The sentences passed down to three teenagers for serious sexual offences and the subsequent furore over the perceived leniency hit the headlines recently.  I think I should add right now this blog is not intended to pass judgement, pardon the pun, on the sentencing, lenient or not, nor is it intended to convey my feelings on that particular case.  We are after all only provided with information by the press, who quite frankly have a field day when they think there’s a story to be had.  My take on the political machinations and other commentary is that it is premature and for the most part self-serving.  There is a judicial process and that should have ben allowed to take place before everyone jumped on the bandwagon of indignation and finger pointing.

I think I probably digressed a little.  The purpose of the blog is merely to point out that there are a number of issues within the criminal justice system that we as a society, have never managed to resolve.  Politicians kick the criminal justice football around dependent on the fickleness of the public whilst at the same time trying to manage an administrative and financial burden.  The prison estate costs money, punitive attitudes towards offending is costly when it leads to custodial sentences.  Given the public finances, there is a sound argument to utilise non-custodial sentences as much as possible.   There is an abundance of academic literature that points to the fact that prison does not work (include in that youth custody).  There is an abundance of literature that suggests that criminalising young people severely diminishes their chances in life and leads to reoffending.  So many criminologists will point to the futility of prisons and even advocate complete abolition.  Given the recent prison over crowding crisis, it is little wonder that the Justice Secretary called for a reduction in custodial sentences.  Nothing new there though, they do that these politicians from time to time, dependent on the crisis and the public mood.  Whipped up by the media of course.  The whole system is in chaos and that chaos impacts real people, defendants, offenders, victims and a myriad of other people, rarely considered.  What of family, friends and those people involved in the cases in one way or another.

What is the purpose of the criminal justice system? If the purpose is justice, what is justice and can it really be achieved? Does justice consider the impact of the crime on the victim or on the offender or both? Should what happens to the offender really matter or matter more than the victim’s feelings?  I wonder how many decisions are made, not on the basis of what is right, but on what is viewed as administratively convenient and affordable.    How does the system satisfy the victim and the public and at the same time give offenders the best opportunity to turn their lives around?  Why have prisons?  Is the purpose punishment, retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, public protection or something else?  To be honest, I don’t think we really know.  If you are a victim of crime, then you may have a particular view in the aftermath of the crime. That view may or may not change over time.  You might suggest it all depends on the crime, but then what crime is more important, more serious, more deserving of attention?  We ask our judiciary, to make judgements about this, often with their hands tied by political motive and public opinion.  Go one way, and you’ll have the abolitionists, anti-custodial mob lamenting the rise in the prison population, the punitive society and penal politics.  Go the other way and the mob will be baying for your blood, life should mean life, not 12 years, hard labour, throw away the key, bring back capital punishment. 

I don’t know the answer, but I don’t suppose that anyone will be opposing a custodial sentence for the teenage boys.  No one will be brave enough to put their head above the parapet. There are too many interested parties ready to take a pot shot and public opinion, whatever that is, will be brought to bear.  What was it John Stewart Mill said, ‘Beware the tyranny of the majority’.  I know one thing; you can’t on the one hand be in the abolitionist camp and then on the other call for a review of the sentences meted out because you find the crime committed so appalling.  I really don’t think you can have your cake and eat it.

Just for the record, given the nature of the offence, I really don’t think the key should ever be found.

Images

L-R HMP Wormwood Scrubs and a delightful cake