Over the past week, BBC Radio 4 has delivered two very pertinent programmes that directly impinge upon probation's professional dilemma and our continuing discussion of it. To me, both raise fundamental issues that go to the very core of our work, or more correctly should, and serve to reinforce the utter folly of the path politicians have forced us down over recent decades, especially removing the requirement for social work training. Both programmes would reward the time spent locating them on BBC Sounds and I would therefore encourage readers to seek them out.
Speaking personally, each resonates with much of my professional practice over the years, my thinking, my concerns and the factors so often on my mind as I interviewed clients, read the evidence, processed the information and laboured over the pre-sentence reports. It also often spurred me on to seek expert assessment, opinion and 'treatment' that would hopefully improve outcomes, not just for society, but for the individual concerned.
On the night of 31 July, 2011, the lives of Jacob Dunne, David Hodgkinson and Joan Scourfield changed forever. In the midst of a face-off at a Nottingham pub, fuelled by drink and a need to impress his friends, 18-year-old Jacob threw a punch at James Hodgkinson, David and Joan’s son. James died a few days later.
Radio 4's The Punch tells the unlikely story of rehabilitation and achievement undertaken by Jacob through restorative justice and with the help and support of the parents of the young man he killed. Jacob has been on a journey that has taken him from offender to justice campaigner, but he is still getting to grips with his reformed character status.
Aged 19, Jacob Dunne was convicted of manslaughter for killing a man with a single punch. This is the story of Jacob's transformation, with help from the unlikeliest of places.
--oo00oo--
This edition of the Moral Maze makes reference to The Punch and although some exchanges are irritating and border upon the surreal, I couldn't help but feel how 20 years ago a probation officer's view would have benefitted the discourse enormously! Sadly I suspect the producer never gave it a thought and they were probably right. Oh, how we have become so irrelevant!
I was also starkly reminded that a staggering 30% of prisoners are estimated to be within a broad category of learning difficulties and disabilities. Listening to this debate, one cannot help but feel we are paying the cost of having all-but ditched PSR's from probation's core function.
The Channel 4 documentary, ‘Hitler's DNA: Blueprint of a Dictator’ has carried out a controversial genetic analysis of the Nazi leader. The test shows "very high" scores - in the top 1% - for a predisposition to autism, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. This not a diagnosis, however, and there have been concerns about whether such speculation stigmatises these conditions.
While we shouldn’t seek to explain a person’s moral character and actions simply through genetics, there are many other aspects of our lives we can’t control, and which can nevertheless influence our behaviour and the judgements of others. These, include our upbringing and the circumstances we happen to be placed in (war, oppression, abuse) as well as the outcome of our actions (e.g. whether someone happens get away drink-driving, or not). If this is all a question of moral luck, how much should it be taken into consideration in our judgments of others? And where does that leave human agency, responsibility and culpability?
One view is that moral blame should be based solely on someone’s intentions and the choices they make. Moral responsibility, it’s argued, rests on rational will, and unlucky life chances should not excuse bad or criminal behaviour. However, in the criminal justice system, mitigating circumstances, while not excusing bad behaviour, are presented to reduce the severity of a person's culpability.
How do we untangle what is in someone’s control, and what is a matter of luck, when it comes to the combinations of nature and nurture that make up the people we are? If we focus too much the things we can’t control, would we ever be able to make any moral judgments at all? Or should we think more about the presence of moral luck in our everyday lives and work harder to understand rather than blame?
--oo00oo--
Of course both the above set the scene rather nicely for the BBC's flagship Reith Lectures starting next Tuesday morning at 9am:-
"We are delighted to announce Rutger Bregman as the 2025 Reith Lecturer. Bregman has consistently challenged us to reimagine the world as he thinks it could and should be. His Reith lectures are a provocation - arguing that we are in an age of crisis, but offering hope about where we could go from here. They promise to kick off a lively and important conversation about the age we are living through and what should come next”.
Mohit Bakaya, Director of Speech and Controller of BBC Radio 4 and 4 Extra
BBC Reith Lectures 2025 – Moral Revolution
Bregman's 2025 Reith Lectures will reflect on moments in history, including the likes of the suffragette and abolitionist movements, which have sparked transformative moral revolutions, offering hope for a new wave of progressive change. Across four lectures, he will also consider the explosive technological progress of recent years - placing us at a moment of immense risk and possibility, and will look ahead to how we might shape the future.
Bregman is an author whose works include Humankind (2020) and Utopia for Realists (2017), which were both Sunday Times and New York Times best sellers,as well as Moral Ambition which was released earlier this year and was also a Sunday Times bestseller. His work has been translated into 46 languages and has sold over two million copies. During a discussion at the Davos World Economic Forum in 2019, he also attracted international attention for holding his billionaire fellow panellists to account for not paying their taxes.
No comments:
Post a Comment