tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/sentencing-reform-60811/articlesSentencing reform – The Conversation2019-01-29T11:41:36Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1104802019-01-29T11:41:36Z2019-01-29T11:41:36ZShort prison sentences as a last resort won’t work unless the probation service is fixed<p>Short prison sentences of 12 months or less should be used only as a last resort, according to the justice secretary, David Gauke, speaking in a recent interview with the <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/under-a-year-in-jail-must-be-last-resort-says-justice-chief-david-gauke-msdbmfmbb">Sunday Times</a>. He emphasised that short prison sentences don’t have a very successful record of reducing reoffending compared to other forms of punishment. </p>
<p>The reoffending rates for prison sentences of a year or less were at 64.5% in the last three months of 2016 – the latest period for <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/proven-reoffending-statistics-october-to-december-2016">which statistics have been published</a> – rising to 67% for sentences of <a href="https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2019-01-11.207566.h&s=speaker%3A24964+section%3Awrans#g207566.r0">six months or less</a>. This is much higher than the <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/751109/proven_reoffending_bulletin_October_to_December_16.pdf">38% of people who reoffend</a> after being served a court order, such as a community order or suspended sentence, and the <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/751109/proven_reoffending_bulletin_October_to_December_16.pdf">29% reoffending rate</a> of those in prison for 12 months or more. Not to mention the fact that the annual cost of reoffending was estimated to be somewhere between <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-government-policy-reoffending-and-rehabilitation/2010-to-2015-government-policy-reoffending-and-rehabilitation">£9.5 and £13 billion</a> in 2015. </p>
<p><iframe id="ZHjYs" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/ZHjYs/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Campaign against short sentences</h2>
<p>Reoffending rates from short sentences have been a cause for concern for years. In 2001, the <a href="https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/halliday-report-sppu/chap-1-2-halliday2835.pdf?view=Binary">Halliday review</a> into sentencing suggested that short sentences provided the most serious problems out of the range of available sentences as they served little rehabilitative use. A little over a decade later, the seeming inability of short sentences to reduce reoffending was an important factor in the coalition government’s <a href="https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-rehabilitation/results/transforming-rehabilitation-response.pdf">Transforming Rehabilitation reforms in 2013</a>, which put probation contracts out to competitive tender. Yet, despite these efforts, the reoffending rates for short sentences remain higher than those for community sentences, or even longer prison sentences. </p>
<p>There are several potential reasons for this, most of which lie in the very use of prison as a short-term option. Prison sentences generally are known to have a long-term and negative impact on a person’s <a href="http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Bromley%20Briefings/Autumn%202018%20Factfile.pdf">employment prospects</a>. They also cause disruption to family time and the development of positive relationships, all of which support successful rehabilitation. At the same time, prisoners serving short sentences are rarely there long enough for any positive, rehabilitation work <a href="https://howardleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/No-Winners.pdf">to be undertaken</a>.</p>
<p>Short prison sentences do not reduce the risk of reoffending, because they are not designed to do so. Rather, they simply displace this risk to a later date.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/278133/compendium-reoffending-stats-2013.pdf">research</a> has shown the effectiveness of community-based sentences in reducing reoffending – at least compared to short prison sentences – and that community supervision is less likely to have a negative impact on employment and family time. It arguably makes sense, then, that community sentences should be chosen over the use of prison wherever possible. But while Gauke’s suggestion of a reduction in the use of short prison sentences was <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46852559">welcomed by many</a>, it has come at a bad time considering the current condition of other parts of the criminal justice system.</p>
<h2>Red flags and staff shortages</h2>
<p>Back in 2017, I wrote for The Conversation about the rise in serious further offences by those serving community orders <a href="http://theconversation.com/rise-in-crimes-by-offenders-on-probation-is-an-indictment-of-privatisation-82039">since the privatisation of the probation service in 2013</a>. Part of the reason for this, I argued, was increasing numbers of offenders “on probation” monitored by fewer staff, meaning that red flags and causes for concern were being missed. </p>
<p>Since then, it appears little has changed and the situation may even have worsened. <a href="https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2019/jan/12/chris-grayling-probation-reforms-serious-crimes-committed-on-parole-soar?CMP=share_btn_tw&__twitter_impression=true">Recent figures</a> show an increase of over 200 reviews looking into serious further offences by people on probation between 2014 and 2018. Such is the current condition of the probation service, that in mid-2018, the government decided to <a href="https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-outsourcing-probation/uk-government-to-cancel-private-probation-service-contracts-early-idUKKBN1KH12P">end all private probation contracts two years early</a> in 2020.</p>
<p>The problem is largely related to an unmanageable staff to offender ratio. In 2018, MPs on the the Justice Select Committee suggested that <a href="https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmjust/482/48205.htm">probation service</a> privatisation had resulted in the delivery of probation services to more that 40,000 extra offenders, at a time when the service itself was carrying more than 1,000 staff vacancies nationally. While the scales are tipped in this way, the probation service arguably remains unfit for purpose. </p>
<p>In the year to June 2018, around 61,500 people were given custodial sentences and of those, 47% (roughly 29,000) were <a href="http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Bromley%20Briefings/Autumn%202018%20Factfile.pdf">sentenced to six months or less</a>. Given the average reoffending rate of those serving short sentences, roughly 18,000 are predicted to reoffend within 12 months of release. While it’s clear that prison is <a href="https://howardleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/No-Winners.pdf">not the place for these offenders</a>, the current state of the probation service suggests that probation is not the place for them either. The only way any reduction in the use of short sentences will work is if the probation service is fixed first.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/110480/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christopher Kay does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The British justice secretary’s proposal to make short prison sentences a last resort is the right idea at the worst possible time.Christopher Kay, Lecturer in Criminology and Social Policy, Loughborough UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1084452018-12-11T14:21:45Z2018-12-11T14:21:45ZPrison is expensive – worth remembering when we oppose parole<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/249787/original/file-20181210-76977-1g298ia.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Neil Lang/Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The parole board recently decided to grant the release of <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/david-mcgreavy-child-killer-worcester-monster-prison-jail-release-parole-board-murder-a8667066.html">David McGreavy</a>, who in 1973, aged 21, murdered and mutilated three children and impaled their bodies on railings at their home in which he was a lodger. He was sentenced to life in prison with a minimum tariff of 20 years. As in the case of others who have murdered children, such as Ian Brady and Myra Hindley, McGreavy has served many years past his recommended term, and has been <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-36623663">repeatedly unsuccessful</a> in his efforts to gain parole. </p>
<p>But now McGreavy has been cleared for release after a 45-year stint in prison. The parole board reported that he has “<a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/03/triplechild-killer-david-mcgreavy-cleared-released-parole-board/">changed considerably</a>”, noting improved self-control and an ability to remain calm in stressful situations. There are many who have opined that McGreavy should live out the rest of his life in prison, just as there are many who believe the <a href="https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/david-mcgreavy-to-be-released-from-woodbridge-prison-1-5809665">death penalty should have applied</a> (despite having been largely abolished in the UK in 1965). Such shocking cases prompt questions about whether mandatory life sentences for those who kill are suitable: should we lock up murderers for good and throw away the key? Or would a gentler system of restorative justice, such as in Norway, bring benefits to both the imprisoned and society?</p>
<h2>Sentencing in the UK</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/about-sentencing/types-of-sentence/life-sentences/">sentencing guidelines</a> for England and Wales dictate that convicted murderers receive a mandatory life sentence, generally starting at 15 years without parole, but which will vary depending on <a href="https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/sentencing-mandatory-life-sentences-murder-cases">aggravating and mitigating factors</a>, and whether the defendant has pleaded guilty, has previous convictions, and if the offence was committed while on bail. Ultimately, it is down to the judge’s discretion to set the minimum length of time a prisoner will spend in prison. But whole-life sentences are rare. Only around <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2018">63 people</a> are currently serving these sentences, such as Peter Sutcliffe (the “Yorkshire Ripper”) and serial killer Rosemary West.</p>
<p>The convicted murderer <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/jan/17/european-judges-uphold-uk-right-to-impose-whole-life-jail-sentences">Arthur Hutchinson</a> took a case to the European Court of Human Rights in 2017 claiming that his whole-life sentence with no hope for release amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. He received a whole-life order for the triple murder of a family on their daughter’s wedding day, later raping a young woman in the wedding marquee and stealing from the murdered family’s home. </p>
<p>However the court found that his human rights under Article 3 of the convention had not been breached. As “exceptional grounds” may allow for the early release of someone detained under a whole-life order, this <a href="https://academic.oup.com/hrlr/article/14/1/59/667050">slim prospect of release</a> ensures the UK approach is compatible with European human rights law.</p>
<h2>Sentencing in Norway</h2>
<p>Mandatory sentence minimums and whole-life sentences contrast starkly with the approach in Norway, which is known for focusing on rehabilitation in prison, and also has among the world’s <a href="https://salve.edu/sites/default/files/filesfield/documents/Incarceration_and_Recidivism.pdf">lowest rates of reoffending</a>.</p>
<p>Norway’s criminal justice system is distinct from that of the UK and other Anglo-Saxon nations. It has no life sentence. The <a href="https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/05/why-does-norway-have-a-21-year-maximum-prison-sentence.html">maximum term of imprisonment is 21 years</a>, although this sentence can be extended by five-year increments through “<a href="https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-244X-11-40">preventative detention</a>”. </p>
<p>Based on a <a href="https://www.norwegianamerican.com/opinion/what-is-restorative-justice/">restorative justice</a> model that focuses on the rehabilitation of offenders through reconciliation with victims and with society at large, Norway’s criminal justice system shifts the emphasis from retribution to healing. Characterised by high levels of <a href="https://journals-sagepub-com.ezproxy.staffs.ac.uk/doi/10.1177/1462474513504799">social trust</a>, low security, favourable living conditions and low incarceration rates, the Norwegian approach has come to be known as <a href="https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/48/2/119/422635">Scandinavian penal exceptionalism</a>. Such approaches have been found to reduce crime, reduce the economic burden of imprisoning criminals, and <a href="https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2011/09/terror-trial-and-justice-in-norway/">reduce recidivism</a>.</p>
<p>That’s why Norwegian extremist <a href="http://fixthe13th.org/img/Norway%20Prison%20Rehabilitation.pdf">Anders Behring Breivik</a>, who killed 77 people in a bombing and mass shooting, was only sentenced to 21 years imprisonment. Despite the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/16/crush-terrorist-lessons-norway-breivik">incredulity</a> of those from countries that focus on more prolonged incarcaration such as the UK and US, the victims’ families welcomed the sentence. Even so, Breivik was unimpressed by the conditions for prisoners and pursued a <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/anders-breivik-norway-mass-murderer-appeal-european-human-rights-court-oslo-strasbourg-a8409861.html">human rights appeal</a> which, as with Hutchinson’s case, was unsuccessful.</p>
<h2>Which works best?</h2>
<p>There is no consensus on an optimal policy. But it would appear that Norway’s approach leads with its respect for human dignity – which is often mischaracterised as leniency. With a reported <a href="https://www.economist.com/international/2017/05/27/too-many-prisons-make-bad-people-worse-there-is-a-better-way?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/prisonstoomanyprisonsmakebadpeopleworsethereisabetterway">recidivism rate of only 20%</a> – compared to <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/751109/proven_reoffending_bulletin_October_to_December_16.pdf">between around 30% and 65%</a> in England and Wales, depending on the category of offender, and upwards of <a href="https://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/Pages/welcome.aspx">67% within three years of release</a> in the US – it would seem that a softer approach to prison works. </p>
<p>However, some researchers argue that recidivism data <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0130390">cannot be compared between countries</a> due to significant variations in how recidivism is defined and reported. In fact recidivism rates in Norway have been found to <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0011128715570629?journalCode=cadc">range from 14% to 42%</a> depending on the sample and measured outcomes.</p>
<p>But we cannot disregard the huge economic burden on taxpayers of the costs required to house a growing number of criminals. In the UK, it has been estimated at <a href="http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04334/SN04334.pdf">£22,993 per prisoner per year</a>, by which ready reckoning it has cost more than £1m to imprison McGreavy for the past 45 years, despite the fact that it is well-established that murderers have one of the lowest recidivism rates of any group. </p>
<p>The benefit of the <a href="http://sociologyindex.com/rehabilitative_ideal.htm">rehabilitative ideal</a> is that kinder, rather than more brutal prisons are the most <a href="https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/09627250508553609.pdf">cost-effective way</a> of dealing with the threat to general welfare posed by criminality. Accepting this paradox and stepping away from the retaliatory approach requires an objective stance on criminal justice that strives to remain uninfluenced by the moral implications or the subjective impact on the victim and their family. </p>
<p>With an imprisonment rate of <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/300986/incarceration-rates-in-oecd-countries/">141 per 100,000 people</a> (or 120 per 100,000 for the UK as a whole), England and Wales is far from that rehabilitative ideal, albeit far below that of the US, with 655 per 100,000 people. Norway’s incarceration rate is around half that, at <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/300986/incarceration-rates-in-oecd-countries/">74 per 100,000</a>. A pragmatic and objective approach to restorative justice that looks to minimise the figurative and literal costs to society will perhaps be one that can overcome the perception that, in criminal justice, “<a href="http://sociologyindex.com/nothing_works.htm">nothing works</a>”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/108445/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tawney Bennett does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The ‘Monster of Worcester’ would have been released 24 years ago in Norway - would that have been better for everyone?Tawney Bennett, Lecturer in Law, Staffordshire UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1037302018-10-11T10:42:13Z2018-10-11T10:42:13ZReduced sentencing for nonviolent criminals: What does the public think?<p>Partisan politics in Washington has found a new victim: criminal justice reform.</p>
<p>Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa is trying to pass a <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/04/bipartisan-criminal-justice-reform-is-how-congress-is-supposed-to-work-time-is-now-to-get-it-done.html">bipartisan</a> <a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Sentencing,%2010-04-17,%20SRCA%20115%20Summary.pdf">bill</a> that would reduce punishments for less serious, nonviolent crimes. <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/20/cotton-trump-sentencing-reform-790040">Attorney General Jeff Sessions and a few Republican senators</a> are fighting the bill because they believe prosecutors need the threat of long prison sentences to deter crime. Their belief is not shared by many <a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18613/the-growth-of-incarceration-in-the-united-states-exploring-causes">criminologists</a>.</p>
<p>Grassley’s bill reflects reforms that have already happened at the state level: More than two dozen red and blue states, including states as politically different as Texas and Massachusetts, have joined the <a href="https://csgjusticecenter.org/jr/">Justice Reinvestment Initiative</a> over the last 15 years. Under the initiative, sponsored by the Council of State Governments, states have changed their laws to sentence nonviolent offenders to community-based sanctions, like probation or ankle bracelet monitoring, instead of prison. </p>
<p>Spending less money on locking people in prison means states have more to spend on other forms of crime prevention. Investing this money in communities was the <a href="https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/ideas_reinvestment.pdf">original vision</a> of the Justice Reinvestment Initiative. However, <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/prison-break-9780190246440?cc=us&lang=en&">most legislatures</a> have reinvested money back into the criminal justice system instead.</p>
<p>What does the public think about sentencing reform and investing in communities now?</p>
<p>As a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=bZur6NkAAAAJ&hl=en">scholar</a> who studies public opinion and the politics of criminal justice, I conducted a <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07418825.2018.1486448">public opinion survey</a> to answer this question. </p>
<p>I surveyed white and black respondents to see whether opinions differed across racial groups. Criminal justice is an issue that has long divided Americans by <a href="https://www-cambridge-org.ezproxy.lib.umb.edu/us/academic/subjects/politics-international-relations/american-government-politics-and-policy/justice-america-separate-realities-blacks-and-whites?format=PB&isbn=9780521134750">race</a>.</p>
<h2>Support for sentencing reform</h2>
<p>I asked about 2,000 people to state whether they support or oppose sentencing nonviolent property and drug offenders to community-based punishments instead of prison. Property offenders commit crimes like burglary or theft. Drug offenders commit crimes like drug possession or selling.</p>
<p>I <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2153368718768388">found</a> that a majority of black respondents expressed support for sentencing both property and drug offenders to community-based punishments. </p>
<p>Only between 42 percent to 48 percent of white respondents expressed similar support for community-based punishments. The remaining white respondents expressed opposition or no preference.</p>
<h2>Support for community investment</h2>
<p>Next, I wanted to know how people think money saved from reducing the prison population should be reinvested. </p>
<p><iframe id="bAKIv" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/bAKIv/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>I asked participants to imagine they are a governor and could distribute money for hiring police officers, hiring probation officers, funding community health care clinics, increasing funding to community public schools, funding community job creation programs, or giving citizens a tax break as part of a hypothetical crime prevention budget.</p>
<p>I found that white respondents, on average, gave each category a similar percentage of the overall budget.</p>
<p>Black respondents also put some money into each category, on average. However, they allocated less money toward hiring police and more money toward community institutions and services than white respondents.</p>
<p>In research that will be published in <em>Justice Quarterly</em>, I also tested whether people’s allocation of money would change depending on the community that would receive the funds. I found that respondents were relatively consistent regardless of whether they were told that the communities were high in crime, poverty or welfare usage.</p>
<p>Only one variable changed the allocations: White respondents who were told that African-American communities would receive money allocated more money toward hiring police and probation officers and less money into clinics, schools or job creation programs.</p>
<p>This result is consistent with the political science theory of “<a href="https://press.princeton.edu/titles/7090.html">racial priming</a>.” The theory holds that images or words that are negatively associated with black people, like “welfare queen” or “inner-city,” trigger <a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.135">racial stereotypes</a>. These stereotypes make whites more likely to feel that black people’s requests for anti-poverty policies in their communities are requests for “special treatment” that whites consider to be unfair.</p>
<p>My findings suggest that politicians could encourage both white and black Americans to support community investment if they talk about fixing social problems, like poverty or crime, instead of talking about giving money to one particular group of people.</p>
<h2>Disconnect between politicians and citizens</h2>
<p>I found no evidence that black and white Americans hold substantially different opinions about criminal justice reform.</p>
<p>Though politicians may have political reasons to shy away from sentencing reform and community investment, a lack of public support does not appear to be one of them. The public is less divided on this issue than our leaders in Washington.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/103730/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kevin Wozniak receives funding from the National Institute of Justice.</span></em></p>A new public opinion survey reveals Americans largely agree on sentencing reform, and how money spent on prisons could be reinvested in communities.Kevin Wozniak, Assistant Professor of Sociology and Criminal Justice, UMass BostonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.