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.

‘Ryan Air’ Policing: Coming to your county soon!

We should all know the name Michael O’Leary, he’s the one behind Ryanair, the forerunner of the ’budget’ airline business in the UK and Europe. A business concept quickly followed by the likes of EasyJet and latterly Jet2.com. All of these operations are characterised by their no frills, low-cost business model, one that many consider a success.

But what if this type of business model (see below) was being applied to our public services?

Arriving in a hotel in Dublin , he went to the bar and asked for a pint of draught Guinness. The barman nodded and said, “That will be one Euro please, Mr. O’Leary.” Somewhat taken aback, O’Leary replied, “That’s very cheap,” and handed over his money.

“Well, we try to stay ahead of the competition”, said the barman. “And we are serving free pints every Wednesday evening from 6 until 8. We have the cheapest beer in Ireland.”

“That is remarkable value” Michael comments – “I see you don’t seem to have a glass, so you’ll probably need one of ours” the barman continued. “That will be 3 euro please.”

O’Leary scowled, but paid up. He took his drink and walked towards a seat. “Ah, you want to sit down?” said the barman. “That’ll be an extra 2 euro. – You could have pre-book the seat, and it would have only cost you a Euro.”

“I think you may to be too big for the seat sir, can I ask you to sit in this frame please.” Michael attempts to sit down but the frame is too small and when he can’t squeeze in he complains; “Nobody would fit in that little frame”.

“I’m afraid if you can’t fit in the frame you’ll have to pay an extra surcharge of €4.00 for your seat sir” O’Leary swore to himself, but paid up.

“I see that you have brought your laptop with you” added the barman. “And since that wasn’t pre-booked either, that will be another 3 euro.”

O’Leary was so annoyed that he walked back to the bar, slammed his drink on the counter, and yelled, “This is ridiculous, I want to speak to the manager”.

“Ah, I see you want to use the counter,” says the barman, “that will be 2 euro please.” O’Leary’s face was red with rage. “Do you know who I am?”

“Of course I do Mr. O’Leary,”

“I’ve had enough, What sort of Hotel is this? I come in for a quiet drink and you treat me like this. I insist on speaking to a manager!”

“Here is his E mail address, or if you wish, you can contact him between 9am and 9.10am every morning, Monday to Tuesday at this free phone number. Calls are free, until they are answered, then there is a talking charge of only 10 cent per second” “I will never use this bar again”

“OK sir, but remember, we are the only hotel in Ireland selling pints for one Euro”.

The above may be a somewhat humourous slant on O’Leary’s business model however; it’s no joke that this Ryan Air type of service delivery is actually creeping in all over the public sector. In recent years, probably even more so now than previously, due to government induced austerity measures, service delivery is governed by cash.

Proper and effective control of public expenditure has always been important but unfortunately, it’s also an aspect of public sector management which has been sadly lacking in the past. Now our society is suffering all the consequences of that past mismanagement. Continued failure to spend what little remains in the correct manner (see here), will only leed to further decline in the levels of service currently being delivered.

Perhaps we need to decide, once and ofr all, what it is we actually want from our police and public services; a low-cost, no frills substandard service, where we pay additionally for every extra or, proper levels of high quality and effective service available to all?

Related articles

• Service! (dickiebo.wordpress.com)