|
Scottish Prisons Commission Report.
Scottish Government: 1 July 2008 >> report
VIEWPOINT: Sacro very much welcomes the bold, evidenced based package of recommendations proposed by the Prison Commission. We congratulate the Scottish Government for the progressive and courageous step they took in establishing the Commission in September 2007 to examine Scotland’s use of imprisonment in the 21st century, giving it the remit to:
- consider how imprisonment is currently used in Scotland and how that use fits with the Government’s wider strategic objectives;
- raise the public profile of this issue, providing better information to allow a deeper understanding of the options, outcomes and costs;
- assess the impact for courts, prisons and community justice services of early release provisions of the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Act 2007.
The principles guiding the Commission are ones which Sacro applauds:
- Punishment must be visible, swift and fair;
- Communities should be at the heart of penal reform and action;
- Prison populations must be controlled to achieve Scotland’s wider strategic objectives;
- Scotland can be an international model.
We also firmly agree that “gaining control over prison number is the necessary first step to limiting its damaging effects and to focus efforts on more effective punishments”.
The report contains 23 recommendations (see below), which Rt Hon Henry McLeish, Chair of the Commission, stressed should be implemented as an integrated package. Sacro would endorse the whole package. Many of the individual recommendations we have been advocating ourselves for some years e.g. recommendation 1 states that “that imprisonment should be reserved for people whose offences are so serious that no other form of punishment will do and for those who pose a threat of serious harm to the public”. We made such statements too, having been informed by our experience of over 35 years in the field and from our own evidence based research
As the commission recognised, the evidence points to the fact that prison does not work. “High prison populations do not reduce crime; they are more likely to create pressures that drive re-offending than reduce it”. This is especially true for short-term sentences, and when prisons are over-crowded is true even for those who should be imprisoned for longer.
We concur with the Commission’s view that there is “An opportunity for action”, “to make better use of imprisonment, and … develop a more robust and effective system of punishment that encompasses both prison and community based-sanctions”.
Sacro would welcome community sentences: being the default position in dealing with less serious offenders; beginning as immediately as do prison sentences; and involving an element of paying back to the community. A model of good practice which finds “constructive ways to compensate or repair harms caused by crime … making good to the victim and/or the community” [Recommendation 11] is Sacro’s Community Based Reparation Service in Aberdeen which recently received a UK Howard League Community Programmes Outstanding Scheme Award. This service gives the person harmed by a crime a voice in how they would like the harm caused to them to be addressed (full details below).
It is perhaps inappropriate to pick out particular recommendations like this, for Sacro does support the whole package but perhaps we can say we are also particularly encouraged to see the following elements:
3 “extend the types and availability of effective alternatives to prosecution”. Sacro has long advocated increased availability and use of diversion from court to restorative justice and other measures.
5 is “that the Government extend the types and availability of bail-related information and supervision services across Scotland” as an effective measure to reduce the large number of prisoners on remand. This in itself would go a long way to address the problem of overcrowding in our prisons. Bail supervision also provides a robust way for offenders to begin to address the underlying reasons why they offend at an early stage, return to court on the due date and usually with a report which says they have demonstrated an ability to work constructively in the community. This in turn makes it more likely they will receive a further community sanction instead of a short prison sentence. In 2006/2007 there were 23,181 remand receptions in Scotland at a cost of £51.2m. A significant proportion, from one third to one half will not have been given a custodial sentence, are not a danger to the public. If the daily bail supervision capacity were increased to cope with about half the remand population this would cost about £2m and immediately free up about 700 prison beds, which could be used for sentenced prisoners.
8 “to develop clear sentencing guidelines”. This too we have long advocated, in order to achieve more consistency in and effectiveness of sentencing.
10 Greater attention to be paid to addressing “the need for clearer communication with the wider public about sentencing and community sentences”. Sacro would hope that its considerable experience of working with the media could be used to contribute to this end. We also welcome the recognition of the need to “enhance public understanding of and confidence in the credibility of release and resettlement arrangement”. With our long years of experience in throughcare and supported accommodation, more recently in Scotland’s first Community Links Centre, we would also hope to contribute here.
13 “To increase the visibility, credibility and effectiveness of the new Community Supervision Sentence” through swift and regular review by the courts of progress and compliance. This has been effective in the Drug Courts and should be replicated.
14 The default position being that there are no sentences of six months or less, except in particular circumstances. The Scottish Consortium on Crime and Criminal Justice, Sacro and others have long called for this. It will be important that community sentences become immediate and robust enough for sentencers to have confidence in using them, so that they do use them as the default, instead of either merely continuing to use short prison sentences or even worse, making sentences longer.
15 The additional option in sentencing of a conditional sentence which “means the period of custody is imposed but suspended subject to the offender keeping to a strict set of conditions”. This has been used in the Netherlands and other countries to good effect, (as was described by a Dutch Prison Governor at Sacro’s Annual Conference in 2000).
18 The recognition across all Government departments, all public services, all sectors and all communities have a duty towards those who have paid back in the community and former prisoners. The Management of Offenders (Scotland) Act 2005 began the process but we need to go further to have health, education, housing and others understand reducing crime is the responsibility of all of us. Leaving it to criminal justice agencies alone cannot bring about the necessary degree of change.
21 Refers to the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Act 2007. A very wide range of agencies, including Sacro, which gave evidence to the Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament on the Bill, argued very strongly against implementation as drafted. This recommendation is therefore very welcome, as it suggests postponement of implementation of the Act, until implementation of the other recommendations of the Commission and achievement of reductions in the short sentence prison population, and even then the provisions being reserved for those serving two years or more.
23 Sacro’s Manifesto for the Scottish Parliament 2007-2011 recommended reducing the prison population significantly and we demonstrated how this might be safely achieved. Naturally then, we welcome a target prison population being set and being set at 5,000, especially given that overall crime rates in Scotland are falling (the statistics issued on 7 July 2008 show a further drop).
The Prisons Commission’s Report is a brave and wide-ranging document, based on firm evidence and it poses an achievable but radical vision. The tests for the recommendations the Commission set itself are ones with which we would all welcome achieving: public safely is not compromised; victims and their families are recognised and respected; and offenders are rehabilitated to play a positive role in society.
We earnestly hope the Scottish Government take this package of recommendations forward by investing in implementing them as quickly as possible, for the sake of a safer Scotland.
The Commission's 23 recommendations represent a comprehensive and inter-dependent set of proposals which, taken together, offer a systematic and evidence-based response to the challenges that we face.
The evidence that we have reviewed leads us to the conclusion that to use imprisonment wisely is to target it where it can be most effective — in punishing serious crime and protecting the public.
1 To target imprisonment better and make it more effective, the Commission recommends that imprisonment should be reserved for people whose offences are so serious that no other form of punishment will do and for those who pose a threat of serious harm to the public.
2 To move beyond our reliance on imprisonment as a means of punishing offenders, the Commission recommends that paying back in the community should become the default position in dealing with less serious offenders.
In seeking to better target the use of imprisonment, it is essential to explore the whole of the criminal justice process; it is not just a question of sentencing and punishment; it is also a question of who to prosecute and when, and of who needs to be remanded in custody before trial or sentence. That requires the availability of suitable options at every stage in the process and it places a premium on avoiding damaging delays in the court process.
3 To make sure that court business is properly focussed only on those cases that need to be formally prosecuted, the Commission recommends that the Government extend the types and availability of effective alternatives to prosecution coordinated by enhanced court-based social work units.
4 To make the court and sentencing process more efficient, the Commission recommends that the Government legislate to place an onus on the Crown to seek to roll-up outstanding matters. 'Rolling-up' means gathering together all of an accused person's outstanding charges, and adjudicating and sentencing them at the same time.
5 To target more effectively the use of remand custody, the Commission recommends that the Government extend the types and availability of bail-related information and supervision services across Scotland, including electronically monitored bail conditions, operated through enhanced court-based social work units.
6 Recognising their age and stage of development — and the potential that young offenders may be negatively influenced by older prisoners — the Commission recommends that the Government explore options for detaining 16 and 17 year olds in secure youth facilities separate from older offenders and those under the age of 16.
7 To bring Scotland into line with international conventions and to deal more appropriately and effectively with younger offenders, the Commission recommends that the Government re-examine the case for diverting 16 and 17 year olds to Specialist Youth Hearings with a wider range of options than are presently available in the Children's Hearings System.
Scotland is a small country but patterns of sentencing - and provision of community sentences - vary greatly. If they are to command public support, both sentencing and the management of sentences need to be more consistent, transparent and intelligible to the public. They also need to be effective.
8 To drive forward consistency and improve the effectiveness of sentencing, the Commission recommends that the Government establish an independent National Sentencing Council (NSC) to develop clear sentencing guidelines that can be applied nationwide.
9 To lead the implementation of a new Community Supervision Sentence (see 11 below), develop improved services for ex-prisoners and drive forward changes in a diverse criminal justice system, the Commission recommends the establishment of a National Community Justice Council (NCJC).
10 To address the need for clearer communication with the wider public about sentencing and community sentences, the Commission recommends that the National Sentencing Council and the National Community Justice Council should be jointly charged with enhancing public understanding of, and confidence in, the credibility of both sentencing and the management of community sentences. The NCJC should work with the Scottish Prison Service and the Parole Board for Scotland to enhance public understanding of and confidence in the credibility of release and resettlement arrangements.
11 The Commission recommends that judges should be provided with a wide range of options through which offenders can payback in the community, but that, where sentences involving supervision are imposed, there should be one single Community Supervision Sentence (CSS) with a wide range of possible conditions and measures. By payback, we mean finding constructive ways to compensate or repair harms caused by crime. It involves making good to the victim and/or the community whether by unpaid work, engaging in rehabilitative work that benefits both victims and the community by reducing reoffending, or some combination of these and other approaches.
12 To enhance clarity and consistency in sentencing and to promote a problem-solving approach in criminal justice, the Commission recommends the development of a three stage approach to sentencing and managing community sentences:
- Stage 1: How much payback?
- Stage 2: What kind of payback?
- Stage 3: Checking progress and payback.
13 To increase the visibility, credibility and effectiveness of the new Community Supervision Sentence, the Commission recommends the establishment of progress courts that enable swift and regular review of progress and compliance with community sentences — and that deal robustly with offenders who do not pay back.
14 To reduce the use of short-term prison sentences, the Commission recommends that the Government bring forward legislation to require a sentencing judge, who would otherwise have imposed a sentence of six months imprisonment or less, to impose a Community Supervision Sentence instead, except in particular circumstances.
15 To provide judges with an additional option in sentencing and to keep certain offenders focussed on reforming, the Commission recommends that the Government bring forward legislation to enable a sentencing judge who has formed the view that a custodial sentence is appropriate, to consider whether it should be served as a conditional sentence. A conditional sentence means that the period of custody is imposed but suspended subject to the offender keeping to a strict set of conditions.
16 Conditional sentences represent a more appropriate and transparent use of tagging than the current Home Detention Curfew scheme which is used by prison governors to facilitate early release. Given that it raises concerns about clarity and transparency in sentencing, the Commission recommends that, subject to the full implementation of our other recommendations, the current Home Detention Curfew scheme should be terminated.
Resettling prisoners so that they are less likely to reoffend — and less likely to be recalled to custody - is in all of our interests. It is a challenging and complex task that requires the cooperation of a wide range of agencies and professionals, as well as the support of the public.
17 To provide dynamic leadership in developing the status, visibility, quality, consistency and credibility of criminal justice social work nationwide, the Commission recommends that the National Community Justice Council (NCJC) should be charged with and resourced to undertake these tasks.
18 To ensure progress in developing services that are available nationwide to address the social and health related needs of many offenders, the Commission recommends that the Government promote recognition across all Government departments, all public services, all sectors and all communities of a duty to reintegrate both those who have paid back in the community and those who have served their time in prison.
19 To address offending behaviour and the underlying causes, the Commission recommends a more restricted and rational use of imprisonment to enable the Scottish Prison Service to get better at regulating prisons and prisoners, at using accommodation resources intelligently to incentivise prisoners to come off and stay off drugs (for example, by providing drug free wings) and at providing and prioritising rehabilitation.
20 To tackle rising rates of recall to custody of released prisoners, the Commission recommends that the Parole Board should be provided with additional options to better manage release and compliance with licence conditions, including drug treatment and testing services and extending electronically-monitored home detention.
21 The Commission recommends that, if the Act is to be implemented, its implementation must follow the implementation of this Commission's other recommendations and the achievement of reductions in the short sentence prison population. Thereafter, the provisions around risk assessment, conditional release and compulsory post-release supervision arrangements should be reserved for those serving two years or more. Those serving shorter sentences should be released under licence conditions and directed to support services.
22 The Commission recommends that preparing for release and training for freedom be retained and reinforced as the proper purposes of the open estate — not easing overcrowding. We are clear that Scotland will not have a world-leading prison service and a well-run open estate until we reduce the unnecessary, costly, damaging and dangerous overuse of custody.
23 The Commission recommends that the Government pursue a target of reducing the prison population to an average daily population of 5,000, guiding and supporting the efforts of relevant statutory bodies in achieving it. Based on our analysis of the impact of implementing our recommendations, we calculate that it would be possible to reduce the prison population to this level by focusing the use of imprisonment on those who have committed serious crimes and constitute a danger to the public. Our report and our recommendations are not about saving money; they are about investing it wisely and securing better outcomes. Though long-term savings would result from better targeting and limiting the use of imprisonment, the Government and the people of Scotland should be left in no doubt that we first need up-front investment in better services in and for Scotland's communities.
Community Based Reparation [CBR] gives the person harmed by a crime a voice in how they would like the harm caused to them to be addressed. Young people and adults accused of crime are given the opportunity to take responsibility, apologise and take some action to repair the harm caused by their behaviour.
CBR becomes appropriate, within the Restorative Justice process, when all parties agree that the person responsible for an offence could repair the harm caused by undertaking some voluntary work, either directly for the person harmed or indirectly within the local community. This voluntary work is called a reparative task and it focuses on repairing the harm.
If the people harmed by an offence request a reparative task as a means of repairing the harm caused, the CBR Service worker facilitates this part of the restorative justice process, ensuring the negotiation, monitoring and administration of reparative tasks.
The service worker provides appropriate support and supervision to enable the client to complete a reparative task and ensures that all health and safety requirements are fulfilled for any work undertaken by a service user.
|
