Subj: UK: Opinion: Straw shakes his iron fist at prison reform



Source: The Guardian, UK



Pubdate: June 23, 1999





Comment



Straw shakes his iron fist at prison reform

By Polly Toynbee



Jack Straw was never meant to be like this. Jack the Giant Killer played a

key part in winning the election, fighting off any law-and-order assaults

on Labour's exposed liberal flank.



In the year before the election he never let Michael Howard open up a Rizla

paper space between them, shadowing Howard pace for pace however far old

Something-of-the-Night dared him to follow down dark tunnels. Skewer the

refugees? No problem. Stoke up prison numbers? Fine.

Three-strikes-and-you're-out for burglars? Absolutely. Howard kept seeking

out Straw's sticking point, but he never found one.



But once in power, Straw was supposed to throw off the cloak, take out the

false fangs and reveal a decent, reforming though solid and sensible home

secretary beneath. (He said Roy Jenkins was his model). But no one's told

him the election is over and the enemy's dead.



What's more, Something-of-the-Night seems to have infected his soul. Now

his foes are liberals and he fights them with gusto on every front - from

the family to punishment and prison. He has faced down a possible MPs'

revolt on the asylum bill. Now he has an even greater battle on his hands

over the disgraceful freedom of information bill. Show him a liberal cause

and he'll reach for his revolver - or at least write a rousing article in

the Daily Mail - (see this week's on the importance of marriage). On first

tasting blood, erstwhile liberals can find liberal-bashing becomes an

addictive cannibalistic habit. Now he has Ann give-birth-in-chains

Widdecombe facing him across the dispatch box, she will fuel all his most

carnivorous instincts.



He is lucky that so far his overflowing prisons have kept out of the

political spotlight. Due to ever increasing spending, there have been

virtually no escapes, no riots, no noise. After two years in power Jack

Straw has made no progress in reducing the astronomical numbers of people

in prison. He locks up more than he inherited from Howard, with the home

office predicting a continuing rise. Howard left the prisons at their

highest ever at 60,000. Now numbers stand at over 64,000 - or 64% up on

1992. Britain imprisons a higher proportion of people than any other

European country - 122 for every 100,000 population, compared with France

and Germany at 90%. And 70% of prison sentences are for offences not

involving violence, sex or drug trafficking.



There haven't been more offenders appearing before the courts, just harsher

sentencing: the proportion of those found guilty who were sent to prison

rose by 9% in five years, while average length of sentences also increased.

Home secretaries have a surprisingly important effect on the sentencing

behaviour of courts. In the late 80s Douglas Hurd declared he wanted fewer

petty offenders in jail so he let out 2,000 early, sending a clear signal

to the courts who then began to send fewer people to prison. But Howard's

"Prison Works!" rhetoric, without changing any law caused the courts to be

harsher and prison numbers rose by 20,000 in a short time. They may not

know they do it, but judges and magistrates sentencing habits are finely

tuned to the language home secretaries use.





So when Jack Straw came in, what he said mattered as much as what he did.

Though he has talked of the value of punishment in the community, he has

mainly talked tough on crime. Worst of all, this March he brought in

Howard's three-strikes-and-you're-out compulsory three-year sentences for

third-time burglars, which he could easily have abandoned. The home office

estimates it will add 4,000 more prisoners, while the last head of the

prison service estimated double that number. Virtually every official and

expert thinks it expensive madness, sending all the wrong messages to

public and judges alike.



Straw's electronic tagging plan might have created a very good imaginative

alternative to prison. Instead it has only been used for prison governors

to release some offenders in the last two months of their sentence. It was

supposed to release 4,000 prisoners, but only half as many have been let

out because governors are too afraid of taking the risk themselves. It's

mainly used by open prisons who need it least, where inmates are already

well-prepared for life outside, while many more closed prisoners currently

turned out without supervision should have benefited.



Overcrowding means that still very few prisoners get the education,

training or treatment that might stop them reoffending. Many are shunted

off far from home, half way through courses. There is still too little

"purposeful activity" - a target of 24 hours a week last year was not

reached. Much praised "reducing offending behaviour" courses were only

given to one in every 21 prisoners: the target for 2002 is a meagre one in 10.



Meanwhile, two-thirds of prisoners are so illiterate and innumerate that

they are ineligible for 96% of jobs, yet education in prisons has still

fallen to an abysmal four hours a week. The target is only to reduce

illiteracy by 15%. Straw promised to cut the 11,000 prisoners kept on

remand, but the numbers have increased. (A real injustice since only half

eventually get custodial sentences).



Although there is new money now for prison treatments, even more will be

wasted on building new prison places. Few crimes are solved but it is plain

madness not to bombard those criminals we do catch with maximum treatment,

in or - preferably - out of prison. True, a whole new youth justice system

still has to roll out next April. If it succeeds in treating boys early and

effectively that should eventually feed through to the prison population -

but not at the rate three-strikes-burglars will be pouring in.

It's the cynicism and cowardice of Jack Straw that makes many despair. In

private he knows very well what works. When it's politically easy he will

do the right evidence-based thing, as with youth justice where there is no

populist opposition. But present him with anything requiring political

bravery and he panders to the lowest prejudices. In the last two years he

could have set about publicly expounding the best ways to stop criminals

reoffending. He could have talked the judges down. He could have cut prison

numbers and spent the money better. From now on the chancellor should give

him no more money until he cuts prison numbers and spends his budget better.





At least we were warned. Remember a particularly nasty Labour party

political broadcast just before the election with an obnoxious young couple

called Helen and Paul talking about crime? Paul: "Number 28's been burgled.

I bet it's that gang of yobbos again". Helen: "Even if they catch them,

they get off scot free". Paul: "If they get back in next time, there'd be

more criminals getting off". Thus Labour promised to lock up more criminals

and Jack Straw has done just that.