Counterblast: Why penal reform should not be a Conservative issue

Counterblast: Why penal reform should not be a Conservative issue

Ian Loader, Professor of Criminology at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of All Souls College, argues in 988 words, on the blog ConservativeHome.com, “Why penal reform should be a Conservative issue” http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2009/07/ian-loader-why-penal-reform-should-be-a-conservative-issue.html. Unfortunately for an academic he has failed to properly research his subject. According to Wikipedia “Prison reform is the attempt to improve conditions inside prisons, aiming at a more effective penal system…A precise definition refers to attempts to change the penal system, typically from one model of penology to another. Reverting to an earlier model is frequently also characterized as reform. Criminal justice models are based on the goals of the penal system” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_reform.

Ian Loader advertises the fact that he sat on the Howard League’s Commission on English Prisons Today, and that they have just published their report which advocates a change of direction. Another member of the Commission is Professor Andrew Rutherford, author of Prisons and the Process of Justice. In his book he writes: “Prison populations are determined, intentionally or otherwise, by policy choices. There are three general policy options: expansion, standstill and reduction”.

Beneath Ian Loader’s article, in the comments section, “Andrew” drew readers attention to the “Conservative policy document Prisons with a Purpose” http://www.conservatives.com/~/media/Files/Green%20Papers/Prisons_Policy_Paper.ashx?dl=true which I had read already. In the Foreword by David Cameron, he states “For too long, Labour have refused to build the prison places that are needed”. Clearly Tory prison policy intends to go down the road of expansionism. With their minds already made up not to address the prison crisis and their minds made up to make matters even worse than they are at the present, I cannot help but wonder why Ian Loader chose to go against the wind? Any fisherman would have told him that he would only get wet in the process.

It was only in March that the Centre for Social Studies published the findings from their Prison Reform Working Group, the report, “Locked Up Potential: A Strategy for Reforming Prisons and Rehabilitating Prisoners”, http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/client/downloads/CSJLockedUpPotentialFULLrEPORT.pdf in my view, is the Tory version of Labour’s dodgy dossier on WMD. The task force was chaired by disgraced former Tory MP Jonathan Aitken. According to the Tories, Aitken’s 7 months in custody made him uniquely qualified to chair the task force. (Prisoners, on the other hand, would say that amount of imprisonment only qualifies him to take a dump and a shave). Another member of the task force was the severely discredited former prison governor Stuart Mitson. Aitken’s report recommended that future prison design should follow the “unique design” of the Mitson Academy Model. Whilst the task force was sitting but before the report was published, Stuart Mitson Consultancy Ltd was set up. There is nothing unique about the design at all. It may be that GSL (formerly Group 4) (who Stuart Mitson worked for until the Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prison’s damning report ended his prison career) could prove to a court’s satisfaction that the design is based on the “Carling Unit” at H.M. Prison Rye Hill.

Whilst the Tories talk about rehabilitation and the need to prevent offenders from re-offending, their prison building programme is aimed at the private sector. The private sector requires a higher body count for higher profits. It is not in the private sector’s interests to prevent re-offending. Genuine prison reform uses the reductionism model. One look at the Tory spending plans in Aitken’s report shows that the Tory policy is motivated by ever increasing profits year on year. Neither the public nor prisoners will benefit from this deception. The only ones to benefit will be the building contractors, and any others who gain, like parasites, by feeding off prisoners suffering. Less prisons not more serves law and order. The larger the penal estate the bigger the failure by government to tackle crime. What the Tory party is offering in public protection is akin to Fagin helping himself to someone’s purse.