32. Memorandum submitted by
the Prison Governors Association
1. As prison governors, we have a similar
opportunity as some others to see and hear what sentencers and
politicians say and do about sentencing, but an exceptional one
to see and hear from the outcomes of custodial sentencing: those
imprisoned. Sometimes those sentenced frankly make the most sense.
We hear politicians boast that sentences are now 25% longer than
they were. We hear prisoners say that a five year sentence has
not even slightly more deterrent value than a four year one; and
this rings true. It leads us to question whose interests it serves
for so many to be imprisoned unnecessarily or for too long. Those
who make money out of prisons perhaps, but nobody else. Imprisonment
is an expensive option and the American experience has shown that
as prison costs spiral, the budgets of other public services suffer
as a consequence.
2. We submit that the prison population
need be nowhere near as high as it is. Much has been said about
the influences of political rhetoric and hard-line media upon
sentencing. These and the lobbying that stimulate them are worthy
of debate in themselves but we limit ourselves here to the sentencing
that happens, concerning ourselves with offenders who are inappropriately
sentenced to custody (short-sentenced prisoners) and offenders
inappropriately sentenced to indeterminate sentences.
SHORT-SENTENCED
PRISONERS
3. The recent crisis of crises in the prison
population might have done more to bring to public attention the
issue of offenders inappropriately sentenced to custody than ever
before, with the Home Secretary's plea to sentencers to be more
sparing in the use of prison. At the same time, some have been
keen to claim that the short-sentenced prison population is no
greater now than it was 10 years ago. Whether or not that is the
case, we are firm that many thousands of offenders are in prison
inappropriately now and were then. This is not a new problem;
but a problem it is. Not only is it a waste of taxpayers money
to send people to prison unnecessarily; it can wreck homes, especially
if they are women who are primary carers, incarcerated sometimes
hundreds of miles from home. Also, weeks or a few months in prison
do not give us enough time to engage effectively in meaningful
programmes to reduce re-offending. (34% of women in prison are
serving terms of 12 months or less.) Whatever new sentences emerge
from any new CJA, it is imperative that they do not encourage
sentencers to include a dash of imprisonment.
4. A substantial proportion of people in
prison have significant mental health problems. If those with
drug and alcohol abuse problems are added, these comprise a substantial
majority of offenders in prison. Very many have committed only
minor offences. Among women, serial shoplifting to finance their
addiction is common. There should be more support for such people
in communities; ideally to help them avoid offending in the first
place, but certainly to convince courts that a non-custodial sentence
is viable because resources such as drug treatment and hostel
accommodation are out there in support. It is important to have
realistic expectations of drug addicts, whether subject to a non-custodial
sentences or post-custodial supervision. Inflexible breach procedures
which mean people being automatically whisked into custody because
of a non-show or a couple of late appearances for appointments
are not realistic or constructive, and these are making their
own contribution to the steep increase in prison population. The
decision to breach should be a judicial one, and certainly not
one to be in the hands of risk-averse offender managers ruled
by re-offending targets.
5. Generally, we agree that community sentences—alternatives
to custody—need to capture public support and that those
that feature restorative elements and visible reparation stand
the best chance of doing so. "Community Payback" is
gathering welcome momentum and deserves support.
INDETERMINATE SENTENCES
6. The sentences introduced in the CJA 2004,
seem to produced their own chaos within the greater sentencing
chaos. The sentences are being substantially over-used.
7. Reasons for this, aside from the generic
response to the clamour for tougher sentencing, seem to be option
by sentencers for the lowest-risk option. We understand that a
recent survey of 500 IPP prisoners has identified that 20% are
of medium risk, and not high-risk/dangerous as envisaged by the
Act. In many cases, sentences are passed without sentencers having
been provided with or sought adequate pre-sentence reports. It
would be in the public interest for sentencers to be obliged to
obtain adequate risk assessment reports instead of passing an
indeterminate sentence without, and by default, even if it means
a two month adjournment to secure, for instance, a psychiatric
report.
8. Outcomes of the over-use of this sentence
are that assessment resources and OBPs in prisons, to whom the
buck has been passed, are overwhelmed so that assessment and interventions
do not happen until often well beyond tariff. We know of one recent
IPP sentence which featured an eight weeks tariff. (20% have a
tariff of 18 months or less.) This must say something about what
level of dangerousness the judge estimated to be present, and
certainly delivered to the prison and Parole Board an impossible
task to assess let alone "treat" the offender in question
in the timescale given.
THE FUTURE
9. There is an urgent need to bring sanity
to sentencing where it is absent. New prisons are not the answer
to our society's failure to control offending.
10. Resources are precious, and prisons
the most expensive of them. It makes little sense for prison places
to be taken up by minor offenders who would be better dealt with
elsewhere. It makes no more sense for overloaded assessment and
interventions resources in prisons to be wasted on the wrong people.
11. Risk to the public of course is paramount
and so a very sound principle to underpin any new and probably
essential sentencing Act would be for resources to follow the
risk, proportionately. This plainly is not happening sufficiently
now.
Paul Tidball
President
13 March 2007
| 
