Being prepared for the scrap heap?Lifer Charles Hanson explores the world of the older prisoner and comes to some uncomfortable conclusions
The Age Discrimination Act, introduced in October 2006, goes some way towards remedying exclusion from employment on grounds of age, although for prisoners of the older age group emerging from prison it is unlikely to be of much benefit. Whilst age might still be the prospective employer's main consideration, a previous criminal history will be all that is needed to exclude the ex-prisoner. Age discrimination can therefore still be applied under the guise of not employing ex-offenders and unlike age discrimination, which is now unlawful, refusing to employ an ex-offender is not.
As someone who falls within the older prisoner age group, it is clear to me as I prepare for eventual release on life licence that the Prison Service has a very long way to go in actually meeting the needs of the older prisoner and preparing him or her for release through a structured resettlement process.
True to form, the ‘one size cap fits all’ approach prevails and the older prisoner is expected to conform to the same demands and expectations of those half their age. No allowances are made except on grounds of infirmity or disability, and even here discrimination exists on a wide scale.
The institutional ignorance related to the ‘one size cap fits all’, implying that everyone gets treated the same, however does have its flaws, for treating all prisoners the same does not necessarily constitute fair treatment and is commonly referred to as negative discrimination. Women, young prisoners and juveniles have consistently been recognised as having special needs, but when confronted with a prisoner at the other end of the age scale, who is also likely to have special needs, the Prison Service seems virtually clueless.
Currently there exists no national policy or strategy for dealing with older prisoners, although there are pockets of initiatives at local level.
However this is perhaps more due to the altruism of particular managers and those with vision who recognise that the over 50 prisoner group is the fastest growing group of all offenders, with different needs and set to increase as sentencing patterns and population trends change. In 1990, there were just 1,341 sentenced prisoners over the age of 50; with nearly 400 over the age of 70. By 2006, there were nearly 6,000 prisoners over the age of 50. Likewise, the 80-plus group has seen
an increase of 375 per cent between 1995–2003, and yet the Prison Service continues to stand still. Even worse is that the quality of life provided for this aged group of prisoners falls far short of what is expected under the 1998 Human Rights Act, and the Disability Discrimination Acts seem to be neglected in favour of selected diversity and inclusiveness.
‘No Problem, Old and Quiet’ was the title given to the Thematic Review on elderly prisoners by Chief Inspector of Prisons Anne Owers in 2004, and it was clear from the report that the Home Office and the Prison Service were failing in its delivery of needs to the elderly prisoner group who are the most vulnerable group of prisoners, who do not quite fit into the masculine model of the younger group of prisoners or those who can still be said to have some value to society and its workforce. It does seem that ‘elderly prisoners’ contradicts the very idea of rehabilitation if provisions are not made for inclusiveness of every aspect of prison life and every opportunity suited to the group's needs, which are likely to be very different from those of prisoners in their twenties or thirties.
At my current establishment of 122 prisoners, 20 per cent plus are over the age of 50 and thus far the best offer I have had of furthering my resettlement needs is a bus ticket to the local Age Concern office, which might be able to advise me yet not provide what clearly is required by the Parole Board, which should be a realistic, workable release plan.
The usual response from the powers that be when pressed for something not understood, or indeed not available, is that resources are overstretched or that sources are allocated according to perceived risk but when in prison it is hardly likely that the aged prisoner will be a risk to anyone as long as they remain in custody, although that will need to be assessed when release is considered. It was only recently that I became aware that I was able to apply for a concessionary bus travel pass because of my age, and this of course is an asset for me as I travel in the local community on day release from prison.
Other older prisoners followed suit and applied for theirs. This was a first for prisoners here at Blantyre House and yet it was only because of my own endeavours that I discovered this entitlement with no help or support from the prison who seemed totally unaware of this entitlement. I am still continuing to seek out what other benefits I can take advantage of, and what other entitlements I might be eligible for. I know nothing about sheltered housing, pension credits, winter fuel payments for the elderly, training and employment for the older citizen, healthcare provisions for the elderly, older citizens recreational and leisure groups and concessionary travel arrangements in my resettlement area. I have been in prison for 12 years and many things have changed.
I came into prison in my late forties and at a stage when I was fit, could be suitably employed, and able to undertake most things my fellow prisoners take for granted. However, time changes ones’ ability to compete. The years take their toll. And for the elderly prisoner those changes mean fear of physical or mental deterioration and being restricted in ones’ movements - followed by the dread of dying in prison. Prison should be the last place for that eventuality, given the limited healthcare provisions.
I will pursue every available avenue to further my resettlement aims but fear that I will be alone in this, and so will continue to be vociferous about my objectives and critical of the failings in the system. It is all I have .. for time is not on my side as it is for many others.
Like so many of our systems, the prison service seems to have been woefully slow to wake up to the fact that people are generally living longer than they were a generation ago. I guess the stereotypical "older lag" was either a repeat offender expected to have known his way round the system (both inside and out) or a lifer who was expected to die before release.
ReplyDeleteTimes have changed and, with a few notable exceptions, most people should expect to see the outside again in due course - and should be able to expect the right assistance to resettle.
Sadly, there is little assistance provided anywhere for the resettlement of anyone who looks likely to be insufficiently productive to the state - even retiring Armed Forces personnel or (at the risk of rebuke) police or prison officers get very little direction or assistance nowadays, so God help anyone less fortunate.
One of my friends had the good/bad fortune to be incarcerated whilst young, learnt a trade whilst inside and managed to get a reasonable job on release. Having been a burglar and car thief, the crafty bugger's spent the last ten years earning more than me.... but he was young and,I suppose,"worth investing in". Had my friend not had the benefit of youth on his side, I fear he would not have been given the training which made him the man he now is.
I say all this with my humane head on - with my police head on I guess I'd have difficulty seeing past the obvious... I know the sentence served should count as a debt paid, but I can't help wondering whether a convicted rapist or murderer should, for instance, be entitled to the respect, kindness or assistance he/she denied the victim of the crime for which they were imprisoned.
The old debate as to whether prison reforms or just restrains is, I fear, one that will rage forever. Every case should be judged on its merits and, in this case, the author seems to be an articulate individual who will hopefully be able to find his way with or without assistance.
The VAST majority of prisoners would (I hope) be accepted by society as being suitable for resettlement assistance and it often seems unfair that huge amounts of money and resources are poured into the resettlement of people who the public would never have wanted to spend a penny on (ie Mary Bell, Maxine Carr), but the expenditure on them is supposedly founded on a universal entitlement to assistance, so I guess the older prisoners will have to lobby for equal rights in the same way as their peers have to on the outside.
I wish I knew the answer, but I'm not sure I even know the question.
Having just taken a peek at Charles Hanson's own brief rundown of his life and times, I guess he fits the bill for a fairly comprehensive resettlement programme, if only to save him from boiling over with frustration at how bureaucratic life has become outside as well.
ReplyDeleteI thought I'd cheer you up with a tale of Justice in action, albeit a few years old....At about 7pm I was called to a house in a respectable part of town, where a guy was banging on the front door of a house, asking to be let in. The house was his, bought and paid for by his own labour, but currently occupied by his estranged wife who had obtained an injunction (with power of arrest) barring him from coming within 50yds of the house.
"What are you doing here?" I ask.
"I've come for my tea" says he.
"She has an injunction" says I "which says you cannot come for tea, or anything like it. She has had this injunction for months"
"I know" says he "but I come for tea every day and can't understand why she won't let me in".
I am then ordered to arrest him, in accordance with the injunction, whereafter he is taken before Judge Irrational at the county court. It becomes apparent that the injunction had been due to expire. The wife had been told that she could not get a renewal justified if there had been no breach.
The husband had complied with the injunction for the first month, but had then been invited to tea daily and had assumed that a reconciliation was on the cards and that an invitation meant that he could attend. On the evening in question he had not been invited, but wandered along anyway, oblivious to the trap that had been laid by his wife.
"Didn't I tell you not to go to your house?" says the judge
"Well yes" says the husband "but she invited me for tea every day"
"But did she invite you this time?" asks the judge
"Well, no, but...." comes the reply, swiftly interrupted by His Honour, firstly pointing out that, invitation or not, HE had imposed an injunction that said Thou SHalt Not Go, then following up by reeling off a custodial penalty of 3 months as well as a 12 month renewal of the injunction, in defiance of common sense, natural justice or human decency.
Cue the inappropriate comment by self "Am I in the right courtroom? This one seems to be broken..." It's the only time I've been threatened with my own spell in custody for contempt, but it was a fair judgement, since I've held the decision in contempt ever since...
I know I said I'd cheer you up, but it's the sort of thing that needs you to laugh, or else you'd have to cry.
maneatingcheesesandwich:
ReplyDeleteI wish I had a pound for every time I boiled over with frustration at the bureaucratic system. I would be a rich man. As it is, I get by. Getting angry is just a waste of energy, it is better to laugh when faced with a situation that is laughable.
Humans are creatures of habit, and resettlement of any kind for anyone from any walk of life is difficult to adjust to. Each day I get by without re-offending I call it a success. Anything more than that I see it as a bonus.
Re: "Iv'e come for my tea"
ReplyDeleteWhat a conniving bitch! She must have been planning that all along, and for the judge to ignore the obvious reason reason "why" she had invited the chap for tea every day is deploreable. The judge and the lady? both need their backsides washing with a wire brush and dettol!