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)

Beware your past may (Rightly?) haunt you!

 

Image via Wikipedia

A student who received a criminal record for stealing bikes when he was an 11-year-old child is launching a test case to have them expunged because it breaches his human rights (see below)…

But, is it right that our children should be free to do whatever they want, with impunity, knowing that any wrong doing will simply be written off as soon as they reach adulthood?

Isn’t it better they have that slight element of fear about their actions ‘haunting’ them in future life? Shouldn’t we be doing more to educate our children about right and wrong, instead of letting them run free to take part in whatever, in their youthful exuberance and immaturity, see as simply a bit of fun? Wouldn’t it be better if we taught them that for every action there is an impact and sometimes, not a very pleasant one?

Despite all the best parenting skills, children may go off the rails from time to time. I nearly did and I also know of many kids who actually did and often, the ones you would least expect it of. Youngsters who developed drug habits or got involved in petty crime because of peer pressure or whatever, despite having respectable, well-educated and well-to-do parents. But I have also known many kids who excelled in life, at everything they did. Ones who came from broken homes with fathers who spent more time in prison than they did at home. In short, the background doesn’t always reflect the outcome.

But it must be better to always do the best we can with preventative measures and education, rather than simply say to our children, “you can do what you want now, because it’s not important when you get older.” If we don’t at least try to get it right during our children’s formative years, aren’t we just storing up even greater problems for them, and our society, in the future?

Lots of us have elements of our past that we aren’t proud of, at all ages in life however; isn’t it those ‘mistakes’ that we make that make us what we are in life?

Whatever the facts and issues behind the court action being brought; allowing erasure of juvenile criminal records is little more than a poor effort to disguise our parental and social ineptitude. That and attempting to hide the inherent failures of the self-interested individuals within our society?

Related articles

• Student launches fight to have his schoolboy police record deleted (telegraph.co.uk)

Social Media: The law according to His Honour Lord Justice Spock

Mr Spock

When it comes to the law, the topic of humour is getting in some deep doggy do of late. As we all know, ‘the law can be an ass’ sometimes, so it’s hardly surprising that it doesn’t understand funny, perhaps a lot of our judiciary are descended from Vulcan roots?

Al Murray is one of several high-profile comedians arguing in favour of the right to make jokes on Twitter – however bad – without fear of legal overreaction. He (and many others) are asking; is it right that someone should become subject of legal proceedings because of a “not particularly funny” joke?

As an erstwhile pedlar of some not particularly funny jokes just ask the Guardians comedy critic, he doesn’t dig what I do at all, this matters to me a great deal…(Al Murray – The Guardian)

In the now infamous Twitter Joke Trial,  which has become something of a cause celebre, mainly due to the fact, as one columnist put it in The Guardian recently (see here); “it punctures the comforting illusion that Britain is a moderate country” - In my opinion we’re simply stuffing the bird again. It’s either out of a pure fear of the power in social media or, a simple misunderstanding of the platform and it’s capabilities.

A worrying factor that fits within this broad topic is; recourse via our judicial system for libelous, inflammatory, let alone humourous comments posted within social networks, seems to be dependent upon who the ‘victim’ is, what their ethnicity is and importantly, how much money they have to pay for any challenge to what has been said or implied. Remember the footballer and his (alleged) affairs. Is it right to seek to control the opinion of another by legal means, simply because you don’t like what you hear or see?

And whilst on that train of thought. When we consider the rights and wrongs of what people say (from a purely legal basis) via Twitter et al, how can it OK for some Islamic fundamentalist to actively promote “death to the infidel” free of prosecution yet, some less than intelligent idiot makes comment about the ethnicity of footballers (see here), and he falls foul of our laws? Let me be clear however; as I’ve said before, I neither condone or support racism in any shape or form, from whichever side of the ethnic fence it originated.

Humour?

But back to the rights and wrongs of the humour aspect of this post. People of all ages and cultures respond to humour, people are able to experience humour, i.e., to be amused, to laugh or smile at something funny, and when they do they are considered to have a sense of humour. Whether or not you find something funny is ultimately decided by your personal taste, this is wholly dependent upon a host of variables, including geographical location, culture, maturity, level of education, intelligence and context. The person lacking any sense of humour would likely find the behaviour induced by humour to be inexplicable, strange, or even irrational.

The manner in which the law is being applied to social media is something reminiscent of a Klingon invasion of our human need/desire to express an opinion… As Mr Spock, the now famous half-Vulcan Science and First Officer of the Starship Enterprise would have retorted – “It’s Highly Illogical Captain” - perhaps some of our judiciary trained at Starfleet Command?

Related articles

• Al Murray on the Twitter joke trial: ‘Problem is, the law don’t do funny’ (guardian.co.uk)
• Judgment reserved in Twitter airport threat appeal (guardian.co.uk)
• Twitter Joke Trial: Judges Don’t Get Social Media, Says Stephen Fry (mashable.com)
• Must read posts on the TwitterJokeTrial appeal (newstatesman.com)