One of the consequences of Labour's "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" policy was the introduction of indeterminate public protection sentences (IPPs). Giving the courts power to detain for an indeterminate period it is not surprising that the courts used this power. The problem with power is that it can be abused. It seems pointless to me to give an indeterminate sentence with a tariff of 3 years. Why not simply give a determinate sentence of that length? The problem is made worse by giving the Parole Board the power to increase the length of sentences by not directing prisoners release upon the expiry of the tariff period. The role of the Parole Board is to determine whether some prisoners should be released early, not to determine whether prisoners should receive longer sentences. What Labour has created is the totally unacceptable re-sentencing behind closed doors. The Parole Board expects prisoners to undergo courses to show that they are no longer a risk to the public. However, because of prison overcrowding they are being denied access to these courses by the prison Service. It is right that Jack Straw should be reviewing this failed policy. It is also right that Jack Straw said the idea should be not to build more prisons but to keep people out of them. And yet, he contradicts himself by going on to say that the prison building programme is going ahead. More prison places just means more people being put in them. No wonder everybody is confused if Jack Straw is signaling STOP with one hand and Go with the other.
No comments:
Post a Comment