I got involved in quite a long exchange of posts on the Magistrates Blog. The subject was imprisonment in general. We started off with Merseyside’s Top Cop taking a pop at the Judiciary over mandatory sentences but it soon devolved into more general opinions. For what it’s worth, and in the hope of moving the debate a little, this is what I believe
I am a police detective, no particular axe to grind with the Criminal Justice System. I do think that senior Police Officers are always on a hiding to nothing when they take on the judiciary in public. There are more discrete and effective channels for that sort of discourse than radio interview and web-cast. The point has been made that even a mandatory sentence must have some wriggle room for special circumstances. So be it, I suppose.
WHY MANDATORY SENTENCES ARE’N'T (UNLESS YOU HAVE A VERY BAD LAWYER)
I do see this; once a particular special circumstance or situation become known to reliably reduce sentences, the number of defendants claiming this particular circumstance increases. It may be something to do with the advice given by solicitors. It may be a general word of mouth thing. This ability to shape a defence to a special circumstance seems to be particularly “viral” in the related area of asylum claims where it is so utterly blatant as to be axiomatic.
My belief, based only on watching defences mutate in response to law and developments in evidence is that the same process happens in criminal cases as well. I note that a conscientious solicitor would want to advise a client so as to best mitigate the effects of any criminal prosecution. There are some very clever boys and girls out there who make a very good living from being able to make the case fit the evidence. That’s their job. When we are lucky, we are the one’s employing them. It shouldn’t be about luck.
It then seems to me that when it comes to basis of plea and mitigation, the overworked judges and magistrates are not in any position to check the truth of what they are presented with and CPS / solicitors / barristers fall back on the tired old “the Crown accepts / my client assures me / I am instructed that.”
I imagine the following exchanges are not unusual
“Gottle of geer, gottle of geer”
Defence Barrister: “Would your Scrumptiousness care to give an indication on sentence for a guilty plea? Obviously it is in the public interest to avoid a long and costly trial, but of course it is my client’s right to insist on one. I do however have in my ink stained hand this cunning and recently constructed basis of plea which represents my clients special circumstances in admitting this offence. ”
HHJ Cocklecarrot: “You’re a very cheeky boy for asking but you have a persuasive face and a pleasant way with you. OK you’ve twisted my arm, 3 years for a guilty plea on the facts admitted in your basis of plea.”
Later upstairs
CPS Representative : “Well I know you got Lenny in possession of the gun but he’s offering a plea. We can’t really prove that his special circumstances don’t apply. It might not be in the public interest to have a trial and he will get 3 years after all”
Grizzled Detective: “It’s all a stitch up. Why do I bother. He never mentioned those circumstances in interview, he just no commented me. However, I am sick to the back teeth of taking on the CPS at court. This is not a hill to die on. Lenny will come again.”
Later downstairs
Defence Solicitor: “Lenny, you’re a lucky lucky boy. The forces of law have you bang to rights but if you throw your hand in against the very persuasive evidence, its 3 years with big remission. Take it to the mat and its 5 years no time off”
Lenny: “Cheers, three with remission and remand time, that’s nearly a walk out. Nice one”
My tuppence worth is that as we seem to be slowly heading towards an American style justice system, why not just get entirely honest about the process and allow proper plea bargaining before trial between CPS and defence solicitors? I know its expedient but it couldn’t be any worse than what we have now could it?
WHAT’S THE POINT OF PRISON?
If it was about deterrence, prison life would be tougher and nastier and harder. It isn’t.
If it was about reform, that aspect of the work in prisons would be much better funded and professional. It is not.
Reform attempts are probably better left to non-custodial interventions . All the stats I can find on the web say that they are about as effective as prison, maybe a few points better. They are at least lots, lots cheaper.
Prison for volume property crime and persistent lower level violent offenders is about containment. It’s society’s way of saying “You’ve had your chances, you’ve blown your chances, time to give the rest of us a rest from you”. Prisons are built, equipped and financed for basic containment because that is what they are meant to do. Form fits function.
Unless you want to recreate AbuGhraib on a commercial basis or return to the old days of The Clink or The Bastille, its a choice of containment or reform / rehabilitation. I think at the moment, we are doing default containment because
a) Nobody has found the magic key to reliable rehabilitation yet. There may not in fact be one. If this is the case then rats to rehabilitation, go for containment. I cannot help thinking that after 100 yrs + of Social Science and Penology, if there was a way, we would know it and be using it by now. Still, never say never.
b) Even if it is out there, no-one’s putting enough money into the system to make it work.
As a police officer or a tax payer, I would far rather be putting criminals into any process that has a good chance of reforming them. However, if I can’t do that, I will settle for containment on a community respite basis. Doesn’t need to be savage, doesn’t need to be chain gang or rock breaking, it just needs to be somewhere to keep them out of the way for a bit to give the neighbours a rest.
NJ – In answer to your question, I have no ideas where he is going to go. I try to be reasonable with everyone…Perhaps this will all be a good turning point.
In my neck of the woods, north of you, far from putting money into the prison service, cuts are being called for. My dad used to refer to some fictional (I hope fictional) man who had just taught his dog to live on nothing when it died.
Whilst I agree that “nobody has found the magic key to reliable rehabilitation yet”, the less money is spent the less chance anyone will have of finding such a key if it exists. More and more it will be about containment. My impression of that (from such neutral well-balanced research as watching “America’s toughest jail” style programs on tv!) doesn’t fill me with hope at that prospect.
I still think that containment only is such a short sighted effort… there needs to be an element of prison time that scares the living hell out of its inmates that wants them to reform for the sole purpose of not going back in. Many ex inmates aren’t scared of prison, and are even less scared of the police…. so where is the deterrant?
Victims live in fear for the rest of their days…..
Scum bags look on the inside as occupational hazards!
What is the answer?
TUPC if I thought scaring them would work any better than the latest high intensity non-custodial intervention, I would vote for it but I believe that mostly, we are dealing with the addicted / nihilistic / arrogant people who would still offend even if prison consisted of a large heated griddle populated by pitchfork wielding chappies with horns on their heads.
We aren’t going to scare them into not offending and we aren’t going to stop them from re-offending because like the “gambler that has a system this time” a lot of criminals think they will beat the system. Some of them will probably claim to like it scary.
I’m not saying containment is the best we should aspire to, only that it may be the best we can achieve at this time. If it is, then lets do containment.
I disagree.
I thought Bolly was a top bit of Totty.
But Gene’s character has excelled, as has Raymondo’s.
Consider yourself linked.
Welcome back from your hol’s, Nightjack, I trust you had good bonding time with your family.
Can I please recommend to your readers that they have a look at the various recent exchanges of posts on the Magistrate’s Blog. A wide variety of points of view have been expressed there and it might help push forward any debate which takes place here!
(done NJ)
This is the debate folks
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/bystanderjp/6931541109442592210/
Prison has become about managing problem populations, exactly as it has in the USA. That is why our prisons are full of the mentally ill, drug addicts, alcoholics, and those with learning difficulties.
Prison is sh*t…put still people commit crimes. In the USA they have the death penalty…and…errm…people still rape and murder.
The only truth is that prison as it is is neither a deterrent or a suitable response; re-intergrative shaming, Family Group Sessions, restorative justice are the way forward, and although known by other names in places like NZ, Japan, Australia, Singapore, Scandinavia et al, all these countries have much lower prison populations and much lower reoffending rates.
Also re sentencing…c’mon! Sentences are increasing in terms of length and in terms of crimes that result in imprisonment, plus we are sending more and more young people to prison…they come out fully prepped for a life of crime.
JC is right, do look at the prison population and reoffending rates in other countries that actually try. Something is being done very very wrong in the UK, like in the USA. It is simply undeniable. It surely doesn’t all stem from the prison/rehabilitation system but it is making a crappy situation very much worse. The UK is generally a f*… terrible shamefull mess.