An initiative supported by leading political, academic, religious and professional figures and in association with Queen Mary University of London. Virtually half-a-century has passed since the last Royal Commission on the Penal System was dissolved, its work uncompleted. Looking forwards, six members of the Commission asserted that 'after some years' a new Royal Commission would be of great public service. As commentators, writers and practitioners, Sir Louis Blom-Cooper QC and Professor Sean McConville have many decades ...
Read More
An initiative supported by leading political, academic, religious and professional figures and in association with Queen Mary University of London. Virtually half-a-century has passed since the last Royal Commission on the Penal System was dissolved, its work uncompleted. Looking forwards, six members of the Commission asserted that 'after some years' a new Royal Commission would be of great public service. As commentators, writers and practitioners, Sir Louis Blom-Cooper QC and Professor Sean McConville have many decades of experience of penal policy and practice. Some 20-years ago they urged the appointment of a new Royal Commission on the subject. They have since pressed their case in letters to major newspapers and in earlier writings. In this publication the momentum for which is supported by leading figures, they make the case for a new Royal Commission that will be reflective, effective and swift, capable of building consensus and providing directions for generations. They argue that penal policy is fragmented and frequently irrational, contradictory, counterproductive, insubstantial and put together in a haphazard way.The dynamics and pressures of party politics inevitably mean that penal policy often emerges in response to hard cases and headlines. As this pamphlet claims, broader and more considered views, drawing on evidence and seeking to maximise social good, cannot be delivered by politicians afraid of missing an opportunity to score party political points.
Read Less
?THERE IS STILL AN ABSENCE OF ANY REALLY COHERENT UP-TO-DATE THINKING WITHIN GOVERNMENT ABOUT THE PURPOSE OF PENAL POLICY?
An appreciation by Phillip Taylor MBE and Elizabeth Taylor of Richmond Green Chambers
The case for a Royal Commission on the Penal System is a strong call which will, eventually, be agreed?one day in the future.
That matter is about all that can be conceded at the moment even though the Commission would be both cost effective to the community and would return some confidence to the public in the way in which criminal justice is currently managed by the politicians. Most are also agreed however on the need for such an initiative now and that it is a matter of growing urgency. The question is always? and when will it happen as the numbers in custody continue to rise as our population expands.
A clear case has been set out in this excellent short pamphlet by Louis Blom-Cooper and Sean McConville at Waterside Press suggesting a re-examination of main aspects of the UK's view of penal policy in 21st century by this current call to action!
So what are the obstacles? They remain those difficult questions which political columnist and ex Tory MP Matthew Parris succinctly listed in ?The Times? when describing penal policy as a taboo subject. Parris (and others) say of prisons: ?They don't work?! We know that so what are we going to do about it?
That of itself should be quite a clear and sufficient statement for something constructive to be done. Few observers probably disagree with a view that some new thinking should be employed because of the reconviction rates and a general lack of successful rehabilitation in applied criminology.
In the form of bullet points, Parris goes on to say and we quote:
? Nearly half of those imprisoned are reconvicted within a year of release
? We don't re-educate or train properly
? Drugs get in routinely and by mysterious means
? Suicides and assaults are rife
? Many prisoners are mentally ill
? Conditions in over-stretched jails approach solitary confinement, yet every wretched prisoner costs £36,000 a year
? Each next inspection does its best to outdo each last in ransacking the lexicon of shock and indignation; each is relegated
? Everybody shrugs their shoulders, attention wanders and the disgrace continues
? Our descendants will gasp in horror at our disregard.
So why don't we talk about this?
Unfortunately, the answer to all these problems can be summed up with one word- disinterest.
The current proactive supporters for a Commission make the case that, as a model, it should be reflective, effective and swift, capable of building consensus, and of providing directions for a generation.
That these points are agreed is not really in dispute because the criminological landscape has changed so much in recent years and society needs to catch up. It would not be that expensive for a government to set up and report on penal reform if the terms of reference are carefully structured. So it is really about political will, and current lack of it with all the annual tinkering with criminal justice legislation by MPs, most of whom are no longer representatives with real life experience, just those with more special ?adviserships?.
However, all this is not enough because it is accepted that there is neither the requisite political will (at the moment), nor the probable necessity of public support whilst we enter a long drawn-out general election campaign for 7th May 2015.
It is estimated that about 2% of the media's attention or interest will be lavished on legal/penal policy as the election issues unfold. So it is not the top of the agenda. The issues though remain such as how much should be spent on the penal system.
Also there is a need to set a new reshaping agenda for successive generations to adopt where an objective view of sentencing can be achieved. The view could come from an evidence based report which will have both a practical meaning and effect for a more mature society vision of how this country deals with its criminals in future years.
We wish we could be more positive about this call to action. That fact that it has been made is a first step which will, if taken forward, be of substantial long term benefit for society and offenders. Many feel rightly that some new thinking is needed to engage the new five year government but this could be a pipe dream.
However, there is a grave danger that the seeds of this idea robustly set out in the pamphlet remain scattered on purely stony ground as the call is refused? at least for the time being anyway. There is always hope that with a fresh team there is a fresh hope for reform.
richmondchamber
Jan 7, 2015
Sir Henry Brooke is right!
SIR HENRY BROOKE IS RIGHT!
?THERE IS STILL AN ABSENCE OF ANY REALLY COHERENT UP-TO-DATE THINKING WITHIN GOVERNMENT ABOUT THE PURPOSE OF PENAL POLICY?
An appreciation by Phillip Taylor MBE and Elizabeth Taylor of Richmond Green Chambers
The case for a Royal Commission on the Penal System is a strong call which will, eventually, be agreed?one day in the future.
That matter is about all that can be conceded at the moment even though the Commission would be both cost effective to the community and would return some confidence to the public in the way in which criminal justice is currently managed by the politicians. Most are also agreed however on the need for such an initiative now and that it is a matter of growing urgency. The question is always? and when will it happen as the numbers in custody continue to rise as our population expands.
A clear case has been set out in this excellent short pamphlet by Louis Blom-Cooper and Sean McConville at Waterside Press suggesting a re-examination of main aspects of the UK's view of penal policy in 21st century by this current call to action!
So what are the obstacles? They remain those difficult questions which political columnist and ex Tory MP Matthew Parris succinctly listed in ?The Times? when describing penal policy as a taboo subject. Parris (and others) say of prisons: ?They don't work?! We know that so what are we going to do about it?
That of itself should be quite a clear and sufficient statement for something constructive to be done. Few observers probably disagree with a view that some new thinking should be employed because of the reconviction rates and a general lack of successful rehabilitation in applied criminology.
In the form of bullet points, Parris goes on to say and we quote:
? Nearly half of those imprisoned are reconvicted within a year of release
? We don't re-educate or train properly
? Drugs get in routinely and by mysterious means
? Suicides and assaults are rife
? Many prisoners are mentally ill
? Conditions in over-stretched jails approach solitary confinement, yet every wretched prisoner costs £36,000 a year
? Each next inspection does its best to outdo each last in ransacking the lexicon of shock and indignation; each is relegated
? Everybody shrugs their shoulders, attention wanders and the disgrace continues
? Our descendants will gasp in horror at our disregard.
So why don't we talk about this?
Unfortunately, the answer to all these problems can be summed up with one word- disinterest.
The current proactive supporters for a Commission make the case that, as a model, it should be reflective, effective and swift, capable of building consensus, and of providing directions for a generation.
That these points are agreed is not really in dispute because the criminological landscape has changed so much in recent years and society needs to catch up. It would not be that expensive for a government to set up and report on penal reform if the terms of reference are carefully structured. So it is really about political will, and current lack of it with all the annual tinkering with criminal justice legislation by MPs, most of whom are no longer representatives with real life experience, just those with more special ?adviserships?.
However, all this is not enough because it is accepted that there is neither the requisite political will (at the moment), nor the probable necessity of public support whilst we enter a long drawn-out general election campaign for 7th May 2015.
It is estimated that about 2% of the media's attention or interest will be lavished on legal/penal policy as the election issues unfold. So it is not the top of the agenda. The issues though remain such as how much should be spent on the penal system.
Also there is a need to set a new reshaping agenda for successive generations to adopt where an objective view of sentencing can be achieved. The view could come from an evidence based report which will have both a practical meaning and effect for a more mature society vision of how this country deals with its criminals in future years.
We wish we could be more positive about this call to action. That fact that it has been made is a first step which will, if taken forward, be of substantial long term benefit for society and offenders. Many feel rightly that some new thinking is needed to engage the new five year government but this could be a pipe dream.
However, there is a grave danger that the seeds of this idea robustly set out in the pamphlet remain scattered on purely stony ground as the call is refused? at least for the time being anyway. There is always hope that with a fresh team there is a fresh hope for reform.
