Four in five ex-offenders who are homeless are reconvicted within a year, a new study has found.

Via Homeless Link

The study from Homeless Link, the umbrella organisation representing the homelessness sector, called on more joined up action from those involved in housing to tackle the lack of accommodation for ex-offenders.

The report also said that there should be more training on housing issues for criminal justice workers. Nearly half of the respondents working in the sector said they would benefit from such training, while more than a third of homelessness providers also wanted training to understand the issue.

The survey of 400 staff and 75 clients also found strong links between homelessness, addiction and prison. Almost two thirds of adults using homelessness or drug services had spent time in prison, child care or other institutions, it found, while 20 per cent of homelessness service clients are in contact with probation.

Alice Evans, head of policy analysis at Homeless Link, said: ‘While our research has uncovered localised pockets of good practice, the majority of experiences show there is a need for agencies to work together more closely to prevent people who have previously offended and are now homeless falling deeper into the cycle of homelessness and reoffending.

‘We are calling for the homeless and criminal justice sectors to provide services that complement each other, both on a national and local level. With greater financial pressures and a shift towards localism, joint approaches will prove crucial in meeting our shared aims of reducing reoffending and homelessness.’

Boris Johnson, diary fixture and Mayor has a good idea.

Government blocks bid to keep drunks out of jail

viaEvening Standard

The Government is blocking a pioneering plan to cut crime by letting violent drunks take breath tests instead of going to prison, the Mayor's policing spokesman said today.

Either you're in front of Boris, or Westminster is behind him.

Boris Johnson wants anyone convicted of alcohol-related violence to stay out of prison as long as they attend a police station twice a day to take a £1 breathalyser test and prove they are sober.
But the plans for mandatory sobriety tests are being blocked by Ministry of Justice officials, City Hall said.
Kit Malthouse, deputy mayor for policing, said the ministry is refusing to back the plan because it is "not very good at coping with new ideas".
It comes days after the new Scotland Yard commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe, said constant testing of convicted drunks is needed to cut crime.
The twice-a-day breath tests plan was inspired by a successful programme in America.
Mr Johnson said such a programme needed to be introduced in the wake of the riots as "the horror and expense of the current booze culture" was evident throughout accident and emergency departments throughout London.

 

Mentally ill offenders: Our fear of introducing them back into society

Forensic nursing is one of the most demanding and misunderstood areas of care in the NHS. Nursing manager Theo Bello gives an inside view about the challenge of working with mentally ill offenders and public fear about their release back into society.

Mental health is one of the least popular areas of nursing and you can go one better – by specialising in forensic nursing which looks after offenders whose mental illness precludes them from prison.
At present, there are about 4,000 patients being treated in secure units around the UK for a variety of conditions. Typical crimes include murder, rape and sexual offences influenced by accompanying mental illnesses including bi-polar, schizophrenia and personality disorders.

Everyone coming into a secure unit is assessed before admission and we get our fair share of fakers who pretend to be ill thinking life in a forensic unit is preferable to prison. However, it’s difficult to fake mental illness for any length of time and it is often people’s rationality that trips them. People with full-blown psychosis are genuinely distressed and that can be someone who is climbing the walls or standing stock-still for hours at a time.
I can’t pretend nursing started as a personal choice for a vocation, but it has certainly become one in the 15 years since my initial career in civil engineering hit the rocks after my overseas qualifications weren’t recognised in the UK.
I remember asking a careers advisor at the time what was the most cast-iron job in terms of employment and demand, and he said people were always going to get sick so why not try the NHS?
Nursing can be a tough profession, but also a very rewarding one and you learn a lot about yourself in the process – especially in an environment like forensic services. People do however carry a lot of preconceptions about working on secure wards. I know I did before I joined the service, with the usual concerns about the threat of physical violence and wondering if I could work with people who’d committed some disturbing crimes.
I remember one patient who had murdered his girlfriend’s child while she went out to get a pint of milk. He calmly sat down after leaving the body in the kitchen, lit a cigarette and waited for her to come back as if nothing had happened. This  really shook me up because I had a child of same age at the time and I just kept re-running it through my mind. I was looking at this patient’s actions with my own moral compass and values which is pointless when someone has a serious mental illness.
People do the most shocking and bizarre things but at some level it makes perfect sense to them even if it leaves the rest of us shaking our heads in disbelief.
Our job is to find out why patients behave the way they do, what triggers their behaviour and if their condition can be effectively treated.
I’d say good communication skills, empathy, maturity and respect are key skills in being a good mental health nurse, along with a commitment to build a strong therapeutic relationship with patients and colleagues.
A lot of incidents involving confrontation are down to a perceived lack of respect that staff shows patients. It’s something we work hard to bridge because so much rests on it. Just a fraction of a correction in that social interaction makes a huge difference and everyone gets what they want.
One of the biggest conflicts of interest I have is restraining a patient from hurting themselves or others. I personally struggle with the fact that I am here to build relationships with patients and help treat and support them yet may also be called upon to restrain them if they become violent.
At present, we’re at something of a watershed in forensic services because we need more effective mechanisms for getting patients back into the community which is free from political interference.
There is huge public fear around mental health and that irrationality goes through the roof when a murderer is mentally ill.
The circumstances are tragic but no-one can provide a cast iron guarantee that any offender won’t commit another crime on release and that fear is multiplied when it involves mental illness.
Politics, sensationalist media coverage and widespread public prejudice about mental illness are a potent cocktail that keeps us in stalemate because it’s the safest position to occupy. Ideally, all mental health services will maintain a safe and effective process of treatment and rehabilitation through the stratification of patients according to the risks they present.
I believe specialised community housing, a close-knit support group of mental health workers and close monitoring would all make a move into the community more effective in the long-term.
Re-offending rates are low compared to those leaving the prison system and the chance of an individual being murdered by someone with a psychosis is about one in ten million – the same as being struck by lightening.
A revised approach has to be found and it’s a case of who is going to be brave enough to seek a new way forward free from the blame game when a serious incident does take place.

Theo Bello is a nursing manager with Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust and oversees the management of several low and medium secure units at Chase Farm Hospital in north London.
This article first appeared in the Independent 

"Jesus Loves Nukes"

 Top Air Force Official Issues Religious Neutrality Policy in Wake of Truthout's "Jesus Loves Nukes" Exposé
  by  Jason Leopold

A top US Air Force official, in an attempt to ensure the Air Force adheres to the Constitution as well as its own regulations and policies, issued guidelines that calls on "leaders at all levels" to take immediate steps to maintain "government neutrality regarding religion."

In his policy memorandum dated September 1, but sent Tuesday to all major commands, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton A. Schwartz said, "Leaders ... must balance Constitutional protections for an individual's free exercise of religion or other personal beliefs and its prohibition against governmental establishment of religion."

Air Force Joint Chief Gen. Norton A. Schwartz addresses National Guard delegates during the National Guard Association of the United States conference in Nashville, Tennessee, September 12.

The First Amendment establishes a wall of separation between church and state and Clause 3, Article 6 of the Constitution specifically prohibits a "religious test."

The Air Force immediately suspended the mandatory Nuclear Ethics and Nuclear Warfare training immediately following the publication of Truthout's report. David Smith, a spokesman for the Air Education and Training Command told Truthout last month the ethics training "has been taken out of the curriculum and is being reviewed."

"The commander reviewed it and decided we needed to have a good hard look at it and make sure it reflected views of modern society," Smith said.

The decision angered Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) who fired off an angry letter to Secretary of the Air Force Michael B. Donley criticizing the move and demanding Donley provide him with a report detailing "actions taken" by the Air Force that led to the suspension of the ethics training.

But the Air Force went further, pulling all of its training materials "that address morals, ethics, core values and related character development issues" pending a "comprehensive review," Smith told the Air Force Times.

That decision was made after a Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) instructor, who read Truthout's report, sent the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), a civil rights organization, copies of ROTC leadership training materials, which also contained Christian-themed citations from the Bible. The PowerPoint slides in that presentation the unnamed instructor sent MRFF are used in all colleges and universities that have an ROTC program.

Schwartz said commanders and supervisors, "must avoid the actual or apparent use of their position to promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion."

"Commanders or supervisors who engage in such behavior may cause members to doubt their impartiality and objectify," Schwartz added. "The potential result is a degradation of the unit's morale, good order and discipline."

Furthermore, he advised Air Force leadership who may have concerns "involving the preservation of government neutrality regarding religious beliefs" to speak with a chaplain and staff judge advocate "before you act."

 

Systemic Issues

That Schwartz, a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was forced to issue such an edict underscores how widespread the problems have been within the Air Force related to commanders endorsing religion, particularly fundamentalist Christianity.

Indeed, some examples over the past few years include an email circulated in 2009 by military command and staff officers to all personnel stationed at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada inviting them to attend a Bible study class in which the topic of discussion referred to Jews as "whiners."

  

Restorative Justice, a deconstructionalist approach to pure justice.

13 September 2011

More offenders will face the consequences of their actions with the launch of the first-ever register of restorative justice practitioners.

Funded by the Ministry of Justice and implemented by the Restorative Justice Council (RJC), the register lists all qualified practitioners of restorative justice - a process where offenders meet their victims and hear about the pain they have caused.

Justice Minister Crispin Blunt said: 'Restorative Justice demands criminals take an active role in acknowledging the harm they have caused, as well as making amends.

'The register we are launching today will encourage the increased use of restorative justice by making it quicker and easier to find a local practitioner, as well as acting as the first-ever benchmark of quality and professionalism that ensures victims are safeguarded.'

Restorative justice, already used in England and Wales, empowers victims and communities to overcome the negative impact of crime - with 85 per cent of victims who have taken part reporting a positive experience.

Reformed offender Scott said: 'When I heard about the pain I caused I couldn’t understand why I did it and I felt sick hearing that.'

'I can’t do burglaries now, because I keep hearing Michelle’s words in my head and it stops me doing it.'

For more information on RJ

http://www.restorativejustice.org/

MoD admits risk of "combat stress" in British troops.

 via Iraq Solidarity
 
According to the Telegraph, estimates based on official Ministry of Defence figures show, that 191,690 British soldiers have been deployed in both Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001, with some 50,000 of these soldiers having seen action in both conflicts.

Experts have warned that a tidal wave of trauma is going to hit the United Kingdom, as a direct consequence of service inside of Iraq and Afghanistan, with research showing that an estimated 27 per cent of veterans, being likely to develop mental health problems from their time on the front line.

Of these, around 5 per cent are likely to suffer from the more serious Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which can lead to alcoholism, depression, domestic violence and a wide range of other devastating problems. Combat Stress, the veterans’ mental health charity, have predicted, that based on MoD figures, around 51,000 British veterans are likely to develop psychological issues.

The charity have also stated, that around 9,200 veterans were potentially going to display symptoms of PTSD – which is twice the amount of Combat Stress’s current case load, while Andrew Cameron, Combat Stress’s chief executive, has warned, that the number of veterans contacting the charity is steadily increasing, infact, up 10 per cent each year!

Meanwhile, according to a new survey, half of Britain’s doctors are unaware of official guidelines on how to diagnose the scars left from the front line, leading many to fear that thousands of veterans are not being diagnosed early enough, to prevent the onset of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The survey, which was carried out by ComRes, found that just 42 per cent of GPs are familiar with the guidelines on PTSD, while forty-nine per cent said they were not familiar with them at all. ComRes, was commissioned by Combat Stress, who surveyed around 1,006 GPs across the UK in July 2011.

Combat Stress, the veterans’ mental health charity, said these figures showed that too few doctors were diagnosing PTSD among veterans, with just 5 per cent of the veterans the charity was helping, being referred to it by a General Practitioner.

Walter Busuttil, director of Combat Stress's medical services has said: “Our clinical audits tell us that 80 per cent of veterans who come to us for clinical treatment, have first tried to get help from either their GP or other specialist services, but have not received the support and treatment that they needed. “This has led to around half the veterans who come to Combat Stress each year essentially self-referring.”

Dr Clare Gerada, chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners, admitted that “inequalities persist surrounding the care of military personnel when they return to the UK”, adding that the college has produced guidance “to help GPs better understand veterans’ particular needs”.

Already across the United Kingdom, up to a third of all homeless people are former soldiers, sailors and airmen, with as many as 8,000 veterans currently serving time in jail, which is nearly 10 per cent of the British prison population but the shocking fact remains, is that it can still take approximately fourteen years after leaving the services, for a veteran to make contact with Combat Stress.

The charity has produced an online leaflet titled Meeting the Healthcare Needs of Veterans, which is available for downloading but also check out the Royal British Legion for more information on other practical welfare services, that are equally available to both Veteran’s and their dependents.

Plastic soldiers plastic wars

The hell of war comes home. In July 2009 Colorado Springs Gazettea published a two-part series entitled “Casualties of War”. The articles focused on a single battalion based at Fort Carson in Colorado Springs, who since returning from duty in Iraq had been involved in brawls, beatings, rapes, drunk driving, drug deals, domestic violence, shootings, stabbings, kidnapping and suicides. Returning soldiers were committing murder at a rate 20 times greater than other young American males. A separate investigation into the high suicide rate among veterans published in the New York Times in October 2010 revealed that three times as many California veterans and active service members were dying soon after returning home than those being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

We hear little about the personal hell soldiers live through after returning home.

  via Dorothy

Why is Mental Health illness on the Rise? by Omar Shahid

This piece was first published in the Huffington Post

New findings from the European College of Psychopharmacology reports that 164.8 million Europeans - 38.2% of the population - suffers from a mental disorder.

However the recognition and medicalization of mental illnesses is now more prevalent then ever; doctors are accused of too hastily classifying 'abnormal behaviour' as a mental ailment. This is cited as one of the reasons for the 'increase' in mental health.

Furthermore, the stigma attached to mental disorders is nowhere near as heinous compared to previous decades. Only 50 odd years ago, those who struggled with mental disorders were locked up in a clandestine environments, today, thankfully, we're much more willing to admit that we have a problem and receive a diagnosis.

The findings also tell us that women suffer disproportionately more from mental disorders than men do. Hans-Ulrich Wittchen, one of the report's authors, says the reason why women suffer twice as much depression and anxiety disorders is because of their inability to successfully balance work with their family life.
While some misogynists or religious zealots may claim that women were not somehow 'designed' to simultaneously balance work and family life, an alternative explanation - and one supported by evidence - is that women go to see the doctors more often than men do.

There are a couple of factors relating to mental health that time and time again seem to evade public attention.
The first is the increase in prescription of antipsychotic drugs. In 2008, antipsychotics became the best-selling therapeutic prescription drugs in the United States - exceeding drugs to treat high cholesterol and acid reflux. Investigative journalist James Ridegeway said in a piece he wrote for Al Jazeera recently that drug companies now encourage the prescription of atypical antipsychotics to patients for off-label use. This should concern us. For what other reason would drug companies be doing this other than to boost their profits? And will British drug companies soon copy their American counterparts?

The second thing that is seldom discussed is the ubiquitous refrain propounded by some anti-consumerists: 'depression arises when we can't satisfy our insatiable wants'. While it is true that we live in a profoundly consumerist society (I don't think anybody denies this), whether consumerism leads to depression or other mental illnesses seems like a proliferative jump. The relationship between consumerism and mental illness isn't generally taken seriously, but why isn't it?

It is not unusual to hear that mental illness is on the rise, but we rarely hear what is being done to prevent the issue. If we concede that it is not that mental health is increasing, it is that we are able to diagnose it better, that still doesn't solve the problem. The World Health Organisation has said by 2020, depression is expected be second most burdensome disease worldwide; shaving the life expectancy of countless people.
When we do decide to confront the issue, antipsychotic drugs and consumerism should both be discussion points.

Amendment proposed for he Armed Forces Bill, diversion and assessment

Amendment 24

Moved by Baroness Finlay of Llandaff

24: After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause-

"Procedure on arrest for substance abuse, violence against the person or damage to property

After section 74 of AFA 2006 insert-

"Procedure on arrest for substance abuse, violence against the person or damage to property

(1) If a person subject to service law-

(a) has been arrested on suspicion of committing an offence,

(b) would be the person's first offence, and

(c) the offence is related to substance abuse, violence against a person or damage to property,

prior to any decision as to charge, the prosecuting authority shall consider diverting the person for specialist services to assist with substance abuse and mental health treatment either in the community or through existing services in Her Majesty's armed forces.

(2) The prosecuting authority shall also commission and obtain a psychiatric assessment of the arrested person in order to assess that person's needs and manage that person safely.

(3) No decision to charge the arrested person shall be made at the time of arrest and such a decision shall take place only when the prosecuting authority has consulted the specialist services involved and reviewed the psychiatric assessment.

(4) The above conditions do not apply unless, at the time of arrest, the arrested person was serving in Her Majesty's armed forces.""

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I know that the hour is late and I am grateful to the Committee for allowing me to move this amendment at this time. The basis of the amendment is to identify people serving in the Armed Forces who commit offences while fuelled by drugs or alcohol, and who therefore have related underlying mental health problems. There is a duty of care on the Ministry of Defence to afford special consideration to those people whose alcohol abuse or drug treatment has come as a result of their experience and to put them into appropriate programmes as soon as possible, preferably before any charging decision is made.
In civilian life, at the discretion of the police or the Crown Prosecution Service, there is the opportunity to permit a defendant to go into a treatment programme in the community rather than go before the magistrate and get a criminal record. The idea behind this amendment is that the Armed Forces covenant, which is the basis behind much of what we have been addressing today and is so important, in no way could inadvertently disadvantage someone in the forces.
The way in which military court services operate means that in-depth access to the defendant's circumstances sometimes may not come to light. Therefore, mental health and substance misuse issues can be missed and could even be exacerbated with disastrous consequences in the long term. Sadly, there are stories of really frenzied attacks and incidents that have been fuelled particularly by alcohol. An SAS veteran, Chris Ryan, pointed out that it is often 10 or 15 years after people have left the Armed Forces that they reach their lowest point.
The underlying premise of the amendment is that if you can pick people up early and treat the root cause when they are exhibiting the early symptoms of drug and alcohol misuse, you would prevent a long-term problem later. The Armed Forces operate a parallel structure of community mental health teams, so the infrastructure is in place. In his report of 2010, Fighting Fit, Dr Andrew Murrison MP noted that the linked issue of alcohol abuse is significantly associated with service in the Armed Forces and there is evidence that it is more common among combat veterans. This is not a small problem-it is one that needs to be addressed. It has been estimated that up to four out of five cases where military personnel have been involved with criminal activity may be fuelled by alcohol and drugs, and that they would not have committed the offences if it had not been for the excessive use of these substances.
There is an emerging problem in Afghanistan where heroin misuse is becoming particularly linked to criminal activity among serving personnel. There are community psychiatric nurses and consultant psychiatrists on hand in Afghanistan to deal with this, and there are very good outcomes when they deal with the problems immediately, in contrast to them becoming chronic problems. The US has learned lessons from its experience in Vietnam with drug abuse in particular and has realised that punishment does not actually work because you put these people into civilian life, but that early intervention is particularly helpful. One of the problems is that if people are discharged out into civilian life and do not have the infrastructure support they need, the outbursts and consequent violence often associated with them can injure and traumatise or even possibly kill people who are closest to the person themselves.
It has also been estimated that 25 per cent of all home repossessions are from people with a service background, and there is a suggestion that that may be linked to higher alcohol consumption and spending a lot of money on alcohol, because alcohol consumption is extremely expensive.
The idea behind this amendment is to reflect the reality that we are asking a lot from our troops-we are asking them to risk life and limb-and that some of them will find that the way they cope with the trauma they have experienced is to try to numb themselves using drugs or alcohol, and that when they are really fuelled up like that they then go and commit offences. Unless we intervene rapidly and pick them up we may be creating a lifetime of dependency and problems rather than intervening early. I beg to move.

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, Amendment 24, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, would apply whenever a member of the Armed Forces was arrested for a first offence related to alcohol or unlawful drugs, violence or damage to property. Before it could charge the accused, the service prosecuting authority would have to consult specialist substance abuse and mental health services, and to obtain and take into account a psychiatric report on the accused. The importance of the psychological state of an offender and the appropriateness in some cases of a specialist social or mental health approach instead of prosecution is well understood in both the civilian and service justice systems.
When a case is serious enough to go to the service prosecuting authority, it must consider the evidence available as to whether the suspect had the necessary intent to commit the offence under consideration. It must also consider whether the public and service interests-the interests of justice-make a prosecution appropriate. It is also the responsibility of the service prosecuting authority to keep these issues under review the accused's state of mind and whether continued proceedings are appropriate. The service prosecuting authority is therefore able to review in context its assessment of what the interests of justice require.
It is also the service prosecuting authority's duty to disclose to the defence any facts it becomes aware of which go to mitigate the seriousness of the alleged offence. Where it seems to the service prosecuting authority that the interests of justice are not best served by prosecution, it can, and often does, go back to the chain of command to discuss how the chain of command can help to bring the suspect into contact with specialist services. This often forms part of a discussion on whether administrative action might be more appropriate than prosecution.
In court, in an extreme case, the defence may seek a decision that the accused is unfit to plead. There are special statutory provisions under which the judge advocate will consider and decide such applications. Where an accused is convicted, there are statutory provisions under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 for medical reports and pre-sentence reports. The court must generally obtain and consider a medical report before passing a custodial sentence where the offender appears to be mentally disordered. This is a report on the offender's mental condition made by a specialist medical practitioner. A pre-sentence report must generally be obtained by a court whenever it is considering a custodial sentence for an offender. The aim of such reports is to assist the court in deciding the most suitable method of dealing with the offender. It is made by the probation service and must, of course, be disclosed to the offender. The same requirements apply in both the service and civilian justice systems.
I believe that the current role of the service prosecuting authority in deciding whether to charge is the right one. It should, and does, consider what the interests of justice require, and in particular whether prosecution is appropriate. It does so by taking into account the evidence before it. However, I hope the noble Baroness will accept that it would be going too far to require the service prosecution authority to consult specialist services and obtain a psychiatric report in every case covered by the amendment. To do so would confuse the role of prosecutor and the court. It is right for the prosecutor to have some discretion in whether to prosecute and to respond to what the interests of justice plainly require. However, there is an important boundary to be maintained between that role and the proposed role requiring the prosecution to obtain and weigh expert evidence in every case before it can bring a charge.
Furthermore, the requirement for a psychiatric assessment in all the cases covered by the amendment would be excessive, and even unfair to the suspect. It would involve a delay before a decision was made on bringing a charge even in the simplest case. It would appear to expect, or perhaps require, the suspect to submit to psychiatric assessment even where he or she was not raising any psychological issue and there was no reason to suppose that there was such an issue. In some cases it would be impossible to complete this process within the very tight statutory limits that apply in the service and civilian justice systems to keeping a person in custody before charge. In other words, it would go well beyond what the needs of a fair and efficient system of justice require.
Lastly, it would mean that the procedures before charge, and the role of the service prosecuting authority, were very substantially different from those in the civilian system. We recognise the importance of the psychological and social background of an offender, but I do not consider that there are grounds for such different approaches between the service and civilian justice systems. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I am most grateful to the Minister for his detailed response to my amendment. I had hoped that the words "shall consider" in the first part of the amendment did not create an obligation.

However, in the light of what he has said, I can see that I do not have the right wording. I wish to read what he has said, possibly discuss the matter with him outside the Committee and then consider what to do. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 24 withdrawn.

Rioters, ordinary criminals not special cases

by Robert Winnett, Mary Riddell and Christopher Hope

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Keir Starmer says those convicted of involvement in the riots should not be seen as a “separate category”, as some judges have argued.

Instead, he says, the Crown Prosecution Service and other legal authorities “need to keep our feet on the ground” and “remind ourselves that we are dealing with ordinary criminal cases”.

Surveys have suggested that courts have handed down sentences to those involved in the riots that are about a quarter longer than normal. Some people have been incarcerated for months for stealing low-value items.

Mr Starmer makes clear that he is not commenting on individual sentencing. However, his warning that disorder cases should be treated like all others will be taken as a signal that he opposes the tough line taken by many, the Prime Minister included.

His remarks raise the prospect that many of the sentences will be reduced by the appeal courts. “We should not treat these cases as a separate category,” he says. “We should treat them as we do any other case.”

Why the Failure of the Rehabilitation Revolution Fails us All, from Inside Time

 By A psychology Assistant at a Southern prison, from insidetime issue September 2011

A prison psychology assistant wonders why all the government’s good ideas about rehabilitation have been shelved

A strain of vindictive stupidity stalks the land. At a time when our public services are being restructured, reduced or cut completely we have been offered a way to make savings that would have had a positive impact on one of the most difficult areas of public policy and possibly even changed the country’s approach to penal justice.

A recent U-turn on sentencing policy is a huge upset to the justice minister Ken Clarke, who had planned to end the rise in prison numbers and begin a “rehabilitation revolution” to reduce this country’s re-offending rate. It seemed like an idea whose time had come, with drastic changes needed to save money and a Tory party in power who wished to disavow their “nasty party” image. Clarke’s proposals were distinctly un-Tory, but they were also clearly welcomed by the party leadership, who would have known exactly what they were getting when they appointed him.

That the Coalition was forced to change its mind on the policy at a time when the argument for economic austerity had been all but won is a sign that public anger towards offenders is the only force sufficiently dangerous to change the mind of a government hell bent on its drive to reduce the size of the state.
Pictures of “Baby P” galvanised the nation’s conscience three years ago and forced the Labour government to address the chronic under-support of child protection services. Since then, this campaign has been more or less forgotten as social services are forced to make job cuts in the wake of massive budget cuts to local government.

In the current climate when the government remains immune to the lobbying of disability rights groups, healthcare professionals and public sector unions, there is much to learn about our priorities. We live in a country where to be “too lenient” is a political problem but to be negligent of the needs of the extremely vulnerable is not. News of cuts to disability benefit, to mental health and social services have created nothing like the furore raised to the suggestion that we reduce the amount of time offenders spend in prison from two thirds of their sentence to a half.

This change would have saved the Ministry of Justice £130m, but now that saving will have to come from other aspects of its work. One of the prime candidates is the probation service, which monitors the behaviour of offenders upon release. It will be a supreme irony that the same vituperative public who demanded a reversal of sentencing policy in the name of their safety will very likely be out at further risk by the u-turn.

A psychology Assistant at a Southern prison