These comments are drawn from the submission from Quakers in Criminal Justice (QICJ) to the Ministry of Justice’s Independent Sentencing Review.
The QICJ response emphasised that a relentless focus on punishment, with the corresponding failure to fund proven approaches to rehabilitation and resettlement, is not only expensive and unsustainable but counterproductive in terms of both public safety and rehabilitation. We also flagged up the mistaken belief that deterrence works, in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
An essential part of resolving the prisons crisis is ‘sentence deflation’ instead of an unsustainable lengthening of sentences, along with the introduction of new provisions, sometimes driven by uniquely distressing crimes that seldom, if ever, reoccur.
We advocate a switch from punishment to putting repairing harm and rehabilitation at heart of the process, which would underpin deep-seated changes. We would welcome the embedding of Restorative Justice, an improved and better resourced Probation Service, diversion from court/the criminal justice system and a renewed emphasis on community crime prevention. ‘Justice Reinvestment’ has long been advocated to support those at risk of criminalisation, benefiting not only the individuals concerned but society as a whole.
Rehabilitation must include respect and nurture of a potential nugget of goodness within each offender. This begins with self-knowledge and understanding which is best fostered in therapeutic communities such as within HMP Grendon.
Our submission deals in detail with the importance of recognising and addressing the widespread damaging effects of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs). It is crucial to note that people whose experiences have been traumatic are more likely to change if offered understanding and support, rather than punishment. Growing research on ACEs shows that an understanding of their long-lasting effects, together with a practical knowledge of helpful strategies, is essential to affect real progress in rehabilitating those who have first been victims of violence, neglect and trauma. As with Restorative Justice, addressing the needs of those with ACEs, should greatly reduce antisocial behaviours in the community and cut recidivism – saving billions of pounds. HMPPS staff initial training and ongoing professional development should highlight ACEs: how to recognise them and how to help the individual to move on.
The prime aim of the sentence should be to outline how an offender will move forward from their offence to resettlement in the community. At present it seems that legislation and sentencing policy are only concerned with incarcerating the offender, leaving reform as a hoped-for side-effect of punishment rather than the over-arching aim of the justice system.
Improving outcomes requires a range of community support, to include mental health and drug/addiction treatment. The costs of treatment, which requires well-funded professional services, would be offset against a future £50,000 annual prison place.
In addition, counselling input, educational opportunities, work experience, family support, community chaplaincy and mentoring are all part of the picture. Public support for these programmes should be fostered, countering any negative media coverage and pointing out the massive savings in the reduction of costs linked re-offending, estimated at £18 billion a year (figure from Feb 2024).
Over-crowded, squalid, violent, under-staffed prisons have no chance of promoting better outcomes, whatever the changes in sentencing policy. Easing overcrowding, introducing more comprehensive staff training and ensuring well-maintained buildings are a pre-requisite for achieving the key aim of successful rehabilitation. Meanwhile, lessons could be learned from establishments that are running regimes which Inspections show to be developing skills and building cooperation and self-reliance.
An entrenched trend is ‘managing risk’, often phrased as ‘public protection’, which seems a dehumanising approach. As technological advances become ever more sophisticated, especially in the applications of electronic monitoring, we express our concern that these solutions are being seen as a partial replacement of rather than an additional tool for a well-funded professional Probation Service.
Moving on to a consideration of victims, QICJ directs you to the report of the Independent Commission into the Experience of Victims and Long-term Prisoners, led by Bishop James Jones, former Bishop for Prisons. Findings include that victims of crime feel ‘overlooked, disregarded, neglected, marginalised and further traumatised’ by the criminal justice system, and that sentencing for serious offences is not working to rehabilitate prisoners or offer redress or resolution to victims. This report should be studied for the detailed observations and recommendations it makes.
When consulted, victims often say that their primary concern is that the perpetrator does not go on to harm others; effective rehabilitation is at the heart of realising this concern. Long-term public safety, and closure for victims, depends on a change in both the offender’s attitude to and behaviour towards the community at large. A sustainable and safer justice system must therefore make rehabilitation a priority.
Finally, we also noted the lack of proper liaison between the different arms of the criminal justice system, as an aspect of the current dysfunction.
This article is part of our ‘Ideas for sentencing reform’ series, discussing sentencing reforms against the background of the Independent Sentencing Review under the former Lord Chancellor, Rt Hon David Gauke.
If you would like to suggest an article for this series, get in touch.
