baroness Prashar has uncovered further information about the impact of the government’s parole reforms.
People who are progressing really well in their life sentence can request what is known as a pre-tariff review. This is a hearing by the Parole Board, held three years before a person’s earliest possible release date—their tariff expiry. If successful, they are allowed to move to a lower security ‘open prison’.
In a sensible world, everyone would be entitled to such a review without asking, and PRT has called for reviews to happen even earlier in the life sentence. That would mean that people could be completely clear about what they needed to do to stand the best chance of being released at the moment the authority to detain purely as punishment comes to an end.
But as things currently stand, the pre-tariff review procedure is all the system offers. The prison’s Governor must first support the request for the review before it is considered by the Ministry of Justice. Officials in the ministry must then endorse that support before the Parole Board can get involved. In practice, that means requests are initially considered (and can be refused) on the basis of very brief reports. These are considerably less detailed and informative than the subsequent dossier of information that is prepared if the review is eventually sent for consideration by a Parole Board panel.
Getting a pre-tariff review has never been easy. But what does this new information reveal?
It tells us that in the six months before the criteria for transfer to open conditions changed on 6 June, 133 applications for review were referred to the Parole Board by the ministry, and 113 were not.
People who are progressing really well in their life sentence can request what is known as a pre-tariff review. This is a hearing by the Parole Board, held three years before a person’s earliest possible release date—their tariff expiry. If successful, they are allowed to move to a lower security ‘open prison’.
In a sensible world, everyone would be entitled to such a review without asking, and PRT has called for reviews to happen even earlier in the life sentence. That would mean that people could be completely clear about what they needed to do to stand the best chance of being released at the moment the authority to detain purely as punishment comes to an end.
But as things currently stand, the pre-tariff review procedure is all the system offers. The prison’s Governor must first support the request for the review before it is considered by the Ministry of Justice. Officials in the ministry must then endorse that support before the Parole Board can get involved. In practice, that means requests are initially considered (and can be refused) on the basis of very brief reports. These are considerably less detailed and informative than the subsequent dossier of information that is prepared if the review is eventually sent for consideration by a Parole Board panel.
Getting a pre-tariff review has never been easy. But what does this new information reveal?
It tells us that in the six months before the criteria for transfer to open conditions changed on 6 June, 133 applications for review were referred to the Parole Board by the ministry, and 113 were not.
So that’s a success rate prior to 6 June of around 54% in terms of at least getting your case considered with a full dossier and independently of the ministry. Since 6 June, 9 requests have been referred to the Parole Board and 65 have been blocked, a success rate of just 12%.
It beggars belief that ministers are so determined to keep lifers out of open prisons. Doing so forces the Parole Board to see cases for the very first time following their tariff expiry date, keeping people stuck in a closed prison without any of the benefits that an open prison provides to prepare someone for release. Nowadays the system has generally had at least a couple of decades to prepare for someone getting released and to test out all the anxieties it might have about allowing that. It’s surely not too much to expect that getting someone safely released once they have served their minimum term—or tariff expiry—should be what that system is aiming for.
The failure to get organised in pursuit of that aim—and now to adopt policies that actively frustrate it—will have very practical consequences for ministers at a time when they are running out of both prison places and the staff they need to run them. But it will also have devastating consequences for the people who are denied the chance even to put their case to the Parole Board—typically people who have done everything asked of them over many years spent in prison. This isn’t simply an immoral policy. It’s an irrational one.
Peter Dawson
Director
It beggars belief that ministers are so determined to keep lifers out of open prisons. Doing so forces the Parole Board to see cases for the very first time following their tariff expiry date, keeping people stuck in a closed prison without any of the benefits that an open prison provides to prepare someone for release. Nowadays the system has generally had at least a couple of decades to prepare for someone getting released and to test out all the anxieties it might have about allowing that. It’s surely not too much to expect that getting someone safely released once they have served their minimum term—or tariff expiry—should be what that system is aiming for.
The failure to get organised in pursuit of that aim—and now to adopt policies that actively frustrate it—will have very practical consequences for ministers at a time when they are running out of both prison places and the staff they need to run them. But it will also have devastating consequences for the people who are denied the chance even to put their case to the Parole Board—typically people who have done everything asked of them over many years spent in prison. This isn’t simply an immoral policy. It’s an irrational one.
Peter Dawson
Director
Adam Bienkov (Byline Times) on twitter: "Robert Jenrick says that while treating people with "decency" is important, so is "deterrence" and "we have to make the UK significantly less attractive to illegal immigration"."
ReplyDeleteSo the Ayn Rand inspired Justice System, adored by Raab, is now in full flower across the UK govt.
Coincidentally Biden & the UK govt have publicly embraced & fully backed the newly elected Netanyahu administration in Israel, formed from a coalition of ultra-Orthodox parties and a new alliance with the far right. Now back in office, the 73-year-old’s first priority will be seeking to get his trial dropped.
The new govt's shopping list includes immunity from prosecution for Israeli soldiers, the expansion of illegal settlement building in the occupied West Bank, and reversals of LGBT-friendly laws.
A template for UK 2024?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/07/jail-time-not-deterrent-criminals-dont-think-police-will-catch/
ReplyDeleteLonger prison sentences do not work as a deterrent because criminals do not believe they will be caught with police detection rates so low, according to research by the judicial body that oversees sentencing.
DeleteA major study by the Sentencing Council said that the “low risk of detection” undermined “any deterrent effect” that longer sentences had on criminals.
It said this was one of five reasons why there was “no strong evidence” to support longer sentences having a “general deterrent effect” on offenders.
“Moreover, we note that some have argued it is time to accept that sentence severity has no effect on the level of crime in society,” said the council.
The latest Home Office figures show police are solving the lowest proportion of crimes on record - as overall offences have hit a new high. Only 5.4 per cent of all crimes resulted in a charge in the year to June, equivalent to just over one in 20 offences being solved. That is more than half the rate six years ago.
By contrast, the average custodial sentence length for all indictable offences has reached 25.7 months in the year to March 2022, up from 16.8 months in 2012, according to Ministry of Justice (MoJ) figures. It follows successive crackdowns on sentencing in successive criminal justice bills by Tories and Labour.
The sentencing council said as well as detection rates, severe sentences could also only deter if offenders knew about them and understood them but research suggested there was “limited understanding” of them among defendants.
Another reason highlighted by the council was that a lot of crime was carried out by people with low self-control, who were highly impulsive and underestimated the consequences of their actions.
“Deterrence-based policies assume that offenders make at least broadly rational decisions, ‘giving some thought to benefits and costs’, whereas research shows that a myriad of psychological and situational factors mean that would-be criminals very often depart from normatively rational behaviour,” said the council.
Many offenders also set more store by “peer group influence and fear of lost respect or social standing” among the criminal fraternity than their fear of facing a long prison term.
The council said that tougher sentences appeared to have little effect not only generally but also in deterring specific individuals from committing crimes.
“There is evidence that sentence enhancements (that is, increases in sentence severity) for those with prior records do not appear to produce a deterrent effect in terms of reductions in rates of reoffending,” said the council.
“For example, in the context of burglary, research with offenders found that assistance with drug misuse rather than the deterrent effects of punishment was the most common reason given for reducing offending.
“Even the more draconian ‘three strikes’ rules in the USA (whereby even three relatively minor offences can lead to prison sentences of between 25 years to life) do not seem to be effective in producing deterrent effects.”
The council said there was even less evidence that “short, sharp shock” punishments for young offenders were effective as teenagers and young people aged over 18 “may still be in a formative phase of their life where deterrent effects as less likely (until as late as 25-30 in terms of neurological development)”.
DeleteThe council said its review of research suggested short prison sentences under 12 months were less effective than other punishments such as suspended jail terms or community sentences.
It said “certain requirements” of community or suspended sentences such as treatment for drug or drink addiction “may be more effective at promoting positive outcomes than others”.
“The evidence against the effectiveness of short custodial sentences is amongst the most robust. There is also good evidence on what is effective in certain circumstances (for example in cases involving addiction or mental health issues),” concluded the council.
“The council will consider undertaking work with offenders to understand which elements of their sentence may have influenced rehabilitation. Additionally, further research into ‘what works’ for different sectors of the population (for example different ethnicities and genders) would be beneficial.”
This ignorance of SSS I did both junior detention and senior . It was during Willie Whitelaw time . Just another government Tory agenda to encourage ex army prison officers to have a free hand to abuse youngsters with exhausting drill routine. Incredible outrageous bullying shouting and faux discipline that encouraged inmate retributions. No one could ever think SSS for kids was not both mentally and physically abusive. We should be able to claim damages from the fucking idiots that dreamt that crap in a bag up. I could very upset before trying to educate those backward bastards. To their own medicine. You can tell I'm just a little still angry.youngsters today won't see the police called out to anything when in my day they'd try and hang you for breathing in posh streets. Distorted justice continues.
DeleteI cannot add to that but I can read the long lasting anger in this . Perhaps that area might be worthy of study in how not to have done things.
DeleteDC had nothing to do with rehabilitation what so ever. It was purely retribution and an attempt to instill so much fear in a young person they would be frightened to reoffend ever again.
DeleteIn truth it brutalised and damaged people so much it had the completely opposite effect.
It lended itself to the Dickensian notion that if the State had to intervene in wayward childrens lives then it had to correct them and change their deviant ways.
Harsh and frequent punishment and instilling fear was the approach adopted.
In truth, and not so brutal, the care system at the time took a very similar approach.
The practices used in detention centres has saw the UK Government reported to the UN for State sponsored torture, and rightly so in my opinion.
I do however think that someone like Dominic Rabb would welcome the return of such a barbaric system.
https://www-independent-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/detention-centre-torture-boys-youth-sexual-physical-abuse-inquiry-kirklevington-medomsley-a8142456.html?amp=&_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16679908529705&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fcrime%2Fdetention-centre-torture-boys-youth-sexual-physical-abuse-inquiry-kirklevington-medomsley-a8142456.html
'Getafix
Well said gtx right on the truth. It encourages those of the experience to maintain resentment and anti authority.
DeleteHundreds of boys say they were subjected to sexual and physical abuse amounting to “torture” in youth detention centres, sparking calls for a public inquiry.
DeleteA lawyer representing the alleged victims said they had been raped, beaten and sexually assaulted during the 1970s and 1980s.
David Greenwood, the head of child abuse at Switalskis Solicitors, said he was already representing more than 400 men and being “approached constantly” by new claimants.
“Clients I’ve spoken to have said it was like torture – they were locked up and couldn’t get away,” he told The Independent.
“Most of them say it made them anti-authority, they felt as though they couldn’t trust people.
“For boys in for stealing to be subjected to this indiscriminate violence was a shock, and I say it was unlawful.
“It made boys who had obviously done wrong in some respect into boys who were worse, and ended up in violence.”
Former inmates at Eastwood Park Detention Centre in Gloucestershire have told Mr Greenwood they were punched if they did not answer officers’ responses with “Sir”.
Others described being regularly hit “for the slightest misdemeanour”, being whipped with rubber pipes, forced to perform extreme exercise, have cold showers and were made to crouch in stress positions without chairs.
The important thing to take from the above Jim is that people were prepared and willing to deliver such a regime.
DeleteThose inflicting the abuse were the good guys.
Todays probation service is much the same. It's not the physical and punishing abuse of the detention centres, but it's the domineering and controlling aspect of probation that the good guys are prepared to deliver that makes for a relationship that feels abusive. The relationship is far too imbalanced, and the Stanford experiment evidences what happens when that relationship becomes so polarised.
A controlling relationship is an abusive relationship in whatever context.
'Getafix
Yes another well made observation . Anti authority is a real life changer in by not getting the best for potential from or for people. It is all lost for too many. Victims of a regime. Keep us posted when they come for the abusers at HMDC SEND they know who they are if not passed by now. The government is still liable.
DeleteThe answer to Baroness Prashar's question:
ReplyDelete"On 6 June the former Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice introduced a new test for the consideration of suitability for those serving indeterminate sentences for transfer to open prison conditions, whether pre- or post-tariff. This allows for greater scrutiny of Parole Board recommendations on open prison moves... NB. These figures have been drawn from the Public Protection Unit Database held by Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service."
Big caveat: "As with any large-scale recording systems, the figures are subject to possible errors with data migration and processing."
“And let it here be noted that men are either to be kindly treated, or utterly crushed since they can revenge lighter injuries, but not graver. Wherefore the injury we do to a man should be of a sort to leave no fear of reprisals.” —The Prince, by Niccolo Michiavelli
ReplyDelete