Prisons: A 'rehabilitation revolution'?

Just one more promise broken. Hey, Mr Robinson, I know you are a political reporter, but where you go wrong is in thinking it is the MPs and government ministers who are important....it's not them, it's us, the electorate. Us, the mugs who are lied to at every turn and have to fork out seemingly endless amounts of expenses for dishonesty and smoking political mirrors which allow manifestos to be torn up months after people got duped into voting for their contents and false promises. Cant help but think you'd be all over it like a rash if it was Labour in Number 10. Remember, no party won that election.

But surely "prison works" - doesn't it?

Prison is a place where we think we put those that are "a risk to society" - for example we bang drug addicts who steal to fund their habit rather than trying to get them off drugs, and those who are mentally ill and commit crimes are incarcerated rather than treated.

We also lock up young people who lack any sense of right & wrong because they have been the victims of bad parenting, abuse or both. Sure there are bad apples that can only be dealt with that way, but in sending them all to prison we have set them on the downward spiral that usally leads nowhere - a lifetime in jail at huge expense, a living nightmare for their communities or a wated life.

Whilst in prison they learn to be better, faster tougher criminals - they network with hardened criminals and establish the support networks they need to take crime to the next level. All that's missing is the BTEC in Advanced Criminal Studies.

They also learn complete contempt for the law, the police and the prison system and that the world only helps those that help themselves - to other poeples' property.

Prison is not the answer to most problems - in some cases there is no alternative, but simply locking people up - particularly young people - all we do is create better criminals.

Clarke is quite right in seeking to cull the bloated system of banging people up to keep them off the streets for a few months/years. Unless we change prisoners and give them the ability to build a future away from crime, all we are doing is wasting large sums of money to teach them to be better criminals, even less employable and without any respect of commitment to society.

Prison doesn't work - it's an expensive, ineffective way to temporarily warehouse those we should be working to help rejoin their communities and earn their keep.

I think that the only way Sir Ken will find jobs sufficient for all those displaced from prison will be to give preference to British ex-prisoners over EU work-migrants.
The gang-bosses that control these migrant field-workers/warehouse-workers will simply be an extention of the familiar warden system.
The real question is - who should be the responsible agency for keeping alcohol-addicts and drug-addicts (various) away from their disease? Is this really a job for the gang-boss?

Any law and order policy that goes beyond Tory or Labour hair-shirt headline chasing of the last 20 years is to be listened to. Ken Clarke will have added to his many enemies in his own party with this latest more liberal sounding policy.

But yet again it does show that any claim Tories have to changing politics is completely dead in the water. Shameless vote chasing before the election followed by dropping pledges like hot potatoes. Not sure they can blame the deficit for this one.

I won't however hold my breath for a measured Labour response, however much I'd like one.

Lastly - the real cynic in me wonders if there is a bit of tuition fees deflection stuff going on here - my goodness this is just the same as the last government isn't it?

If the Government had any real desire to reduce the prison population it would decriminalise drug use and possession. Not only would this reduce the prison population by umpteen thousands, it would also save the Government millions wasted in the justice system.

Government/Common Sense - not happy bedfellows.

Here we are again, going back on pre-election promises, do not worry, next time we will know not to believe you. As with all politicians you cannot be believed. Lock those who break our laws up.

Great picture!

So how about some analysis on how difficult this 'revolution' is likely to be to implement, whether we've got the money (or political will) to see it through, and to what extent the major parties will remain in agreement?

I've genuinely lost count now of the Conservative pledges that have been dropped. I think it's 5 or 6. Has anyone got the full list of the things they've gone back on? Thanks.

I quite like Ken Clarke but I had to laugh about "Britain's Softest". Nice one.

Typicial Tory control freakery dressed up as libertarianism. (No different from Brown's and Blair's Labour governments.)

Where has the coalition pledge to restore our freedoms gone?

This slick manoeuver by Ken is pure spin. I spend a few hundred pounds on top quality kitchen knives as a gift for someone, and I am stopped by over-zealous coppers. What is there to protect me from being stitched up for community service and losing my job in the process?

Ah, but no jail term, you see, old libertarian Ken will assure me!

I am not reassured by the inclusion of clauses for good reason because their boundaries are vague and they are still open to abuse.

Moreover, the police will STILL be stopping and searching people who are simply going about their business, even if they do release them in the end. I thought we had begun to see an end to that. Looks like sly old Ken has found a loophole in the ECHR to assert our right to a police state.

Anyone who really thinks that acting tough to "prevent" people merely carrying knives will reduce crime really does believe the tabloid nonsense she reads.

Make no mistake here. All Clarke has done is to keep New Labour's laws but dress them up as a move towards greater freedom.

perhaps we will see less jailing of F4j/RFFJ protestors for political reasons as they were never a danger to anyone other than Labour policies ?

They should start by making sure that ALL murders, rapist, peado's get life, then work there way down from that, those that cannot pay a fine for not paying thier TV liecense should be made to go strawberry picking to pay ot off etc.

They could get them of drug by stoping the importation of the drugs etc.

Also all the NON-uk prisoners should be sent home to serve their sentance.

They could also remove some of the priviliages like TV's etc to save money make it harsher but humane they they will not wanted to come back

It really is all going wrong for the Children of Thatcher. No longer tough on crime, no longer stong on defence or even tough on Europe. Must be a great time to be a Tory.

I wonder why we have not seen a blog on University Fees. Could it be this announcement is designed by the Number 10 spin doctors to draw attention away from the mess that is the Government's university funding policy. Not going top apply to Welsh or Scottish students. 5 Conservatives set to vote against including David Davis. The LibDems in a mess. Shame poor old Labour are apparently no longer the official opposition.

When will our politicians realise that the ordinary joe doesn't care if prison works. What they do know and care about is that when housebreakers,
thieves,child molesters and murderers etc are in jail they are not pursuing
their criminal activities. That will do for me meantime thank you.

Another day, another climb down & / or U-turn.
Still, if the LibDem’s can wave a 2 finger salute to their voters, then I suspect that the Conservatives feel they should do the same to their voters in unison, they are a coalition after all.

The knife pledge is exactly the type of manifesto pledge that I had hoped the Conservatives would keep to, but saving a few bob seems to be the order of the day & ConDems seem increasingly willing to sell out to achieve this.

No wonder the guys in the Scrubs supported Ken’s ideas; they couldn’t do a better job if they tried themselves – Ha Ha.
Still, “Tough on crime,tough on the causes of Crime”, “Prison works” etc – time for another sound bite me thinks.

No jail till they actually stab someone ? Seems like back to front reasoning; if they're in jail they can't stab anyone except more low life like themselves, and that's no great problem. Cash apparently in Clarke's logic comes before public safety.

Let's be clear - when Sayed the burglar is in his cell in the scrubs he is not burgling my house. End of story.

Now the tories want to let the criminals out of jail.

Surely, even the tory cheerleaders on here must eventually admit the nu-conservatives are turning out to be a disapointment.

Typical; talk tought pre election, get into power and he ho pragmatism takes over, goodbye manifesto and related promises.
Same issue with banking reform and so it goes on.

I thought Cameron, Clark and Osbourne had more conviction. Bring back someone with a backbone.

Moderator are you on holiday or asleep? Its 7.32pm and nothings appeared since 6.24pm?

When are people going to realise that whoever you vote for, whatever they say, there is no difference between any of them. We really do have 'one party with three faces'. All the government is doing is exactly what the previous government would have done, the only difference is this lot are doing it all in a single parliament whereas the last lot would have taken two. Deficit reduction, benefit reform, it was all in the pipe-line already. Any kind of distinguishing policy put to the voters pre-election is quietly dropped as soon as the doors to No 10 are securely bolted for another 5 years...If you are not a banker I'm afraid no political party represents your interests.
We have a true political class now in the UK. An elite who are completely cut off from the people they are supposed to represent. They are more like a ruling class now, whoever you vote for you can't get rid of them and nothing changes.

Incarceration has been the approach the approach since the origination of workhouses!
So what's different about The Coalition Government's Justice Secretary's recommendations?
We all know that the prisons are bubbling over and seldom does imprisonment rehabilitate.
I agree with the Justice Secretary that the "vast population" housed in prisons could be reduced with "a bit of effort" TO DO THE RIGHT THING, such as
- get them off drugs,
- get them off alcohol.
- teach them how to seek, find and hold a job.
To this, I would add: No one should go to prison who is not a danger to himself or to others, no matter what the law says.
Where does that leave the Tories' manifesto pledge to crack down on those carrying a knife? Well first you have to tell me: Why is this person caryying a knife - to kill, to attack, or to defend against bullying either at school, on the street or even at home.
Each answer suggests a different solution.
Anybody who's guilty of serious knife crime will go to prison... It's that black and white? Oh, does this include the battered wife who grabbed a knife to defend herself?
I'm not in favour of absolute rules; I'm in favour of actually allowing judges to see the person as a person, understand the real natire of the offence, and see what the best solution may be for the individual and the public.
All the main parties now agree on the need for what Mr Clarke will hail tomorrow as a rehabilitation revolution to stop prisoners from re-offending. Rehabilitation alone cannot stop someone from reoffending. e.g. If a person is a "bad" drunk, first you need to stop the alcoholism.

is there a strike in the mods office , 90 mins and none cleared and on steph's its over 120mins.

A rehabilitative prison system is a good idea. It's what we need. The draconian punitive prison system has been tried for centuries and systematically failed at every turn. The leaders of behavioural and social sciences have been crying from the rooftops that rehabilitation will be far more effective at tackling crime. After all in a medical context a doctor wouldn't just treat the symptoms when he can treat the underlying cause.

The only sad fact is that the coalition motto seems to be: "We've got a lot of bad ideas and a few good ideas. All of which will be executed incompetently". Still it's refreshing to hear that politicians are starting to accept that a human being is a human being is a human being.

While I welcome a rational change of policy it would have been nice if the Tories had been a little less hysterical, and a lot more honest, about law and order during the election campaign.

There are two aspects to penal policy,one is punishment,the second rehabilitation.Mr.Clarke`s policy has elements of both without coming down on one side or the other,so will enrage both conservatives and liberals.

It is rational for him to ask the question what is prison for?,in view of high re-offending rates,and to sidestep moral issues in favour of a rational penology which wants fewer people in jail. Yes.crime fell since 1993 but that was as much to do with falling unemployment as imprisoning more people.He has not chosen a good time for his experiment in rehabilitation.I wish it every success.

The ConLib conspiracy continues at some pace. A manifesto should now be looked on as something that will be totally ignored by the party that you cast your vote for. As a Conservative. the idea of appeasing criminals any further is completely abhorrant. Ken Clark as Justice Minister is a complete disaster.

The accelerated demise of this country via the liberal elite must not continue.

This 'lock-em-up' policy is a disgrace and has been failing for decades, if it ever worked, except in the narrowest sense of people in jail cannot actually commit crimes themselves, although they can act as very good teachers of such.

Many of the people in jail are actually either mentally ill, drug addicts or motorists anyway.

Simply locking people up is crude and wasteful and a civilised society should do better.

Genuine rehabilitation of prisoners is solely needed and maybe these politicians will be serious about it, although it does require some courage to pursue this path, which might not be particularly popular with the 'red-top' brigade.

What is this silly man trying to do !! we do not want anybody wandering around the streets with knives or anything else ; we dont care if prison does not work ,we dont care if its their first or one hundred and first time caught what we do care about is a safe community and this rif raf off the streets ; Mr Clark lives in cuckoo land but then again he is protected by his own police so what does he know about any crime . Let us remind all mp`s we elected you to carry out our wishes not some dreamy up fairy story to suit them ; what a namby pamby government once again.

I am not sure that there is much to be gained by trying to politicise this matter. There is plenty of evidence to show that the current regime is unsustainable and moreover very costly. So Ken Clarke is right to try something different and there should be a cross party consensus to back these efforts.

As for tackling crime and keeping people safe - that's one for the police who have plenty to do to get themselves aligned with legitimate public expectations. The public at large is poorly served by existing police authorities and the sooner these are swept away and replaced by bodies that deliver more accountable policing - the better.

Has the moderator gone off sick or is cut off by the weather? There seem to be 3.5 hours of stuff awaiting moderation. Or is it all unprintable?
The problem with politicians saying this sort of thing is that while it may be sensible, there's generally very little to back it up. Where's the money coming from to fund what Ken Clarke wants to do? Where are the jobs for ex-offenders? Where's the support (with public sector jobs going everywhere)? It's like the welfare reforms - fine in principle - but at the moment they're fine words without anything serious to back them up. It would be better to start this in a small way & use the evidence to decide what's best. There's too muchpolicy based on belief/dogma and not enough on hard evidence. And if the resources aren't put into these new policies so they can actually deliver, the impression will continue to grow that this is a Government of largely good PR speak, but no delivery - all mouth & no trousers!

So why are there massive cuts to the Probation Service. Why are there cuts in the funding for drug users. Why is it impossible to find accommodation and employment for ex offenders. Why is alcohol still the main reason people commit offenses.
I think this politician, like others in his party has lost the plot.

Are the moderators on strike tonight? The same poor service is happening on Mark Easton's blog. Unacceptable!!!

Comment 2 by Richard Bunning is the endlessly repeated litany that prison doesn't work, which presumably he and his ilk have ready to paste into any and every discussion of any of society's ills. People who parrot this usually live in leafy suburbs miles from anywhere that the perps live who make the lives of their victims a misery on a daily basis. It cannot be repeated often enough that prison does work to the extent that it takes the criminals out of circulation for the period they are in prison and unable to commit further crimes. Why do we have a falling crime rate? Because a fair proportion (not nearly high enough) of persistent offenders are off the streets in prison. Throwing away the key has never been a practice in the UK except for rare extreme psychopaths who are a real and present danger to anyone they meet. Dear prison doesn't workers read "a land fit for criminals" and come back with your critique of that master work.

4 hours for moderators to clear comments? What is going on?

Shameful BBC!

I am so totally frustrated by this report. Perhaps your inmates should come and meet me and see the devastation on me and my family. Perhaps they would think twice about reoffending. I am thirty six with a five three and one yr old who was violently attacked in front of her three children at six thirty a wk ago thurs in s west London. Attacked by two males strangled who then tried to take my wedding rings. Why don't these inmates come and spend the last ten miserable days with me. See first hand my five yr old having nightmares, wetting the bed etc. Oh and see the fear u have instilled in me on the school pick up at three thirty when it's dark. I am fed up with the non sensical justice system. These animals if ever caught will be done for robbery. It's a joke how about attempted murder?

In July 2008 David Cameron said a "presumption to prosecute" did not send a strong enough signal and there should be a "presumption to prison" for knife crime. He went on to say: "This is about kitchen knives stuffed down the front of tracksuits... We're talking about mainly young people carrying knives as part of a culture. That culture has to stop." A sentiment I totally agree with.
Now Ken Clarke is saying that people carrying a knife may get just a caution or community service. It’s about time that the Government realised that life is not about protecting criminals, it is about protecting the public, and that is part of your sworn duty. I wonder how much this “U” turn, sorry new policy, is about the cost of prisons over the real job of protecting the public. Time and time again we see politicians making pre-election promises, which once they are in power they just ignore. Like we promise to hold a referendum on the EU membership. Where is that promise now? Yet we know from the very recent Daily Express poll, and many previous polls some 80 – 98% want us out of the EU Treaty. Surely it is the job of our elected leaders to represent the will of the majority. Wouldn’t it be great if we lived in democracy, where those elected actually carried the wishes of the majority?

People have been trying to find out what leads a person to a life of crime for many, many years, for ever in fact. Without any success.
Does anyone beleive that anyone will find out how to change that person's habits.
Does that apply to those politicians who promise that they will be good and not mislead voters?.
Maybe they are the same, I guess that the criminals and the naughty politicians convince themselves there is nothing wrong with what they do.

So here we are again. Tories and Lib Dems seem to be trying to outdo one another on how many vote winning pledges can be scrapped, and all because they were astonished to learn, when they came to power, that there was a deficit. This despite the deficit being a major election issue.
While prison may not be the best place to learn how to be a "good citizen", this turnaround would be more acceptable if it was based on a belief that there are better ways, rather than there are cheaper ways.
How are offenders going to be rehabilitated under the new plan when there's no cash to pay for any support?

Nick said:”In an interview afterwards he told me that the "vast population" housed in prisons could be reduced with "a bit of effort" to "get them off drugs, get them off alcohol. Get them some sort of employment prospects."

So, on the one hand the Condems want to vote to price middle England kids out of Uni, & on the other they want to help criminals improve their employment prospects – You couldn’t make this up.

28. JohnConstable
Correct, NuLabour had a habit of throwing just about anybody in prison & an addition of over 3000 new laws to the stature book really helped here.
Perhaps if they concentrated on putting more violent offenders behind bars instead of Council Tax dodging grannies we might be on to something.

So are the Condems going to carry out a root & branch reform of Labour's garbage laws to reduce the future prison population?
Judging by the continual climb downs to date, I won’t be holding my breath (again).

Well its as clear as day, only the fantastic BBC in tandem with their public school boys(and girls) chums in New Labour have the answer-especially as all those horrific gaffes on human rights and civil liberties committed by New Labour can be swept under the carpet with the blame being passed on to the coalition. Thank god the BBC moderator knows this and will only publish such fabulous pieces of truth such as I've put here!

It's good to see so many disgruntled Tories. Welcome to the coalition!

"Labour is likely to pounce on this as an embarrassing U-turn."

And they'd be damned right to as well. Yet another nail in the coffin of the coalition come 2015, if not sooner.

But, what is going to make prison work and reduce recidivism?

Well, not being so damned soft for a start may have something to offer. Make prison something to be feared, which it isnt any more. Stop faffing about with the drug problems in prisons. Nobody brings anything in. Period. Dont care what it is. If a prison officer smuggles it in, he gets banged up alongside his customers. Any visitors separated from inmates by bulletproof glass. Category A or AA dont get visitors at all. Recruit Prison officers from the Infantry Regiments and arm them (one way to use the peace dividend). And, arguably bring back capital punishment. So long as the verdict of a jury is unanimous and beyond any doubt.

By all means try and educate low-level offenders and rehabilitate them. But ask yourself, who is going to give them jobs when they get out? Theres barely enough work for the law abiding majority that hasnt been shipped off to the Subcontinent or Eastern Europe already or being done by illegals. Who'd want to employ an ex-con when you could employ a law abiding immigrant for less money?

Those who had drug problems, bang em up for long enough to go cold turkey. Because no-one can bring anything in and any officer caught smuggling the stuff in would get banged up alongside his customers, there shouldnt be any in there for them to stay hooked on.

A key problem is that the law is no longer feared. The criminal elements know that they can thumb their nose at the law and get away with it. And, because we've had thirteen years of the Red Tories and Blue Labour and all that wishy-washy spineless touchy feely "its not their fault, its society" garbage, there is nothing to be feared by breaking the law any more. And because the police were so heavily politicised by the last lot they can barely catch a cold, let alone crooks, the whole law and order remit is going down the gurgler.

Ken Clarke... good chancellor, woeful Justice secretary. As wet as an otters pocket.

Luckily for Ken Clarke he is unlikely to bump into any of these offenders unless he's being shown around a prison. Even then they'll be hand-picked from the 'best' prisoners!
It's a great time to be europhile tory with a liberal agenda...

These schemes where criminals are 'rehabilitated' have been around for years.

Most don't work at all. Some work when large amounts of money and very keen staff run them on a small scale then the gains disapear when it is roled out large scale. Some schemes have a small effect on reducing re-offending - but even then MOST of the people you have let out jail will still be commiting crime.

Obviously, while they are actually locked up in jail their offending, against the public, is near zero.

Clarke will save a few quid of his budget to pass to bankers for their Christmas bonus. However, every burglary by Sayed the burgler will cost many thousands for the victim, the insurance company, the business the victim had to have a day of work from, etc etc. Anyone injured will cost the NHS, police investigation etc a lot of money. The overall balance is likely to be highly negative.

Another disapointing performance by the nu-conservatives.

...right lads, back on the streets with the knives as we now know they can't afford to send us to prison anymore. Just watch that Boris geezer try and reduce knife crime in Londinium now. Ha ha ha ha ha.

The laughter faded and the gang raised their hoods. They set off for a night of action on a southeast London housing estate. Which 14-16 year old lad will be in the papers in the morning with his parents saying he was really quiet and good at school.

Of course Ken is right but the message has been sent out before any framework has been put into place to reduce prison numbers.

It's a great time to be europhile tory with a liberal agenda...
-------------
That's me. Although I voted Lib Dem so I might actually be a eurosceptic Liberal with a conservative agenda I suppose.

I am sceptical that Clarke can get his plans to work, but as much as some offenders need jail time just to keep them off the streets for a bit, the numbers seem unsustainable and we do need to try and reduce them somehow and current policies do not seem effective. It's a bit worrying that cost is the determining factor, and rehabilitation has never seemed all that effective, but if they actually try to address the issues maybe it has a chance. I'm not hopeful though.
-------
I've genuinely lost count now of the Conservative pledges that have been dropped. I think it's 5 or 6. Has anyone got the full list of the things they've gone back on? Thanks.
-----
Not being able to carry through all your own pledges is kind of what coalition is all about, so I try not to condemn either governing party just for dropping some - it was inevitable no matter the make up of any coalition, something ardently leftist lib dems should remember when they bleat about how they wish they could have made the numbers work with Labour - so it comes down to whether we can stomach letting certain ones go by or not. This Clarke one, I think I can. Tuition fees? Sigh, if no party comes up with a better plan on their own I guess I have no choice. Difficult to decide where to draw the line.
-------
I quite like Ken Clarke but I had to laugh about "Britain's Softest". Nice one.
--------
Priceless indeed.

Is it perhaps one of the difficulties with Coalition Governments that you are bound to end up with U turns on policy?

- The Toreis on crime

- The Lib Dems on university fees.

The truth is that both the above policies were entirely unrealistic at the time of the election if one accepted the need to tackle the deficit primarily through a reduction in government spending. By being permitted to not spell out their deficit reduction plans politicians of all parties got away with making promises they knew (or suspected) they could not keep.

I do find it very disturbing that the BBC Political Editor appears to be ignoring the major political story of the week - the vote on university fees. Why is that?

1. Is it because he does not think it is important?

2. Is it because the BBC has asked him to play down the fees debate?

3. Is it because the Number 10 'spinners' have asked the BBC to play down the fees debate?

I am not sure which one I find more disturbing.

There are 3 reasons why society gaols offenders.

1. To punish them for doing wrong. (Yeah, they really seem to care, don't they?)
2. To protect society from further offences. (Well, while they're inside they aren't harming society... then they get let out early and off on their merry way.)
3. To send an awful warning to potential offenders about the consequences of certain actions. (Not working in the slightest.)

So it's quite easy to see that gaol isn't a very effective method of dealing with offenders.

Now, these 'schemes' do seem to work, but only with those offenders who do genuinely want to straighten themselves out. They are also very dependent on the availability of things like housing and college places - already overstretched by people who HAVE been behaving themselves, even when in difficult circumstances, and who find that despite having contributed to society are seeing what they paid for being cut so that bankers can get paid in full.

So, continue the schemes by all means, but ensure that gaol is able to do its job as well. It has to be unpleasant, basic... and those sent there should stay not for a fixed sentence (let alone only until an early release) but until they can satisfy the authorities that they will not reoffend: by completing counselling and training, by working to lay plans for future good behaviour.

Rehabilitation cannot be applied like band aid - nor can it effectively coexist with a culture of vengeance and punishment.

To wake up to - and find alignment with - our true home - our true environment and our 'true family' or culture of relationship, cannot be mere continuance of the mind of a passively aggressive but generally sublimated reaction, that inevitably arises from lack of any genuinely consciously shared sense of life or identity.

Our most fundamental metaphysical or philosophical self and world beliefs are involved and expressed in all that we do - but are generally invisible unless we compare and contrast cultures and epochs.

We have 'wanted' to explore the belief and indulge the experience of being 'self determining authoritative powers in our own right - and have an unconsciously communicated societal bedrock of presumption of a 'God given' free will which has then become 'self and other destructive' and has disqualified us of true love-worthiness.

We have then attempted to live in fear and to attempt to become successful - yet without a real basis of shared worthiness - all our self-becomings are vain illusion.

Such lack of any real substance is accompanied by more and more concern with image and presentation and coercive pressures to conform to increasingly meaningless criteria.

That this breaks down is a sign of a deeper sanity - But the symptoms are alarms to wake up to having strayed and thus accept a process of 'adjustment' to become currently connected anew..

Unless we live and grow such a culture, we continue in a madness of ever shifting and conflicting 'self-interests' - that serve apparent short term interests of the mood or power of the day without ever engaging or addressing reality.

I write into such a forum in the faith that a deeper awakening of heart is called for - and not a continuance of tricky thinking and self serving opinion.

We have become prisoners of our own mind. The mechanism of 'the scapegoat - the dumping of our personal hate and sin onto others so as to then exclude them - is a childish magic that not only doesn't heal - but perpetuates guilt, fear and distrust and division.

Economic catastrophe brings with it the intelligence of energy use - of what in truth we can afford. Not as a financial consideration - but at a much deeper level of alignment with true priority.

If we want something that truly works - we can not afford to indulge in and manipulate the mythology and mechanism of guilt for personal gain.
This means we have to become willing again to honestly feel again - yet NOT react out of the interpretations that first arise, but instead grow a culture of support to move through pain, fear and hate, in order to regain a greater sanity.

Practical outcomes will never arise from imposed or applied thinking - no matter how ingenious the thinking - or indeed how inspired it is - unless the context of its working out is a cooperative willingness.

If our behaviour is truly undermining of and threatening to ourselves or each other - it is altogether appropriate that we meet with proportionate restraint and a process of education appropriate to the nature of the situation.

True citizenship is being usurped by a mindless manipulative madness that is its own sin and punishment both. Life lived truly arises from the law of love - and it is this that must be our compass: love.

It is seemingly impossible to reach those who are prisoners of their own thought - for they create an exclusion zone and will not listen. Yet it is impossible to suffer such exclusion of one's own heart and know peace, joy or true fulfilment.

We are all in this - life - together - but not in the way our thinking sets up. A change of heart is a change of the basis of all our thought.

bryhers @ 26

Rehabilitation makes good sense economically and rationally, but revenge, in the form of punishment, is a basic human urge. That's why we usually end up with an irrational policy: it's easier to sell. Even if it could be shown conclusively that violent criminals were statistically less likely to re-offend if they were not sent to prison - if avoiding imprisoning them actually made our society a safer place - I doubt any government would have the courage to see that through. Unfortunately, the news reports of sporadic failures - "Father of three murdered by thug who avoided prison" - would outweigh the evidence. Irrational, of course, but stories have more power over the human mind than statistics.

50#

Do what? Guess who isnt going to be winning any "plain English" awards any time soon?

Further to my 43#

https://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23904464-calling-criminals-offenders-is-insult-says-campaigner.do

Enough of this liberal wishy-washy spineless rubbish. I've got half a mind to call for the Howard League's right-on members to be banged up alongside their lawbreaking mates.

45. jon112dk wrote:

Every burglary by Sayed the burgler will cost many thousands for the victim, the insurance company, the business the victim had to have a day of work from, etc etc. Anyone injured will cost the NHS, police investigation etc a lot of money. The overall balance is likely to be highly negative.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are right there Jon,
My 2 burglaries cost me a fortune in time off work & anguish as well as a lot of time from Forgotten County Constabulary to catch the crook (which they did, funnily enough).
Strangely, the burglary rate in our area went down as soon as he was put away; who says prison does not work?
I think BAT Man is being a little conservative (with a small “C”) in his assessment of any money saved in his proposed scheme.
Still, we are talking about Government money here & not the time, money or safety of the “Little People”, so I’m sure he can cook the books & come out with an apparent saving somehow.

"52 At 11:05am on 07 Dec 2010, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
50#

Do what? Guess who isnt going to be winning any "plain English" awards any time soon?"

Yeah but wouldn't you like to be taking some of whatever it is he's on?

Re: 34

I served 10 years as a paramedic in the London Ambulance Service: I was stabbed one, bottled twice, shot at twice and hit once through the hand. I was assaulted so many times by drunks/mentally ill people that I lost count - oh and the IRA nearly killed me @ the Inn on the Park Bombing.

Perhaps I'm entitled to an opinion about what to do with criminals, do you have to be a card carrying member of the monday Club first?

The hallmark of a civilised society is whether it separates THE BAD from THE MAD - our prisons are full of people who are well ahort of what I would call rational - and there are plenty of people wandering around our streets who are also less than mentally well - for example, I cannot understand why we think paedophiles qualify as sufficiently "sane" to be allowed their liberty.

Prisons are human warehouses - social dustbins where those who society has failed to engage, supervise, educate, motivate or basically care about get dumped - and when we then tip them back out of the streets what happens? Are the deterred? Has prison made them better or worse?

You know the answer perfectly well - we've simply made them tougher, better trained criminals.

We need to learn the lessons of history - incarceration doesn't work - that's why in fuedal societies it was banishment, death or mutilation for virtually everything including madness - in Paris they had the company of Archers - once a year all the indigent people were swept off the streets and put outside the city walls - anyone still there when the time came were simply shot down, regardless of how ill, poor or insane they were.

That's why in a civilised society we all have basic human rights and we seek to treat the sick and rehabilitate the bad - but we don't live up to our own values.

#53 criminals are criminals.

what would work is if the HMG had to fully compensate the victims of crime with ££££££££££££££££££££££ then they would soon sort it out

The sooner the wishy washy namby pamby liberals are out of governemt the better.

55#

I'm not sure I would mate! I know I can be every bit as loquacious (if not as eloquent) as Martin O'Niell or Eddie Jordan sometimes, but this poster takes the biscuit.

Surely nobody can be surprised that a manifesto commitment - specifically, that anybody convicted of a knife crime will receive a custodial sentence - has been scrapped. Eye catching one liners like this are designed to appeal to a certain section of the population, and are part of the knockabout stuff of elections. Political parties and their members have but one purpose: to get elected; anything that contributes to that objective is OK in their book.

Problem is, when one finds oneself actually sitting behind the ministerial desk with real responsibilities, all that passed before, especially election promises, are completely irrelevant. Who better than Ken Clarke to turn Tory justice policy on its head - a man who admits to feeling no embarrassment and no shame at anything he does. The funny thing is, a more enlightened justice regime is what we need. The only pity is that the Tories have been driven to adopt it through budgetary constraints, rather than from an inherent sense of shared humanity, and concern for societal cohesion.

The Tory election platform was one of simplistic messages designed to whip up populist outrage, and avoid any real examination of their true intentions, if elected. This has been borne out by the BoE Governor Mervyn King, whose stated opinion of Cameron and Osborne was that any and all policies they formulated were designed to fulfil one objective - to get elected. The Tory elite see the electorate as little more than children who need the guidance of their betters, through a generous dose of noblesse oblige, to know how they should act and behave. So what if they told a few "white lies", we tell children that Santa Claus exists and nobody objects - the priniple is the same - "we know what's good for you, even if you don't - so take your medicine, and stop crying"

This is a good example of a failed attempt at 'Systems Thinking', Ken, Because this is a tricky one and there's a problem. When you ask the question: 'in what way do prisons benefit the taxpayers? i.e, what are prisons for?', it becomes apparent that the taxpayers (apart from simply preferring criminals to be taken off the streets) want different things. Half of them want retribution either as a deterrent or just to hit back, and the other half want rehabilitation so that we have lower rates of re-offending. But that's not the problem.

The problem is that when someone's banged up it's not usually in particularly uncomfortable surroundings and not for very long so it isn't a deterrent, and when they finally find themselves in a rehabilitation programme it isn't effective so it doesn't work.

Those are the problems that should be addressed, not simply placing more emphasis on failed corner-cutting rehabilitation methods. Make sure that the deterrent actually is a deterrent, and take a look at the rehabilitation programes to find out why they don't work. I mean, go out and look; walk the walk; don't just commission a report.

Then you can try to address the cause of the problem which is that they commit crimes in the first place. (I'll give you a clue, Ken. It's mostly because of unemployment and lack of education). Anyway - well done for trying.

56#

Incarceration in its current form does not appear to be working. Despite your first hand experience, I respectfully disagree with you that Clarke is going in the right direction. I personally think he's going in the reciprocal direction to what he should be, in that he appears to be continuing the folly of fixing the problem after it has happened rather than providing robust enough deterrent to prevent the problem from happening in the first place.

And given how standards of acceptable behaviour have nosedived over the last 20 years, I dont think I'd be too keen to fly the "but we're supposed to be a civilised society" flag either..

You have to smile at the accusations of Ken being 'soft'. Margaret of Assissi used to wheel him out as a debating bruiser, and very effective he was, too!

And, I understand that he's a Stan Tracey fan, so - BIG plus point there.

The Tory elite see the electorate as little more than children who need the guidance of their betters, through a generous dose of noblesse oblige, to know how they should act and behave. So what if they told a few "white lies", we tell children that Santa Claus exists and nobody objects - the priniple is the same - "we know what's good for you, even if you don't - so take your medicine, and stop crying"
------------
I totally agree, if you replace the words "Tory elite" with 'policians in general'. I find Labour politicians to be generally more smug about being the 'party of the people', but in terms of telling white lies and thinking they know how people should act and what is best for them, I don't think it is valid to paint only the tories with that brush. In terms of this policy it is apparent it is only cost that motivates it as something the whole party might get behind, so even the above atittude is probably not in play.

There will be a rapid change of heart when the criminals start targeting the rich of society, who at present are insulated by there wealth from many of the crimes we at the bottom see.

Perhaps Ken and his fellow MP's and Lords would like to start an "adopt a criminal campaign" they can all take one home for Christmas...

All Mr Clark is trying to do is save money by not providing more prison places and officers it really is that simple,each new minister in his role talks tough but its all just hot air and bluster, all these measures are just encouraging people to take the law into their own hands.

62

Tough love is what's needed - intervention in failing families, intervention with young people to give them life-changing opportunities and challenges - an end to the obssession with celebs, the booze culture and rampant consumerism - personal responsibility must start very early on.

It means putting the tabloids in the bin along with celeb mags and sack the media blokey presenters and DJs and MAKE people contribute to their communities, only that way will they learn and earn respect - sport, environmental conservation, care for the elderly and disabled - there's plenty that needs doing - schools and colleges should be doing this as a core element in education with their communities.

If all we are going to do is to seek to deter with more and more draconian sanctions - where would that end - Devil's Island?

At the same time recognise that "care in the community" for the mentally ill is a fig leaf to cover up cutting spending, not a policy that works. I've been at murders, serious assualts, rapes, knife crime, you name it - in virtually every case the personal responsible has been drunk, drugged or barking mad - except for the hardened criminals using firearms who already face life in prison if caught.

#50 Brian,

Whilst I enjoy reading well put together prose, I struggle to actually get anything from your post!

It's all intelligent stuff and well written - but what is your actual point?

I think the idea of society trying to become more 'worthy' is a good thing, however I don't see a mass shift towards all of society suddenly having a mass moment of clarity and changing the way we think and live; but it's a nice thought

30. At 9:51pm on 06 Dec 2010, ARHReading wrote:
I am not sure that there is much to be gained by trying to politicise this matter. There is plenty of evidence to show that the current regime is unsustainable and moreover very costly. So Ken Clarke is right to try something different and there should be a cross party consensus to back these efforts.

As for tackling crime and keeping people safe - that's one for the police who have plenty to do to get themselves aligned with legitimate public expectations. The public at large is poorly served by existing police authorities and the sooner these are swept away and replaced by bodies that deliver more accountable policing - the better.

It is of course a political matter,especially for the conservatives who are reneging on a manifesto promise and dividing their own party.

Elected police commissioners is a different but related issue.Do you expect different police authorities to pursue policies which placate local electorates rather than pursue a national policy as set out by Mr.Clarke? It`s quite a risk isn`t it and will mean the policy will not be properly tested.

60. PaulRM

The only pity is that the Tories have been driven to adopt it through budgetary constraints, rather than from an inherent sense of shared humanity, and concern for societal cohesion.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Unfortunately, your ideological opposition to prison pervades the criminal justice system in the UK. The view has taken hold that prison somehow represents a failure of society and therefore we must look to reduce the prison population at all costs.

With the exception of the most serious crimes, most criminals in the UK only go to prison when community sentences have already been tried and failed, often numerous times.

The cost of prisons needs to weighed against the cost of crime, the link below is quite interesting and suggests that we should be locking up a far higher proportion of persistent offenders than we currently do.

https://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/prisonValue.php

#63
'... Margaret of Assissi...'
Is this some sort of reference to Margaret Thatcher? I can't recall her being renowned as an animal lover. Have I missed something? Are you referring to the sheep she had in her cabinet?

51. At 10:59am on 07 Dec 2010, pdavies65 wrote:
bryhers @ 26

"Rehabilitation makes good sense economically and rationally, but revenge, in the form of punishment, is a basic human urge. That's why we usually end up with an irrational policy: it's easier to sell. Even if it could be shown conclusively that violent criminals were statistically less likely to re-offend if they were not sent to prison - if avoiding imprisoning them actually made our society a safer place - I doubt any government would have the courage to see that through. Unfortunately, the news reports of sporadic failures - "Father of three murdered by thug who avoided prison" - would outweigh the evidence. Irrational, of course, but stories have more power over the human mind than statistics."

It could be that few people have the courage to change the story. If it had always been the case,we would hang people for a theft worth 1/8 as well as children as young as eight.

There is an interesting study, I think by Ruche and Kurkheimer,published in the forties,linking the severity of penal codes to the demand for labour.As you would expect,in periods of labour shortage punishments are less severe,labour surplus poses the opposite.However,the link is not automatic because other factors intervene,chief of which is a consistently punitive ideology so that punishment mechanically follows the crime.

#69 AS71

Not sure how you infer that I am against custodial sentences. Being enlightened is not a recipe for wilful ignorance of the damage that some individuals wreak on the rest of society. Where an individual is a menace to his/her fellow citizens them removal from their midst is a reasonable course of action - as is an indeterminate sentence if the individual continues to represent a threat.

Where I differ from the simplistic notion of dumping an individual in a bin of likeminded individuals is a good idea comes as a result of the ensuing reinforcement and entrnechment of destructive behaviour. It was terrifying to watch the newsnight broadcast involving Paxo and Ken Clarke where an inmate claimed he acquired his heroin addiction whilst behind bars. What the hell are the prisons doing - or more correctly - not doing. For one thing, and damn any human rights issues, test every inmate for narcotics regularly.

The issue, for me, is one where the individual should be forcefully made to confront their crime, and its consequences for the victim(s); to experience remorse and seek, of their own free will, to provide recompense for their actions. To that needs to be attached some measure of punishment that makes clear their criminal activity is unacceptable. If a custodial sentence is necessary to confine an individual who is unwilling or incapable of making such adjustments in their lifestyle choices, so be it. What is more criminal is to allow our prisons to remain univeristies of crime.

72. At 1:26pm on 07 Dec 2010, PaulRM wrote:

....It was terrifying to watch the newsnight broadcast involving Paxo and Ken Clarke where an inmate claimed he acquired his heroin addiction whilst behind bars.....

It would be interesting to know if the inmate pleaded guilty in court or whether he instead lied there - ie plead not guilty.

Criminals want to get away with it and if caught they would prefer the soft option. Of course they are going to agree with Clarke.

When I saw the burglar chatting away with the Justice Secretary I couldn't help but wonder how the people whose homes the burglar violated felt about the audience he was granted. Irrespective of the rights or wrongs of the government's policy I found the sight of it quite distasteful.

70. At 12:47pm on 07 Dec 2010, Poprishchin wrote:
#63
'... Margaret of Assissi...'
Is this some sort of reference to Margaret Thatcher? I can't recall her being renowned as an animal lover. Have I missed something? Are you referring to the sheep she had in her cabinet?

Indeed, I was referring to Margaret Thatcher. St. Francis of Assisi was, apparently, one of her role models.

"73. At 3:10pm on 07 Dec 2010, worldofsport wrote:
72. At 1:26pm on 07 Dec 2010, PaulRM wrote:

....It was terrifying to watch the newsnight broadcast involving Paxo and Ken Clarke where an inmate claimed he acquired his heroin addiction whilst behind bars.....

It would be interesting to know if the inmate pleaded guilty in court or whether he instead lied there - ie plead not guilty."

Indeed.

Prisoners do tend to come across as very serious and meaningfull during such debates. If only someone had treated them a little more kindly, perhaps listened to them at school or pushed them a little harder to study, they'd have joined a monastry instead of caving in some old lady's head.

#73 worldofsport
#75 AndyC555

What does it gain either of you to so blatantly misrepresent my comment at #72. Nothing I wrote offers a convicted felon an easy way out. Further, why do both of you feel so relaxed about the availability of narcotics in jail, something I abhor - pity that in choosing a quote from my blog you grabbed the wrong end of the stick, and shook it for all it was worth. I don't recall offering sympathy for any of the inmates contributing to the discussion - but why lets facts get in the way of good rant - very boring, and contributes nothing to the discussion - but that's the point - all noise and fury to hide the lack of substance.

@76 - PaulRM:

If I am addressing you, as I am doing now, I will prefix the comment with @

It was not my intention to misrepresent your valid comment. I was simply using it to tease out another point which is that criminals might not be entirely trustworthy or reliable witnesses and that I found it distasteful for the Justice Secretary to be using them to establish the case for his policies. It is entirely fair for me to do that and I am sorry you have a problem with it.

Since you bring it up, I have no tolerance for drugs anywhere and I am astonished you interpreted my comments as being relaxed about it. I have been burgled twice - the first time for sure by a drug addict. I didn't like him trashing my house and my girlfriend still cannot tolerate the thought of him flicking through photographs and rifling through her underwear. Really. Don't get me started on it for I fear that really will unleash noise and fury from me!

Does prison work? Well, if you stick the right people in it does - and ensure they're there for a long time. After all, there isn't a waiting list to become a burglar or a violent criminal.

Give people second chances by all means, but third, fourth, fifth ones? If you cannot live without thieving or attacking others, then obviously placing you in prison is the only answer.

Of course the entire system needs overhauling - drugs need either decriminalizing (a la Portugal) or legalising, as does prostitution, in order to take them out of the domain of crime gangs and people traffickers, and the majority of non-violent crimes need to be handled differently.

There also needs to be better rehabilitation options for those who may yet be turned away from a life of crime, but for those who refuse to be rehabilitated? Throw away the key.

As for prison being a deterrent - does anyone seriously think people commit crime in expectation of being caught? Of course it doesn't deter them, nothing will because they don't think they'll get caught!

#53 'Offender' offends.
Well spotted! One thinks that PC newspeak has reached its asinine limit and must lie down and die under the weight of derision and obloquy but they keep coming up with new ones. "“Someone who commits an offence is not an offender, they are someone who has done something. The action does not define the whole person,” she wrote in the journal Criminal Justice Matters.“By insisting that the offence overcomes all other parts of the person we are condemning them to a sub-human category for whom there is no hope.”
So here are a few suggested alternatives: - "victims of a repressive society", "part time offenders", "subjects for sociology studies", "people who selflessly keep the police, social workers, probation officers, prison warders and criminologists in well paid employment at the tax payers expense." I could go on. I could also go further than Fubar_Saunders and declare that the Howard league and the civil liberties gang will be the first against the wall in my revolution, but that might contravene the blog rules and in any case is only a humorous reference to the Douglas Adams line in Hitchhiker's Guide, not to be taken seriously.

#56 re #34
'I served 10 years as a paramedic in the London Ambulance Service:' Respect.
'Perhaps I'm entitled to an opinion about what to do with criminals' Granted.
'The hallmark of a civilised society is whether it separates THE BAD from THE MAD' Slippery concepts, as my son the forensic psychiatrist knows all too well. The latter is so often used as an excuse for the former.
'Prisons are human warehouses - social dustbins where those who society has failed to engage, supervise, educate, motivate or basically care about get dumped' Are you a member of the Howard league? This puts one in mind of Peter Simple's character Dr.Heinz Kiosk,in 'way of the world' who would intone "We are all guilty" as his audience rushed for the exits.
'You know the answer perfectly well - we've simply made them tougher, better trained criminals.' This is exactly what the great and good Theodore Dalrymple (pbuh) meant when he described prison as the health farm of the poor.
'We need to learn the lessons of history - incarceration doesn't work - that's why in fuedal (sic) societies it was banishment, death or mutilation for virtually everything including madness' At last some constructive suggestions!
'in a civilised society we all have basic human rights and we seek to treat the sick and rehabilitate the bad - but we don't live up to our own values.' Well, the largest and most comprehensive 'free at the time of need' health service in history and the lightest sentencing policy of almost any country have produced a sick under class and a crime ridden society. Some thing isn't working but it isn't the prisons.

Finally would you do me the honor of reading "a land fit for criminals" and give us your critique. For my part I will read any prison reformist manifesto you designate and come back with my critique (or agreement if it has converted me to your view).