Being soft on justice is bad enough but without rehab what’s the bloody point?

Rehabilitation?

As a society, we’re not very good at helping those who really need some support, or even just a modicum of encouragement. Even our misguided, often prevalent, belief about the Nanny State picking up the pieces of our personal and social malaise, is usually an unrealistic pipe-dream of tsunami proportions. So what of our expectations when it comes to the rehabilitation of ‘habitual’ criminals and substance abusers, if indeed we actually have any?

In some respects I can partly understand the ethos of Owen Jones when he wrote his book Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class. In his acclaimed investigation, Jones explored how our working class has gone from “salt of the earth” to “scum of the earth.” He argues that, the chav stereotype is used by many, not least the government, as “a convenient fig leaf” to hide more complex issues and avoid genuine engagement with people and the social and economic problems impacting upon widening inequality.

In many respects, the Chav stereotype is no different to how we, in the main, predominantly view the criminal and drug dependant element of our society. Far too often the general social retort is simply ”lock ‘em up and throw away the keys.” Often incarceration is a requirement to protect society however; it can only ever partly resolve some (but not all) of the causation factors of criminality. There also has to be some form of rehabilitation involved in the punishment process, otherwise as now in many cases, criminality becomes little more than cyclic.  

Writing in The Daily Mail recently, Kathy Gyngell, a drugs policy analyst at the Centre for Policy Studies said we are so soft on justice… Many would agree but she wasn’t falling into the usual sociopolitical and rhetorical tirade. The one so often favoured by politicians, and individuals who usually don’t fully understand, or even care about many of the issues.

The causation factors leading to someone being involved in crime, or substance abuse, aren’t important, are they? After all, it’s their choice, isn’t it? They made that ‘choice’ and they should accept the consequences, shouldn’t they? “Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the crime” etc.

In her piece she explained why Alex Livingstone, a self-confessed ‘habitual’ crook and drug addicted thief, might complain about not being sent to jail (see here).

An offender being escorted from court for complaining his sentence is too lenient is the stuff of satire. It’s a better joke even than a judge letting Pete Doherty walk free from Court knowing his pockets were full of heroin that he said he’d forgotten about.  (Both are true) Rumpole would have appreciated the bathos…(Kathy Gyngell)

Although the article began in a slightly humorous manner, it went on to fully discuss many of the issues around sentencing, imprisonment, community based orders and programs but importantly, it highlighted the almost constant failures in any realistic rehabilitation process.

As Gyngell also pointed out recently (see here), even more shocking is the fact that; more than 12,000 children under 16 were arrested for drugs offences last year, which partly shows the Government’s casual response to all the issues involved. Raymond Lunn, an ex-offender who now attempts to help others understand the process and issues around ‘going straight’ wrote on the experience of prison…

Damaged Goods: …despite the traumatic events that occur to people in prison, it doesn’t seem to then change their criminal behaviour once released, or at least not everyone which, included me.  I put this down to the fact that the event is locked away, you put it to the dark recesses of the mind, and carry on as normal – until you begin to desist from crime & face the horrors of incarceration, it helps desisting, but it opens a psychological mess trapped for years in denial.  We send young people to prison, often not for serious crimes – we expect the young person to come out rehabilitated, instead they come out more damaged than when they went into prison, damaged goods…(ex-offender)

But this rehabilitation failure isn’t new. It may partly be the result of our inability to really understand anything about our society, past or present - despite all the organisational “lessons learned” rhetoric. We simply continue to be happy to reside in the here and now of our small lives. But much of this poor understanding, around many of the issues that blight our society, is born out of a mostly myopic vision of the future. A lack of any real desire, or tangible action, to actually do something about it.

Back in the early 1980′s I had a regular ‘customer’ who was a petty criminal and minor drug user, we’ll call him Jim for the purposes of this post. Jim wasn’t what you could describe as an efficient crook, neither did he have any designs on making a ‘healthy’ living from his criminal activity. His sole requirement was to fund his habit, dole payments just weren’t enough. Often during interview, his desire was actually to get caught by the police most of the time, especially if he had the chance of Christmas at Her Majesty’s Pleasure.

You see at home Jim had no Christmas, the family ‘Nash’ payments didn’t go any way near covering the ’requirements’ of his large family, non of whom worked and in any case, the TV had been repossessed by the rental company (again). How could he enjoy Christmas at home? No, a spell inside during the festive period allowed him to consume three square meals per day, have a proper Christmas dinner and watch the Morecambe & Wise Christmas special on TV. Why stay at home?

These were all things he’d never experienced, finances were tighter than the proverbial duck’s backside and in any case, his father was on the piss in the pub most of the time and his mother, well she was usually up the road at the local lorry park turning tricks for backy money. Jim almost prayed to be locked up, he wouldn’t be left fending and caring for his five siblings and he could even source his bit of recreational smoke whilst inside, without having to do a break to get it.

The ‘Jims’ of this world are still there and always will be, until they’re able to find a better way to support themselves (or their habits), in a more socially acceptable and/or legal manner. In the current social and financial climate things are probably even worse so, is it our fault or theirs? In many respects our society, but mostly the government and myriad of associated agencies, are the ones who should really shoulder much of the blame… Too much rhetorical hot air and not enough tangible action!

I agree we all have choices in life, most of us make sensible ones but many don’t. Many lack the life skills, education, intelligence and/or any realistic opportunity of actually making any difference to their plight, perceived or actual. Once caught and punished for their wrongdoings, is it really fair that we expect them to change, without giving them a helping hand?

But even those with ‘celebrity’ status (and the associated cash) like Pete Doherty, Amy Winehouse, or perhaps even the obviously troubled Whitney Houston, have difficulties breaking free from their dark ’troubles’ without some help, despite having the funds to pay for that help. Is it fair that our society fails to help those without the financial ability for self-help funding? Yes some won’t accept any assistance or help, from anyone, let alone government agencies, to break free of their cyclic self-destruction however; is it right they are denied the help that is available, simply because we can’t be arsed?

I’m not suggesting that we simply throw more cash at the problem, that’s usually what the government does, at least for a short period to placate public angst, and especially in the periods leading up to elections. No, we really have to make a more concerted effort at ‘working in partnership’ (God how I hate that mostly synthetic platitude) for a change. All agencies and organisations involved, be they statutory or voluntary need to get a grip. Always assuming we actually want to address some, if not all of the issues impacting upon these individuals?

The first step in the process must be to actually provide more robust and effective rehabilitation efforts, at present it seems we’re sadly lacking in this area. How we actually go about it will be down to the ’experts’ but without it, we’re destined to continue down the road of cyclic criminality. One thing is for sure, especially with the current cuts to public resources, we can’t continue relying simply upon the police and the courts to stem this tidal flow. It’s like expecting the proverbial small Dutch boy to get his thumb out again.

Sometimes it needs a little more than just the individual ability to see light beyond the darkness!

Related articles

• Judge slams soft justice after serial burglar thanks him for giving him lenient sentence (dailymail.co.uk)
• Amy Winehouse self-portrait painted in blood set to feature in Pete Doherty “arterial splatter” exhibition (mirror.co.uk)
• Alternative to Jail: Alcohol Rehab (alcoholic.org)
• Ken Clarke sparks anger with opposition to longer jail terms (dailymail.co.uk)
• Paul Vallely: Hating chavs is also a form of prejudice (independent.co.uk)

Criminal Justice System: why the constant public angst?

Our CJS Angst?

There is a mass of misunderstanding about the workings of our Criminal Justice System (CJS), a confusion often fuelled by the emotive headlines produced by an often mischievous media machine. This generally results in those who work within that sector being, almost constantly, berated by a dissatisfied public. But is all this vilification actually warranted?

In the main, the majority of those who work at the coal-face of the public sector are there to provide you and I with a service. People like police officers, fire fighters, paramedics and nurses et al, even teachers generally all do what they do because they want to build a better society. Yes they get paid for what they do, many a lot less than they used to, thanks to this govt but in short, the majority take pride in providing a service to others and most are simply trying to make a difference.

It’s strange that we rarely (but rightly) see any verbal condemnation of those who volunteer to do similar work, such as the RNLI Lifeboat crews or our Mountain Rescue teams. The only major difference is the remuneration aspect so does that mean, we expect as a society that, no one should get paid for helping others? Perhaps that thought process is behind many of the politically motivated austerity measures of recent years i.e. public sector cuts are ok because we can fill the void left by them with volunteers. Perhaps politicians should carry out their role on a similar basis?

In general, the public tend to be mostly supportive of the work actually carried out by most of those mentioned above (excepting the politicians I would suspect). They understand the roles performed by each of them however; what they have difficulty getting their heads around is, how come performance so rarely matches expectation these days?

Any failure to meet (or exceed) public expectation, be it justifiable or otherwise, simply results in the tax payers standard retort - ”I pay your bloody wages!” Commenting upon the recent news that MP’s are to get an increase in money to pay their staff one respondent wrote…

“We’re all in this together.” Are we? Absolute hogwash. What is the collective name for a group of self-serving, money-grabbing, self-centred morons? I don’t know, but “A British Parliament” springs to mind. Another appalling decision by a group of people who have no idea what it is like in the real world.

In general, the disparity between performance and public expectation actually results from management failures within the sector. That and/or the political agenda being applied by those (often self-interested) individuals employed to manage these agencies on our behalf. The direction and administration of the organisations serving us is the problem, rarely the actual quality of work carried out by the practitioners.

Writing a guest blog for No Offence! Tessa Webb, Director Probation Chiefs Association, penned a brilliantly simple piece which goes someway towards explaining the issue. She equated our public sector to her car…

I just want it to work and if it doesn’t, I want the professional to ‘sort it out’ but I have little interest in what needs to be done, other than I hope it will not cost too much or take too long. A mechanic may wish to share with great pride their handiwork, but the reality is that I am only likely to get animated if it fails to work, after they have told me that they have fixed it, or I think it costs too much. But just think where would we all be if there were no car mechanics? Some jobs are simply essential and it is good to know there are people who will do them with skill and passion. Isn’t this the business that a ‘Big Society’ should recognise and engage with? As when it is effective everyone wins…(Tessa Webb)

There is no doubt that Tessa’s analogy was written from her own field of expertise within the sector however; similar can also be said in support of many public sector agencies, not least our police and the courts.

Despite so many of our public services currently being reduced at alarming levels, as a result of government austerity measures, the general condemnation continues, but why is this? Once again our media need to shoulder much of the blame, they the politicians and senior organisational leadership. All for whom it serves well to detract from the real issues involved here; self-protecting and self-motivated actions designed for self-protection. The actual concept of true public service rarely features in the overall scheme of things.

Because of this, I found it somewhat disconcerting to read the views of that well-known, but often controversial and predominantly left of centre,  journalist and TV presenter Janet Street-Porter. Writing in The Independent this week she said; The police must shape up, knuckle down, and change. Her article started by saying “the police service is stuck back in the days of Dixon of Dock Green!”  Janet went on to deride the police in general but in particular, she condemned the views of Paul McKeever, the chairman of the Police Federation.

Wouldn’t you think that a staff association, representing those who deliver the services that our communities are crying out for, must be in a better position to know what the public actually want? After all, they are the ones interacting with those people on a daily basis.

But again, Janet, like the rest of us, is being hood-winked and taken for a fool by our political masters; not hard when you take into account the ‘broken car’ analogy is it? Many of the current police reforms, already implemented and proposed for the future, have very little to do with delivering better policing services. They are more about placating public concerns and fears around the reduced levels of service we are already experiencing. A situation that is only set to worsen, despite all the “doing more with less” rhetoric.

What we’re suffering from now is actually the product of a myriad of previous failings, as opposed to any massive changes in role requirements per se. Yes there are some aspects of policing now that differ from those of twenty plus years ago however; the fundamentals of policing, the services that our communities probably need (arguably) more now than ever before, are broadly similar. Most of the current reforms are simply born out of the self-interest of senior police leaders and politicians; people who all have deep-seated and vested interest in disguising years of self-serving management failure.

Perhaps a good way of examining the whole issue, given that we’re looking at the legal world, would be from a more legal perspective? Within our civil law, attributing guilt is usually based upon ‘the balance of probability’ (onus probandi) however, some might even suggest that a ’beyond reasonable doubt’ burden of proof, as within our criminal law, would be even more appropriate.

To prove that someone was guilty of a crime, it must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) a prohibited act (actus reus) has taken place, (2) the intention or mental state (mens rea) of the ‘offender’ and (3) there was no legal excuse for committing the crime.

The choice of which definition you actually chose, when apportioning guilt to those responsible for the demise of our police (and other public services) is up to you.

Who the guilty party is in all this is debatable, be it the media, police senior leadership, our politicians, or indeed the Police Federation. But, despite all the mitigating circumstances being offered by the defence counsel for ACPO and the Government, someone IS guilty of what can only be described as; the criminal damage of  a once internationally respected system.

To my mind it’s not the rank and file police officers (or even their staff association) that are at fault or to blame. But, as a result of all the PR smokescreens and political spin constantly in play, only our society can be the ultimate judge!

Note: No Offence! is a Community Interest Company, not-for-profit, headed up by a Senior Management Team and Volunteers all with significant sector experience and specialisms. The organisation is focused on reducing waste and isolation in the Criminal Justice System within the Public Sector. It seeks to do this through facilitating and encouraging collaboration. There are currently more than 1500 members of No Offence! forum and that number is growing at a pace.