Introduction
In light of the rising crime rate in the UK, this short article will assess the criminal justice system within the UK and explore whether existing facilities are helping to limit the number of convicted repeat offenders, or whether these systems exist are designed to reoffend. For most criminals, the first port of call will be incarceration. Therefore, it will be important to start with the effectiveness of prisons. Once a person is released from prison, he will be under the auspices of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and may be ordered to serve a period of probation. If recidivism is to be reduced, then both structures must be successful, therefore their effectiveness will be assessed below. The final part will investigate who benefits from a system designed for reoffending. The article will conclude that the Criminal Justice System is designed for recidivism, and until this problem is resolved, existing structures currently focused on addressing recidivism will remain superfluous.
Prison
Imprisoning the perpetrators of crimes inside a prison should be the last resort of any civilized society. In England and Wales, the prison population exceeds 70,000. For the most extreme punishment to be effective, it must not exist only as a form of retribution. Prisons are extremely expensive and should have as their primary goal the reduction of inmates’ propensity to reoffend.
So this begs the question, what is the best way in which the prison service could best tackle re-offending? A publication in The Guardian (Tuesday 23 July 2002) suggests that maintaining close family ties between convicted criminals and their families has been shown to reduce the chances of that person offending again. This has resulted in several visitor centers treating visitors not as prisoners, but as members of the public. However, the question remains as to why this policy is not employed in all prisons where there is no direct threat. If maintaining family ties can help prevent recidivism, why not provide a more suitable place for people to reunite with their families’ children, etc.? They have committed no crime, but are often treated with extraordinary mistrust. Visitation can be extremely distressing for children of convicted felons and can lead to alienation between the convicted felon and his or her family.
Offender Rehabilitation Act
The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act of 1974 is one of the cornerstones of the Criminal Justice System. It is a statute that allows a convicted felon to wipe the slate clean after a certain period of time for employment purposes. The periods involved are longer for the most serious crimes. This system establishes that a person convicted of a crime must declare this conviction to any prospective employer.
There are many organizations that feel that this Act is counterproductive when viewed in terms of recidivism. The Prison Reform Trust, an organization aimed at creating a fair, humane and efficient penal system, points to some major weaknesses in the law. They point out that the Law excludes people who have served more than two and a half years in prison. Therefore, anyone who has served a prison sentence for this time will always have to declare it to an employer. The Prison Reform Trust further notes that a person is sentenced to a prison sentence and then must endure the imposition of a new sentence which, in several cases, can last up to ten years. Why is the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act orchestrated in such a way that it prohibits people from finding employment once they are released from prison?
Conditional freedom
The probation service states on its website that ‘Crime is a complex issue and requires comprehensive and complex solutions. The National Parole Service (NPS) is an important component in crime reduction.’ If we consider the full meaning of this statement, then by participation, the probation service is a tool to combat recidivism. How do they do that? They alleviate it by intervening early to steer youth away from delinquency and by introducing offender programs that have a track record of reducing recidivism.
According to CIVITAS, these two proclamations have been shown to be highly unlikely. The Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Program that was started for young offenders (ISSP) has cost at least £45 million since 2001. However, it has been admitted that 84% of participants were re-sentenced within 12 months of starting of the program. More than half of the offenders (53%) did not even complete the six-month program. In other words, ISSP was more expensive than other community sentences and was less effective. The Offensive Behavior Programme, which costs at least £2,000 each, has been found not to reduce crime. Recent Home Office studies found that recidivism rates did not fall (p.59-64 Home Office Research Study No. 206; Home Office Research Findings No. 161). These statements do not paint an encouraging picture and certainly do nothing to further the ideal that society is addressing or, indeed, taking the issue of recidivism seriously.
Who benefits from recidivism
While the measures that have been examined above have systemic flaws, the question must be asked: who benefits from the current high rate of recidivism? Society as a whole is certainly not a beneficiary. There have been different suggestions as to why the recidivism rate is so high, with some suggesting that it is an intentional mechanism to keep people fearful. Fearful people will always give up civil liberties to reduce crime levels.
There is also a more cynical view advocated by some. The police service depends on funding from the treasury. The treasury depends on taxpayer funding. If one can forget about the political issues and focus on the economic issue, then people will not feel too much aggrieved at having to pay high taxes to finance a police service which, in effect, due to concerns beyond their control, remains in largely unproductive.
There are some who believe that the Offender Rehabilitation Act provides affordable employment. Jobs that most people in our society would not even contemplate doing, the most mundane and least financially rewarding of all jobs, will often be filled by convicted felons.
conclusion
The question raised at the beginning of this document was whether the Criminal Justice System was designed for reoffending. As we have seen with prison incarceration, this will often lead to recidivism. The policy of treating the entire family as convicted felons, not just felons, will lead to felons becoming alienated from their families. This will then induce a feeling of hopelessness which often leads the offender to re-offend. Even if a convicted felon survives prison with their family unit intact, then they must contend with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act which is out of date and will, in most cases, force a convicted person to re-offend, simply because they don’t can find employment. Lack of employment leads to low self-esteem, which can often lead back to a life of crime.
Finally, probation doesn’t work since most people have to attend two days a week. This also denies the possibility of getting a job and can often lead to serious financial hardship, which can again lead people to reoffend. The task of reintegrating into society is fraught with many obstacles, obstacles that cost the taxpayer inordinate amounts of money. Society cannot afford to punish convicted criminals throughout their lives. If someone disagrees that the system is designed for reoffending, they cannot deny that the current system is totally ineffective and needs a complete rethink.