Home » Custody
Category Archives: Custody
The demise of the punitive state – you can’t have your cake and eat it
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
Share this:
A year on… semantics, semantics and semantics?
In October 2024, I wrote a blog on the recently opened Secure School- Oasis Restore. The shiny new edition to the Children and Young People Secure Estate (CYPSE) in England and Wales. In the introduction I pondered on whether this would bring about change within the CYPSE or if this was more of the same. There were lots of positives to consider with the resources, ethos and style of the new Secure School but I, and many others, had concerns that these changes were just words and would amount to little substance. Serious issues within the YJS such as the use of remand, the increasing number of Black and dual heritage children in the CYPSE (despite the overall downwards trend), the continued use of isolation and the high rates of self-harm all appeared to be forgotten with the unveiling of the new Secure School. However, a year on, and the CYPSE failing children appears to be continuing.
Oasis Restore had to ‘temporarily’ close in the summer of 2025 over safety concerns (BBC, 2025). Upon closer reading, and looking at the Ofsted report from April 2025, the main issue is around doors not being able to close properly due to how they were initially made and the damage they have sustained. The Ofsted report (2025) also highlights the use of physical restraint but is positive in how this is only used as a last resort and recorded effectively. The report claims there is a nurturing environment at Oasis Restore, and is overall relatively positive (Ofsted, 2025). The concern is the harm the displacement will have on the children. And why, a CYPSE institution which has cost approximately £40million, was not built fit for purpose?
The children who are placed in CYPSE, for welfare or justice grounds, are incredibly vulnerable. They have often experienced trauma, oppression and isolation at various stages in their childhood from various people and institutions (especially care and CJS). The reality is, these children have been failed multiple times before their arrival in the CYPSE and these failures continue whilst they are there. Oasis Restore was supposed to be different: it was supposed to help, support, nurture and protect. And whilst that appeared to be very much on the agenda, the closing and displacement of these vulnerable children is going to add to being failed by society. I ended my previous blog, reflecting on John Rawls’ when thinking about justice, if an institution cannot be reformed then it should be abolished. I asked, if it was finally time to abolish the CYPSE. I whole heartedly believe it is.
Bibliography:
Askew, J. (2025) Young Offenders School Closes After Safety Concerns, BBC. [online] Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cde3g28gxp4o [Accessed 14.10.25]
End Child Imprisonment (2024) Why child imprisonment is beyond reform: A review of the evidence August 2024. [online] Available at: https://article39.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Why-child-imprisonment-is-beyond-reform.-A-review-of-the-evidence-August-2024.pdf
Share this:
Stop strip searching children!
The Metropolitan Police are under constant criticism, more than any other police force, for at least as long as I have been a criminologist. Their latest scandal began with the case of Child Q, a 15 year old girl who was strip searched in school while she was menstruating after being suspected of carrying cannabis. No drugs were found and Child Q was extremely traumatised, resulting in self-harm and a suicide attempt. Tré Ventour recently wrote a blog about Child Q, race and policing in education here but following this week’s Children’s Commissioner report, there’s so much more to discuss.
The report focussed on the Metropolitan Police who strip searched 650 children in 2 years, many (23%) of whom were searched without the presence of an appropriate adult and as we criminologists would expect, the children were disproportionately Black boys. These findings were not surprising or shocking to me, and I also know that the Metropolitan Police force are not just one bad apple in this respect. The brutal search of Child Q occurred in 2020 but incidences such as these have been happening for years.
A teenage boy aged 17 was subject to an intimate search in 2019 where the police breached a number of clauses of PACE, ultimately resulting in the boy receiving an apology and £10,000 damages for the distress caused by the unlawful actions. These actions started with basic information being withheld such as the police officer failing to identify himself and informing the boy of his rights and ended with the strip search being undertaken without an appropriate adult present, in the presence of multiple officers, without authorisation from a senior officer and with no justification for the search recorded in the officer’s pocket book. Now I understand that things may be forgotten in the moment when a police officer is dealing with a suspect but the accumulation of breaches indicates a more serious problem and a disregard to the rights of suspects in general but children more specifically.
These two cases are the cases of children who were suspected of carrying cannabis, an offence likely to be dealt with via a warning or on the spot fine. Hardly the crime of the century warranting the traumatising strip searching of children. And besides, we criminologists know that the war on drugs is a failed project. Is it about time we submit and decriminalise cannabis, save police time and suspect trauma?
What happens next is a slightly different story. Strip searching in custody is different because as well as searching for contraband, it can also be justified as a protective measure where there is a risk of self-harm or suicide. Strip searching of children by the police has risen in a climate of fear surrounding deaths in custody, and it has been reported that there could be an overuse of the practice as a result of this. When I read the report, I recalled the many conversations I have had over the years with my friend Rosie Flatman who is a practitioner who specialises in working with victims of Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) and other forms of abuse. Rosie has worked with many girls who have been subject to strip searches when in custody. She told me how girls would often perceive the search as punishment for being what the police believed was disruptive. That is not to say that the police were using strip searches as punishment, but that is how girls would experience it.
Girls in custody are often particularly vulnerable. Like Rosie’s clients, many are victims and have a number of compounding vulnerabilities such as mental ill health or they may be looked after children. Perhaps then, we need to look at alternatives to strip searching but also custody for children, particularly for those who have suffered trauma. Rosie, who has delivered training to various agencies, suggests only undertaking strip searches where absolutely necessary and even then, using a trauma informed approach. She argues that even the way the procedure and justification is explained can make a big difference to the amount of harm caused to vulnerable children in police custody.
Thoughts from the criminology team 