1. Memorandum submitted by Quaker
Peace and Social Witness
1. Quaker Peace and Social Witness is part
of the central organisation of the Religious Society of Friends
(Quakers) in Britain. Its Crime and Community Justice Group supports
and represents Quakers in the area of crime and community justice.
2. We direct the Thames Valley & Hampshire
pilot of Circles of Support and Accountability, working closely
with staff and the statutory agencies involved.
2.1 Circles of Support and Accountability
is a restorative justice scheme which supports the re-integration
of released sex offenders into the community, while holding them
accountable for their actions. It aims to prevent further crimes,
protecting the community. In Canada, where the idea began, they
have evidence that a Circle of Support and Accountability can
dramatically reduce the chance of a sex offender re-offending.
Our experience is showing the same.
2.2 In the Thames Valley (Oxfordshire, Berkshire,
Buckinghamshire) and Hampshire, we run one of the three pilot
projects in Britain, in partnership with the police, probation
and prison services. It started in 2002, is funded by the Home
Office, and has five staff. They are also encouraging and supporting
the development of Circles projects around the country including
Somerset, Yorkshire, Norfolk, Manchester, Bedfordshire and Scotland.
3. Our major area of concern with this submission
is with the reduction of offending and of re-offending.
3.1 Perpetrators of sexual offences have
often themselves come from dysfunctional families or been abused
themselves. Ideally help should be offered to them before they
become adult offenders. Intervention, including sentencing, should
seek to break the cycle of criminality.
3.2 We endorse the general principle in
the guidelines that sentencing for a sexual offence is an occasion
where the court "may sensibly suggest interventions that
could be useful, either during the custodial period or upon release".
3.3 Sex offenders do damage, but they need
healing too. Identifying offenders in the community without concerned
support could further alienate them and increase the likelihood
of re-offending. Specifically we recommend:
4. GREATER USE
OF PRE-SENTENCING
REPORTS
4.1 Pre-sentencing reports, referred to
in the Guidance in relation to the new offences, should be made
prior to all sentencing for sexual offences. And they should be
written by professionals with the specialist training and experience
relevant to sexual offenders.
5. CLEAR STATEMENT
OF PURPOSE
OF SENTENCE
5.1 All sentencing should say what its aim
is: the expected outcome, and the actions needed to achieve it.
This needs to apply to prison, probation, community punishment
orders, or any other sentencing condition, and to the person being
sentenced. We feel such a statement of purpose, with the provision
of necessary support to achieve the outcome, is more valuable
than tariffs for particular crimes.
6. WIDER AVAILABILITY
OF SEX
OFFENDER TREATMENT
PROGRAMMES
6.1 Although these are available both in
prisons and in the community not all sex offenders may have access
to them, sometimes due to lack of resources. We believe sex offender
treatment programmes should always be made available and delivered
to a high standard of effectiveness. Ready availability and effectiveness
should be set as performance targets for all providers of these
programmes. Sentencers should be in a position to indicate their
expectations about completion of such a programme.
6.2 Currently treatment programmes are usually
made available only to offenders receiving custodial sentences
of four or more years. This is not an argument for an increase
in the length of custodial sentences, but for greater use of alternatives.
6.3 For example, a three year Community
Punishment Order with treatment as a condition plus a full package
of registration and supervision as necessary is a far more rigorous
and effective response than imprisonment without treatment. Or,
a mixed order, which would allow the programme to be delivered
partly in prison and partly in the community, enables a more realistic
risk assessment of the offender than may be possible during imprisonment.
7. USE OF
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
PROCESSES
7.1 Restorative justice seeks to balance
the concerns of the victim and the community with the need to
reintegrate the offender into society. The processes provide the
opportunity for an holistic view of the needs of all those harmed
by the offence. Not just the immediate victim and the perpetrator,
but their families and other significant people who are all affected
(and sometimes devastated) by the commission of the offence.
7.2 Research indicates that most victims
want recognition of the harm done to them, restitution from the
offender, and a commitment that further crime will not be perpetrated
by the offender. Evidence is very strong that the proportion of
victims wanting restorative justice processes when they are available
is very high, and their satisfaction with its outcomes is considerable.
Restorative justice processes give victims the opportunity to
have their harm acknowledged and amends made. The process is designed
to empower all participants, and in the context of this specific
consultation should be seen as potentially more helpful to victims
than making a personal statement to the court.
7.3 We would add that compensation figures
are agreed often through restorative justice processes, and thus
of more relevance to both parties than when imposed externally.
7.4 The restorative justice approach can
lead to the determination of effective steps for healing of offenders
too, and reduce the likelihood of re-offending. Offenders have
the opportunity to acknowledge the impact of what they have done
and to make repatriation. It can have particular value in the
category of "preparatory offences" as early intervention
to prevent escalation of offences.
7.5 This is also a reassurance for the public
that steps are being taken to address the seriousness of the offence
and reduce further risk.
7.6 We recognise that restorative justice
may not be seen as an appropriate response to the most serious
of sexual offences. Nevertheless, we would wish to see a reference
to the possibility of restorative justice approaches (for example
through victim/offender mediation) in all sentencing guidelines.
Working on harm-awareness during an order served in the community
or during a prison sentence, for instance, as part of a sex offender
treatment programme, would always be valuable.
7.7 We are convinced that restorative approaches
to working with the trauma of any crime and its resolution is
the right way to proceed, both for the good of community building
and because of the respect for human value that it reflects. It
is good to see these approaches increasingly included in the Government's
proposals for operating the criminal justice system. We hope to
see them taken into account in guidance for sentencing sex offenders.
June 2006
| 
