When it comes to law and order, social liberals often have problems putting forward sensible, evidence-based polices for fear of being dismissed as ‘soft’ on criminals. Such is the case around the world, and there are a number of causes that it could be attributed to, such as the influence of reactionary tabloid media. Unfortunately, it isn’t as simple as that- and we’d do better to just pursue reforms rather than complain.
Nevertheless, there is one matter on which the majority of British voters and politicians are agreed: there is too little support for prisoners when their sentence finishes. Indeed, these people often leave with nothing but a couple of banknotes in their pocket, the clothes they’re standing in, and directions to the nearest Salvation Army hostel. After all, if prisoners have no income, they cannot continue paying a mortgage or rent. Very few employers will go near a recent criminal, and by their nature ‘ex-cons’ are likely to lack a high level of education, making jobs even more unreachable.
Is it any wonder that, faced with unemployment and homelessness, these people are likely to resort to criminal activity? With no real safety net to help them on the outside, prisoners will struggle to cope with a world which doesn’t regard them as equal citizens.
There is a fundamental argument over the nature of prison: should its emphasis be on punishment or rehabilitation? It seems to me that it would be counterproductive to merely punish prisoners, as it simply perpetuates a cycle of reoffending which not only destroys the life of the people concerned, but also costs society through the preventable crimes that take place and the large sum of public money that is spent on prison places. Alternatively, we could work in partnership with individuals to allow them to repay their debt to the country in a meaningful way, as productive workers both before and after their release.
Yesterday’s Queen’s Speech featured a bill that would see private companies entrusted with the task of supervising people for at least 12 months after their release. The businesses will be paid more if reoffending rates for their ‘cases’ is lower than a set target. Though this is helpful, it’s nowhere near sufficient. Yes, regular visits will be of value, but they are no substitute for the basic financial and physical security of a job and a home, which these companies will only help people to seek. Furthermore, the Coalition has displayed its obsession with outsourcing with the plans, raising questions about how well service users’ interests are going to be served. If the way Serco manages bin collections is anything to go by, the service will be all but useless.
Offenders must be provided with transitional employment, education and housing until they have a reasonable chance of meeting these needs themselves. However, if there is emphasis on ‘giving back’ to society, these things should not be simply handed to them. Instead, I refer readers to an article I wrote last year called ‘Call Centres in Prisons? Not Such a Bad Idea?‘
In that article, I suggested that prisoners should be required to work standard office hours. So as not to undercut law-abiding citizens, the Minimum Wage should be paid, however the bulk of wages should be deducted for two National Support Funds: one for victims of crime, and the other for offender rehabilitation. The rehabilitation fund should work with both public and private sectors to provide all the transitional needs outlined above to anybody who has contributed throughout their sentence. Specialised developments consisting of housing, places of work and other facilities could be built, providing a sheltered ‘stepping stone’ from prison to independence. I don’t know the numbers, but its possible that such a fund could require little taxpayer subsidy.
This is the best way that a fresh start can be given to those who have done their time, and want to move on from mistakes made in the past.