Sentencing options in courts are deemed to be a “deterent”. They are not and here’s why.
There are two types of crime, pre-planned and spontaneous. Every crime falls into one of these two categories.
Pre-planned, however shortly prearranged they are, tend to be crimes such as theft, robbery & burglary etc. Crimes that require some element of creation & forethought. Even a spur of the moment crime, such as a burglary after spotting an open window, requires an element of planning, such as looking around to check there are no witnesses or ensuring the property appears empty.
Spontaneous crimes tend to be those that are driven by emotions and therefore have no element of planning. They are often driven by anger and result in assaults and/or Public order offences. Frequently these are fuelled by drink and/or drugs but also by a lack of personal control or ability to reason.
In both these scenarios the offender is not considering they may be caught and punished for their actions. The offender with some level of prearrangement believes they have taken sufficient precaution to prevent capture. The offender driven by spontaneity does not even consider such matters but is consumed by a lower, animalistic, driver; one where conscious thought is, for the most part, absent.
If these statements are true then there can be no “deterent” factor in sentencing. It must be used wholly for two reasons, to punish the offender and to remove the risk they pose on the streets for the benefit of the public for an appropriate length of time.
I make clear here & now, I genuinely believe in rehabilitation. Government figures show “Adults released from custody or starting court orders had a proven reoffending rate of 29.5%. Adults released from custodial sentences of less than 12 months had a proven reoffending rate of 54.9%”. This indicates there are significant numbers of offenders who are NOT reoffending. That proves rehabilitation can work. What those that work in the industry need to evaluate is what works & why.
In the meantime, offenders need to be punished appropriately, with just sentencing. In talking with a past Prison Governors Association President we discussed the Prison Estate. He stated that when the number of available beds fell the number of people being sentenced to a custodial sentence fell, by order of the Home Office. When new, private, prisons were built (and beds were paid for regardless of whether they were occupied or not) Home Office sentencing guidelines stated that more people were sent to prison. This meant that during this, and subsequent, cycles some prisoners that should have received a cusodial sentence were given a community punishment but, later, some that would normally be given a community punishment were sent to prison. That is not how sentencing of criminals should work.
The reason for my covering this subject is that it has been published today (13/09/23) that “The Scottish government said it was taking action to reduce the prison population.” How & why? Surely sentenced criminals should either be in prison or not. It should not be based on economics and it cannot be based on “deterence”.
All crimes have a “Sentencing Guideline”. Some of these can appear quite broad. Section 4a, Public Order Act, for example, guidelines vary from a “Low Level Community Order” to 2 years Custody depending on the cupability. This can make it difficult for Vox Pop to grasp why a particular sentence has been imposed. One of the challenges is the limited reporting of court trials which can take many days, even weeks, so cupability & mitigation may not be well covered in such reports. All that is often seen is the headline used to garner attention and designed to do so with as much outrage as an editor can get away with.
Add to these problems the very real challenge with the current Prison Estate System where there are simply totallly inadequte facilties to deal with the challenges that we face. Studies show the average IQ of the male prison population is 87. Contrary to what some believe IQ is not a measure of your knowledge but a measure of your ability to reason and solve problems. With extremely limited facilities for self-improvement within the Prison Estate more prisoners are likely to be released who will go on to reoffend simply because they have not been taught the ability to reason and solve problems. So rather than cutting budgets and throwing recidivists back on the streets, usually without the support required to adjust to life in a community after a significant period away from it, budgets need to be increased to improve the prospects of those being released and prepare them for a life outside.
A significant number of inmates, if not the majority, have never been given the simple skills to take care of themselves. They more than likely left school with no, or poor, qualifications. Were brought up in families with poorer social skills and have never learnt the very basic fundamentals of living. These may include, but are not limited to, simple cooking skills, laundry, budgeting, relationship skills etc.
So prisons need to become rehabilitation centres rather than simply locking them up for 23 hours a day and then tossing them out on the streets or releasing more prisoners simply on the grounds of economics. Trust me we will save money in the long term and fewer people will become the victims of crimes.
winnyssite 