.png)
4 hours ago
1
Neither your editorial on the interim findings of David Gauke’s review of sentencing (18 February) nor your article (Prison system crisis due to overreliance on long sentences, says Gauke review, 18 February) make any reference to some of the more obvious aspects of the Prison Service. First, finding an alternative to the use of prison-based remand; second, keeping non-violent criminals in a restrictive regime outside prison; third, serious study into recidivism, and finally, improving the literacy of those entering prison for the first time.
For 20 years I was responsible for education provision in the five Lancashire prisons. It took me several years to persuade governors to include literacy tests in their initial assessment of new prisoners. The initial result showed that 35% of prisoners failed the literacy test, while among the adult population in general it was about 7%.
This was a wake-up call, but unfortunately the prison regime was not sufficiently flexible to try to eliminate the problem. Today, we might have to add English as a second language. Questions to the justice minister might include: what is the literacy level of the current prison intake? How many prisoners are tested on leaving prison to check if their literacy level has improved?
David Selby
Derby
“A far less kneejerk approach to custodial sentencing, particularly in relation to more minor offences, would ease the intolerable pressure on the prison estate,” says your editorial. I agree. What about this? Any offence that merits up to 12 months’ custody should be served as a community order. Address the offending behaviour by making sure that the essentials are kept – or put – in place: accommodation, employment, treatment and relevant activities. We know that reoffending rates are lower if the pitch is between custody of up to 12 months or a community order.
A community order can be made for up to three years, meaning longer-term protection for victims can be provided, such as exclusion zones, electronic tagging and curfews. Repeatedly breaking the order or committing further offences must result in the prison sentence. Prison needs to be at the end of the road, and not at the start. Rehabilitation is well worth the investment.
Janet Carter
Retired barrister, Leeds
When will the government learn the lessons from its own experts? For a generation, the causal relationship between offending and social determinants have been at the core of work commissioned by the Home Office and Ministry of Justice. This has had a negligible impact on policy. It is shameful that politicians and inspectorates failed to raise these issues, instead kowtowing to management by objective – the objective to be tougher on crime. This led to the unjustifiable increase in offenders recalled to prison for administrative reasons that had nothing to do with the level of risk.
The one glimmer of hope was integrated offender management, which brought together justice and social welfare organisations. Only those hellbent on reoffending were sanctioned. This initiative was left to local areas to implement, and, despite good results, was discontinued when budgets were cut to fund the misguided privatisation of probation.
Maybe Mr Gauke will recommend that dealing with crime is too important and complex a problem to be left to the justice system.
Rob Wakefield
Retired director of offender management
