,
11 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
This “research” paper, which some of the tabloids are salivating over today, is one of the most stupid and misleading documents produced for some years.
Its premise is that what criminal justice needs is - surprise surprise - even more prison.
The ignorance is palpable.
Its premise is that what criminal justice needs is - surprise surprise - even more prison.
The ignorance is palpable.
The author is outraged that repeat “super-prolific” offenders sometimes avoid prison. WHY ARE JUDGES LETTING THEM OFF?
Well one unacknowledged reality, about which he seems completely unaware, is that a large number of offences in the magistrates’ courts are non-imprisonable.
Well one unacknowledged reality, about which he seems completely unaware, is that a large number of offences in the magistrates’ courts are non-imprisonable.
The statistics relied upon throughout this report do not disaggregate imprisonable and non-imprisonable offences. Which makes the entire paper worthless.
The statistics relied upon tell us literally nothing. Someone who has committed 100 offences, receiving custody every time, and whose 101st offence is a non-imprisonable driving offence, would qualify as a “super offender” “escaping prison” on this methodology.
Likewise, a petty criminal who repeatedly commits non-imprisonable offences of minor public disorder, or being drunk and disorderly, will easily amass a dozen such convictions before being imprisoned. They too, on this paper’s definition, are super criminals evading prison.
There will be people who commit offences as children - often children in care, damaging furniture in care homes, for instance - whom the courts will rightly not imprison in an effort to promote rehabilitation. Again, not accounted for.
The warning is on the first page, where the author opens with this complaint. Michael Howard was prevented from introducing minimum terms for repeat burglars in 1997.
He fails to mention that one of Labour’s first acts in 1999 was to introduce minimum terms for repeat burglars.
He fails to mention that one of Labour’s first acts in 1999 was to introduce minimum terms for repeat burglars.
I could go on, but I have work to do, toiling in the justice system that this clown and his mates have broken, the only interest in which they show is making prison sentences longer.
This, given the grunts Johnson has been making, is the policy approach we can expect in justice.
This, given the grunts Johnson has been making, is the policy approach we can expect in justice.
I am not defending criminal sentencing. It’s a mess. That’s why I wrote a chapter on it in my book. It’s incomprehensible, misleading to the public and often incoherent.
But this is not a sensible or constructive contribution. It is “Prison Works” microwaved up for 2019.
But this is not a sensible or constructive contribution. It is “Prison Works” microwaved up for 2019.
Something else omitted is the conditions of our prison system.
And the international context. We already imprison people at a higher rate than anywhere in Western Europe. We have more prisoners serving life or indeterminate sentences than any other member of the Council of Europe.
How can a self-respecting “repeat” ignore this context?
How can a self-respecting “repeat” ignore this context?
