By: Gerard McGrath
The government’s sentencing policy is geared entirely towards winning the next general election says Gerard McGrath
In November 2009, Channel Four television broadcast a docu-drama: `The Execution of Gary Glitter' which focused on him as a case in point to highlight the vexed matter of sentencing policy. Well, that was the most charitable conclusion I could come to as to why such a rabble-rousing programme was made and broadcast; for all it was well written and presented.
Also broadcast in the same week in November, a BBC 1 Panorama programme focused upon the inappropriate and increasing use of cautions and fixed penalty notices to dispose of serious offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, burglary and even rape.
Perhaps coincidentally, during the very same week, Minister of Justice Jack Straw announced a review of the inappropriate use of cautions and fixed penalty notices as well as his recommendation that the minimum tariff for those who commit murder using a knife be increased from 15 to 25 years.
One way and another it was quite a week where sentencing policy is concerned. Although sorely tempted, I will not even suggest that a general election looms on the political horizon, and those who aspire to power are compelled to vie with one another as to who is the toughest where the vexed matter of law and order is concerned. That would make me as cynical as a politician and the label of offender and social pariah is more than enough for me.
Addressing the aforementioned issues in the order I cited them, I begin with capital punishment. Channel Four's docu-drama stated that 54% of adults would like to have the death penalty restored. Be that as it may; people are entitled to an opinion however perverse it might be. My take on this is a simple one. For as long as there is the inherent risk of executing innocent people, as would have happened to the Guildford Four, Birmingham Six and many others wrongfully convicted, not to mention the moral imperative, the death penalty should never be restored to statute. A posthumous pardon is not much use to the wrongfully convicted and executed.
As for the inappropriate use of cautions and fixed penalties where serious crimes are concerned; despite being a felon I am compelled to concur with the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge. When posed the question he replied that any form of assault which occasions injury must be dealt with in a court. The Director of Public Prosecutions, Kier Starmer QC, shares the opinion of Lord Judge. One can understand victims who feel they are the subjects of injustice when they are assaulted, their homes are burgled and the offender is merely cautioned.
As for an offence of rape being dealt with by such means, I know how they and I would feel were my daughters or granddaughters raped and the rapist dealt with in such a manner. It is a self-evident injustice for such offences to be disposed of employing powers intended to deal with minor, nuisance offences such as littering, etc. Our shamefully overcrowded prisons, cost effectiveness or cynical expediency are not acceptable reasons for such abuses of powers vested in the police to deal with low tier misdemeanours.
I venture the proposed increase in tariff from 15 to 25 years for those who commit murder using a knife as a weapon will be seen as long overdue by the public. Here again it is not difficult to understand why the public feel that the tariff system has not served justice. All too often we hear the complaint of gross injustice when what are perceived as derisory tariffs of 13/15 years are awarded before parole can be considered. I can appreciate the opinion of those who feel that life should mean life for those who rob their victim of life, in the final analysis the greatest theft of all. What the public may not understand any more than do some Lifers is that the tariff is not a release date per se. Rather it is the minimum period to be served for retribution before an offender is risk assessed as to suitability for progression and release. As an aside to the un-informed; theoretically, risk factors are reduced by us offenders engaging with diverse offending behaviour courses. Sadly, many engage on a mechanical tick-box basis to impress the Parole Board but in fact remain as much a risk after many years in prison as the day of sentencing. The adage: 'You can lead a horse to water but cannot make it drink' springs to mind as does the author and raconteur Dorothy Parker's witty and perhaps much more appropriate paraphrase: 'You can lead a whore to culture but you cannot make her think.'
No government of whatever political hue can please all the people all the time in terms of the contentious issue of sentencing policy. Given this is a democratic society one could be forgiven for thinking the means exists for the public to have their will enacted. If by 'democracy' we mean the will of the majority should be enacted then in theory the 54% who want the restoration of the death penalty should prevail. The will of the majority who want life to mean life should hold sway. The question is begged: '"Why is that not the case? ' I suggest some possible reasons: an apathetic and politically ignorant electorate who do not care or know what a political manifesto is; the nature of our ‘first past the post’ electoral system; the division of the political constituencies and the votes cast therein.
The points I seek to make are twofold. Firstly; it is in the gift of the public to have their will enacted by their elected representatives. The public have the power to compel what any political party includes in their manifesto and for that party when in government to legislate in accordance with the mandate of the people. Secondly; succinctly expressed, people get the government they deserve. Which comment I trust gives pause for thought?
* Gerard McGrath BA Hons is currently resident at HMP Haverigg
No comments:
Post a Comment