42. Memorandum submitted by
Simon Wolfensohn
1. It is generally accepted that there are
far too many young people in custody, too many drug addicts, too
many people with mental health problems and too many women (who
are not violent). To continue to lock these people up is shortsighted,
ineffective and, in the long term, more expensive than addressing
their behaviour in other ways.
2. An effective sentencing policy would
differentiate between those who offend because they have a true
criminal intention and those who offend because they cannot help
themselves for various reasons, or who offend because their situation
in life leads them into a position where they do not have appropriate
skills for dealing with the problem which they face and they offend
because they know no other way of dealing with the difficulty,
whether that stems from a lack of money or because of conflict
in one of many forms.
3. In the short term money needs to be spent
on treatment centres for alcohol and drugs, suitable housing for
young people, for women who cannot return to exploitative backgrounds
and for the mentally disordered. Imprisonment for persistent minor
offences should only be considered when continuation of the behaviour
poses a genuine risk to the public, eg motoring offences.
4. Sentencing at present is determined by
concepts centered around the perceived seriousness of the offence
rather than the characteristics of the offender. When the offence
is serious a reasonable result may be the outcome but when the
offence is more minor the sentence often can not be long enough,
intensive enough or persistent enough to address the behavioural
problems of the offender. If courts could sentence an addict to
a rehabilitative order which does not end until the problem is
solved, with breaches met by alternative sanctions, more intensive
work with the offender or resentencing only as a result of persistent
failure to cooperate with the programme, we might see much better
results.
5. Similarly many young people, or those
who lead chaotic lives for all sorts of reasons, might benefit
from sentences which require them to attend every day for a period
of time during normal working hours in order to impose some regularity
and structure in their lives. For some offenders an unpaid work
order which gradually becomes rewarded by providing food vouchers
or other benefits might help to encourage people to see the value
of work.
6. Restorative techniques undoubtedly have
a beneficial effect in some circumstances but for many victims
the additional burden of having to participate may merely add
insult to injury—for others the process can be healing for
the victim but restorative justice requires great sensitivity
in deciding which cases are suitable. If it was introduced as
a routine part of the sentencing process it might well be resented
or unhelpful.
7. Short term imprisonment should only be
used when there is absolutely no alternative and is almost certainly
pointless for repeat offenders. It may well be that for a first
prison sentence, when the offender has not already been held on
remand, that the "clang of the prison gate" is all that
is really necessary and a very short sentence ie days rather than
weeks may be all that is necessary to serve its purpose.
8. Referral orders appear to be a valuable
tool for young people who have committed relatively minor offences
because they lack an awareness of the consequences of their behaviour
on society. They are inappropriate for the increasing number of
young people who have problems with drugs and alcohol or who are
not attending school. It is a scandal that provision of suitable
facilities for dealing with these young people are so lacking
in a country as rich as ours.
9. For adults it is unlikely that referral
orders could have any place as the success of the order depends
very much on the interaction between the panel members and the
offender. In a very small number of cases they could possibly
be worthwhile if focused around restorative processes.
10. Conditional cautioning should not be
extended and it is essential that parliament should agree the
offences for which it can be used and the conditions which can
be applied. There is no place for police or any prosecuting authority
having the scope to make decisions as to which conditions should
apply to a particular case or the extent of the conditions. If
any discretion is to be exercised under such schemes that should
become a matter for sentencers alone.
11. Public confidence in sentencing is not
a matter for the judiciary. Public education to explain the process
is a matter for government and the persistent attempts by the
government to shift the burden onto the judiciary are misplaced.
The judiciary make independent decisions on the best way to deal
with an offender within the framework and constraints that the
law allows and should not be expected to have any part in justifying
or explaining those decisions to the general public to any greater
extent than giving reasons in court.
8 March 2007
| 
