The sentencing fuss – one of the few popular controversies we can actually do something about
There is currently a popular concern at the shortness of time served in prison following conviction for violent offences (including those of a sexual nature), which is reflected in the newsworthiness of any related story. Unusually for real world matters, this is actually one issue for which a simple solution is available and theoretically easy to implement.
There will always be disputes about whether particular sentences are long enough, or whether sentences should generally be longer or shorter for various categories of offence. One’s position on the general cases will depend upon one’s personal stance on a number of issues – what weight to attach to each of the justifications for imprisonment (revenge, deterrence, removal from society, rehabilitation), degree of confidence in the ability of the system to actually convict the right person, and others. At the heart of the current issue, however, is a concern on the part of government to keep the numbers in prison within the overall capacity of the prisons themselves1.
Numbers in prison in England and Wales are very high by European standards, have been going up for years, and are reaching new records2. The government’s forecasts had recently to be revised upwards, after increases exceeded the previous predictions3. Here are some figures. In April this year, there were 76,764 in prison in England and Wales. This was a 3% increase on the year before.4 The Home Office expects a remarkable 76,520 – 90,780 (!) to be in prison by 2011.5
At a legislative stroke, we could reduce the prison population immediately by a number in the region of 12,000, and reduce very substantially the future intakes of prisoners, while simultaneously bringing our justice system into closer accord with real justice and not offending a single victim by releasing the person who offended against him or her.
The answer is to re-legalise all drugs possession and use (and void all past convictions under these misguided laws). Morally, there is no more justification for imprisoning a drug user or dealer than there was for imprisoning homosexuals, when that was the law in this country. To say this is not necessarily to declare one's approval of either homosexuality or drug use or abuse, but merely to recognise that such matters are not within government's rightful scope.
At the same time as ending prohibition, a licensing and taxation regime should be devised and put into force. The purposes of this regime should be only to maintain public order, control children’s access to harmful substances, provide and enforce standards of labelling and purity, and raise money to fund costs arising out of the use and abuse of drugs. This regime should bring alcohol and tobacco use and abuse into the same broad category as heroin, cocaine, cannabis, and all the medical drugs. The general principle should be that drug use or abuse is a matter solely for the adult or responsible parent, with government intervention restricted to general supervision of the consequences and circumstances, rather than prohibition.
It really is as simple as that. Whether use or abuse of any particular drug would increase or decrease following the above change is debatable, but is not really important – this is a matter for individuals and their families and friends. While there is undoubtedly some cost to society consequent upon the abuse of any drug, it is probably much less than the costs to society of prohibition of that drug, in most cases.
Not only would we achieve an immediate reduction in the prison population, of the order of 15%, but we would also reduce the numbers of violent crimes, property thefts and corruption crimes which are indirectly caused by the effects of prohibition in our society. This is very hard to quantify, but the experience of alcohol prohibition in the US demonstrates just how corrosive of public order prohibition can be.
As a society, we would then have the choice of cutting government expenditure on prisons substantially by reducing capacity, or using the excess capacity to allow real criminals to be held for longer.6 The popular view at the moment would seem to be that serious offenders generally should not be released early to clear space in the prisons, and should generally serve longer sentences.
Footnotes
1 There have been numerous stories illustrating this particular point, but here's a recent one from the Times May 29th 2006: "Short, sharp shock sentences delayed as prisons are bursting at the seams"
2 Times April 29th 2005 “Steep rise in jail terms sends prison population to new high”
3 Home Office Statistical Bulletin: “Updated and revised prison population projections 2005-2011”
4 Home Office National Offender Management Service, “Population in Custody Monthly Tables – April 2006 England and Wales”.
5 Home Office Statistical Bulletin: “Updated and revised prison population projections 2005-2011”
6 Of course, we would also have to face a similar decision regarding the reallocation of the massive policing and court costs which would be immediately saved by ending prohibition. Tough times, eh?
There will always be disputes about whether particular sentences are long enough, or whether sentences should generally be longer or shorter for various categories of offence. One’s position on the general cases will depend upon one’s personal stance on a number of issues – what weight to attach to each of the justifications for imprisonment (revenge, deterrence, removal from society, rehabilitation), degree of confidence in the ability of the system to actually convict the right person, and others. At the heart of the current issue, however, is a concern on the part of government to keep the numbers in prison within the overall capacity of the prisons themselves1.
Numbers in prison in England and Wales are very high by European standards, have been going up for years, and are reaching new records2. The government’s forecasts had recently to be revised upwards, after increases exceeded the previous predictions3. Here are some figures. In April this year, there were 76,764 in prison in England and Wales. This was a 3% increase on the year before.4 The Home Office expects a remarkable 76,520 – 90,780 (!) to be in prison by 2011.5
At a legislative stroke, we could reduce the prison population immediately by a number in the region of 12,000, and reduce very substantially the future intakes of prisoners, while simultaneously bringing our justice system into closer accord with real justice and not offending a single victim by releasing the person who offended against him or her.
The answer is to re-legalise all drugs possession and use (and void all past convictions under these misguided laws). Morally, there is no more justification for imprisoning a drug user or dealer than there was for imprisoning homosexuals, when that was the law in this country. To say this is not necessarily to declare one's approval of either homosexuality or drug use or abuse, but merely to recognise that such matters are not within government's rightful scope.
At the same time as ending prohibition, a licensing and taxation regime should be devised and put into force. The purposes of this regime should be only to maintain public order, control children’s access to harmful substances, provide and enforce standards of labelling and purity, and raise money to fund costs arising out of the use and abuse of drugs. This regime should bring alcohol and tobacco use and abuse into the same broad category as heroin, cocaine, cannabis, and all the medical drugs. The general principle should be that drug use or abuse is a matter solely for the adult or responsible parent, with government intervention restricted to general supervision of the consequences and circumstances, rather than prohibition.
It really is as simple as that. Whether use or abuse of any particular drug would increase or decrease following the above change is debatable, but is not really important – this is a matter for individuals and their families and friends. While there is undoubtedly some cost to society consequent upon the abuse of any drug, it is probably much less than the costs to society of prohibition of that drug, in most cases.
Not only would we achieve an immediate reduction in the prison population, of the order of 15%, but we would also reduce the numbers of violent crimes, property thefts and corruption crimes which are indirectly caused by the effects of prohibition in our society. This is very hard to quantify, but the experience of alcohol prohibition in the US demonstrates just how corrosive of public order prohibition can be.
As a society, we would then have the choice of cutting government expenditure on prisons substantially by reducing capacity, or using the excess capacity to allow real criminals to be held for longer.6 The popular view at the moment would seem to be that serious offenders generally should not be released early to clear space in the prisons, and should generally serve longer sentences.
Footnotes
1 There have been numerous stories illustrating this particular point, but here's a recent one from the Times May 29th 2006: "Short, sharp shock sentences delayed as prisons are bursting at the seams"
2 Times April 29th 2005 “Steep rise in jail terms sends prison population to new high”
3 Home Office Statistical Bulletin: “Updated and revised prison population projections 2005-2011”
4 Home Office National Offender Management Service, “Population in Custody Monthly Tables – April 2006 England and Wales”.
5 Home Office Statistical Bulletin: “Updated and revised prison population projections 2005-2011”
6 Of course, we would also have to face a similar decision regarding the reallocation of the massive policing and court costs which would be immediately saved by ending prohibition. Tough times, eh?
posted by Randal at 2:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home