Memorandum submitted by the Magistrates'
Association
CURRENT POLICY
How cost-effective are prisons?
1. This depends on the definition of effectiveness.
Any examination of current policy needs to restate the aims and
purpose of the criminal justice system. Value for money in relation
to purpose would provide a broader picture. There is much debate
about the purpose of prisons.
2. Imprisoning someone means that they cannot
commit offences during the period of the sentence—and is
the only way to ensure that fact. So in a very narrow sense a
custodial sentence is automatically effective, in that it protects
the public. The more dangerous the criminal, the more this is
worth the cost. However, the current sentencing framework is based
on seriousness which is not the same as dangerousness and the
same argument (of cost benefit) can therefore apply to those who
have committed crimes that society considers serious but do not
involve physical injury. Two examples would be very high level
fraud, and persistent offenders.
3. People are sent to prison as punishment—the
offence has to be so serious that deprivation of liberty is the
only justifiable sentence. However, if rehabilitation is a consideration
then it might be argued that prison is not entirely cost effective.
The prime purpose of a custodial sentence is not rehabilitation
and no-one is sent to prison in order to benefit from any form
of programme. It is therefore difficult to consider the cost-effectiveness
in rehabilitation terms whether that is through detoxification,
education or skills training. While these may have a very positive
effect on some people, the changes may not be long-term and will
not automatically stop offences being committed. Furthermore,
such programmes can take place in the community. In the case of
short custodial sentences the prison service often finds it difficult
or impossible to offer meaningful programmes so the underlying
causes of the offending are unlikely to be addressed and the offending
is likely to continue. This cannot be cost effective.
4. The cost effectiveness of custodial sentences
could be significantly improved by providing sufficient space
to accommodate the prison population and sufficient probation
resources in both prisons and whilst offenders are released on
licence to address an offender's propensity to break the law.
5. The government is currently focusing
on re-offending rates but the amount of available information
is very limited. It is essential to establish the effectiveness
of each programme with objective comparative data.
What are the real cost implications and consequences
of the Carter Report's recommendations in the medium and long
term, in particular in relation to the proposed new Sentencing
Commission and prison building progamme?
6. Prison building is extremely expensive,
and incarcerating people is also extremely expensive. Such a programme
seeks to deal with forecasts of increasing numbers without considering
the reasons behind this, and the same is true of the proposed
Sentencing Commission. We already have guidelines and a framework
for sentencing—forecasting future demand by scrutiny of
initiatives or legislative change is another possible function
of it but again that is dealing with a result. In 2001 the Home
Office forecast a prison population for 2008 in a range well over
90,000, but no effective measures were implemented. Judicious
and proportionate sentencing has resulted in the situation being
far less serious than predicted.
What are the implications for probation provision,
the delivery of effective practice and the wider cross-departmental
reducing re-offending agenda?
7. As there seems to be a serious and perennial
lack of money there must be a real risk of funds for probation
being reduced to allow for further prison provision. The effect
on re-offending of various types of sentence is a very complex
matter. Over what period is re-offending measured? How is re-offending
(as opposed to reconviction) measured in any case? How does one
build into a straight comparison of figures the fact that those
sentenced to imprisonment have committed more serious crimes than
others, and may have a greater propensity to re-offend? What about
those who go to prison because they have breached non-custodial
penalties? Resources are currently inadequate for Probation to
meet existing needs. This impinges on non-custodial processes
aimed at reducing re-offending. Greater inter-departmental co-operation
may rebalance the necessary resources to ensure effective delivery
of the agenda.
How reliable is the evidence on which these policies
are based?
8. For the reasons given above, the reliability
must be questionable.
Potential alternative policies:
How could resources which are currently invested
in the criminal justice system be invested more effectively both
within and outside the system eg in courts, probation, prisons
and communities?
9. Whatever the statistics about falling
crime rates, there is a widespread fear of crime and constant
calls in some part of the press for ever harsher penalties. Better
provision for probation should improve the public's confidence
in such penalties, and this is crucial.
10. Increasing supervision and support after
a custodial sentence to make the transition back to society easier
would recognise custody as society's most severe punishment without
making the assumption that a long term is the only "effective"
prison sentence. Short periods of custody could effect changes
in attitude if intensive programmes were provided to tackle the
underlying causes of offending.
11. Resources need to be diverted into probation
to ensure that appropriate programmes are available on release
to re-direct offenders who have served less than 12 months away
from their previous haunts, acquaintances and circumstances which
often lead them into re-offending.
12. A well co-ordinated probation service
with sufficient staff would improve the delivery of community
orders and prevent the long waiting time before the commencement
of orders that leads to further offending.
13. More attention should be given to early
recognition of mental health needs which cannot be adequately
addressed in custody. More investment in NHS mental health services
could make a significant contribution to reducing offending in
the first place and then the chances of re-offending. More and
better treatment programmes and more appropriate community penalties
could reduce the prison population and free up resources which
could be re-directed. On the other hand, an increase in out of
court disposals, taking offences out of the courts system, could
prove counter-productive (eg there has been an apparent increase
in driving with no insurance since that attracted a penalty notice.)
14. Justice should be local, seen and understood
by communities. Magistrates' Courts are and should remain local,
an important part of the community and resourcing them properly
is very important.
To what extent should additional resources be
redirected from the penal system into social, health and educational
provision?
15. It is accepted that resources are not
infinite, but there is a danger in redirecting money (and therefore
limiting provision) rather than considering whether some of the
existing social, health and education budgets can in themselves
be focused in a different way for overall benefit. For instance,
those who are mentally disordered need treatment and it seems
wrong that the criminal justice system should be used as a gateway
to that treatment. Better recognition of the problem and provision
from existing health resources earlier should prevent some crimes
occurring.
What impact could Justice Reinvestment make on
our penal policy?
16. It is not right that money should drive penal
policy and there seems to be a danger that this can happen if
money is simply redirected. However, there are some clear possibilities
for improvement on the current situation. If there were better
provision for those with mental health issues then the numbers
in custody should reduce. The very high level of illiteracy amongst
prisoners is well-documented and there must be links between that
and unemployment, so education targeted at basic skills could
well have the same effect. Treatment for substance misuse is another
fruitful area.
What can we learn from other European countries?
17. No comment.
To what extent could existing structures and partnerships
be used to implement alternative policies?
18. It is clear to sentencers that there is a
lack of cohesion in tackling these issues—there needs to
be greater inter-departmental communication and partnership working.
So often we see different departments consulting on the same issues
when a single cross-departmental consultation would save time
and resources.
What are the barriers to adopting alternative
policies?
19. The poor quality of current inter-departmental
communication will prevent cohesive alternative policies.
What additional research is required?
20. The principles of joined-up support at Liverpool
and Salford Community Courts ensure fewer cracks for offenders
to fall through the system. Research should be undertaken to determine
whether similar provision could be available to all magistrates
courts.
What is the potential for a political consensus
on an alternative future penal policy?
21. We cannot comment on this.
What evidence exists concerning public opinion
on the allocation of scarce resources for criminal justice?
22. Magistrates are members of the public (30,000
of them) and are very aware of the scarce resources in the running
of the courts and insufficient provision both of custodial places
and programmes for community penalties. Magistrates regularly
report that when considering the imposition of a creative community
order to meet the needs of a particular offender they find themselves
constrained by a lack of resources. In one area recently, magistrates
were told that unpaid work was not available due to financial
restrictions.
What role can the media play in shifting the culture
of penal policy?
23. The media has a very strong influence, and
every time they talk of someone "walking free" the downgrading
of every form of community penalty is reinforced. This is infinitely
worse when they are commenting on a suspended sentence! It would
be immensely helpful if more informative and supportive press
comments were made about the range of penalties available that
are non-custodial.
February 2008
| 
