THE POLITICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM COMMITTEE questions the UK Bill of Rights Commission
Uncorrected Transcript of Oral Evidence to THE POLITICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM COMMITTEE
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
Site Meter
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Prison Labour Bill is an abortion!
Prison Labour Bill is an abortion!
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
CHAPTER 5
PRISONERS ETC
103 Employment in prisons: deductions etc from payments to prisoners
(1) In section 47 of the Prison Act 1952 (power of Secretary of State to make rules for the regulation and management of prisons etc), in subsection (1) omit “employment,”.
(2) After that subsection insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State may make rules about—
(a) the employment of persons who are required to be detained in
secure training centres or young offender institutions;
(b) the making of payments to such persons in respect of work or other activities undertaken by them, or in respect of their unemployment.”
(3) In that section, after subsection (5) insert—
“(6) Rules made under this section may—
(a) make different provision for different cases;
(b) contain supplementary, incidental, transitional, transitory or
saving provision.”
(4) After that section insert—
“47A Rules about employment in prisons etc
(1) The Secretary of State may make rules about—
(a) the employment of prisoners;
(b) the making of payments to prisoners in respect of work or other activities undertaken by them, or in respect of their unemployment.
(2) The Secretary of State may make rules about the making, by the governor of the prison in which a prisoner is detained or the Secretary of State, of reductions in payments to the prisoner in respect of—
(a) work undertaken by the prisoner,
(b) other activities undertaken by the prisoner, or
(c) the prisoner’s unemployment,
where those payments are made by or on behalf of the Secretary of State.
(3) Rules under subsection (2) may make provision, in a case where reductions are made by the governor, for amounts generated by the reductions to be used by the governor—
(a) for making payments for the benefit of victims or communities;
(b) for making payments for the purposes of the rehabilitation of offenders;
(c) for other prescribed purposes.
(4) Rules under subsection (2) may make provision, in a case where reductions are made by the governor—
(a) for amounts generated by the reductions to be used by the governor for making payments into an account of a prescribed kind;
(b) for the administration of the account;
(c) for the making of payments out of the account to a prisoner before or after the prisoner’s release on fulfilment by the prisoner of prescribed conditions.
(5) Rules under subsection (2) that make provision for amounts generated by reductions to be used to make payments may provide for such payments to be made after the deduction of amounts of a prescribed description.
(6) The Secretary of State may make rules about the making of deductions from, or
the imposition of levies on, payments to a prisoner in respect of—
(a) work undertaken by the prisoner,
(b) other activities undertaken by the prisoner, or
(c) the prisoner’s unemployment, where those payments are made otherwise than by or on behalf of the Secretary of State.
(7) Rules under subsection (6)—
(a) may provide for deductions to be made, or levies to be imposed, by the governor of the prison or by the Secretary of State;
(b) must provide that, if the governor makes the deductions or imposes the levies, the governor must pay amounts generated to the Secretary of State.
(8) The Secretary of State may make rules providing—
(a) for the making of payments by the Secretary of State into an account of a prescribed kind;
(b) for the administration of the account;
(c) for the making of payments out of the account to a prisoner before or after the prisoner’s release on fulfilment by the prisoner of prescribed conditions.
(9) Rules under this section may—
(a) make different provision for different cases;
(b) contain supplementary, incidental, transitional, transitory or saving provision.
(10) In this section references to the governor of a prison include—
(a) the director of a contracted out prison within the meaning of Part 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, and
(b) an officer of a prison who may exercise the functions of a governor in accordance with rules under section 47 or this section.
(11) In this section—
“prescribed” means prescribed by rules under this section;
“prisoner” includes a prisoner on temporary release.”
(5) In section 66(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (procedure applying to rules under section 47 of the Prison Act 1952) for “of the said Act of 1952” substitute “or section 47A of the Prison Act 1952”.
(6) In section 4 of the Prisoners’ Earnings Act 1996 (interpretation)—
(a) omit subsection (2) (application of the Act to England and Wales), and
(b) in subsection (3) (application of the Act to Scotland), for “In the
application of this Act to Scotland” substitute “In this Act”.
(7) In section 5 of that Act (short title, commencement and extent), for subsection
(3) substitute—
“(3) This Act extends to Scotland only.”
(8) Before the coming into force of section 59 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (abolition of power to provide remand centres), section 47(1A) of the Prison Act 1952 has effect as if it referred also to persons required to be detained in remand centres.
(9) Before the coming into force of section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (abolition of sentences of detention in a young offender institution, custody for life etc)—
(a) section 47(1A) of the Prison Act 1952 has effect as if the references to persons required to be detained in young offender institutions were to persons aged under 18 required to be so detained, and
(b) section 47A of that Act has effect as if—
(i) “prison” included a young offender institution, and
(ii) “prisoner” included a person aged 18 or over who is required to be detained in a young offender institution.
(10) The Secretary of State may make such payments to such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in connection with measures that appear to the Secretary of State to be intended to—
(a) rehabilitate offenders,
(b) prevent re-offending, or
(c) limit the impact of crime.
(11) In making payments under subsection (10), the Secretary of State must have regard to the sums that have been made available to, or received by, the Secretary of State by virtue of rules under section 47A of the Prison Act 1952 (reductions, deductions and levies in respect of payments to prisoners etc.).
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
CHAPTER 5
PRISONERS ETC
103 Employment in prisons: deductions etc from payments to prisoners
(1) In section 47 of the Prison Act 1952 (power of Secretary of State to make rules for the regulation and management of prisons etc), in subsection (1) omit “employment,”.
(2) After that subsection insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State may make rules about—
(a) the employment of persons who are required to be detained in
secure training centres or young offender institutions;
(b) the making of payments to such persons in respect of work or other activities undertaken by them, or in respect of their unemployment.”
(3) In that section, after subsection (5) insert—
“(6) Rules made under this section may—
(a) make different provision for different cases;
(b) contain supplementary, incidental, transitional, transitory or
saving provision.”
(4) After that section insert—
“47A Rules about employment in prisons etc
(1) The Secretary of State may make rules about—
(a) the employment of prisoners;
(b) the making of payments to prisoners in respect of work or other activities undertaken by them, or in respect of their unemployment.
(2) The Secretary of State may make rules about the making, by the governor of the prison in which a prisoner is detained or the Secretary of State, of reductions in payments to the prisoner in respect of—
(a) work undertaken by the prisoner,
(b) other activities undertaken by the prisoner, or
(c) the prisoner’s unemployment,
where those payments are made by or on behalf of the Secretary of State.
(3) Rules under subsection (2) may make provision, in a case where reductions are made by the governor, for amounts generated by the reductions to be used by the governor—
(a) for making payments for the benefit of victims or communities;
(b) for making payments for the purposes of the rehabilitation of offenders;
(c) for other prescribed purposes.
(4) Rules under subsection (2) may make provision, in a case where reductions are made by the governor—
(a) for amounts generated by the reductions to be used by the governor for making payments into an account of a prescribed kind;
(b) for the administration of the account;
(c) for the making of payments out of the account to a prisoner before or after the prisoner’s release on fulfilment by the prisoner of prescribed conditions.
(5) Rules under subsection (2) that make provision for amounts generated by reductions to be used to make payments may provide for such payments to be made after the deduction of amounts of a prescribed description.
(6) The Secretary of State may make rules about the making of deductions from, or
the imposition of levies on, payments to a prisoner in respect of—
(a) work undertaken by the prisoner,
(b) other activities undertaken by the prisoner, or
(c) the prisoner’s unemployment, where those payments are made otherwise than by or on behalf of the Secretary of State.
(7) Rules under subsection (6)—
(a) may provide for deductions to be made, or levies to be imposed, by the governor of the prison or by the Secretary of State;
(b) must provide that, if the governor makes the deductions or imposes the levies, the governor must pay amounts generated to the Secretary of State.
(8) The Secretary of State may make rules providing—
(a) for the making of payments by the Secretary of State into an account of a prescribed kind;
(b) for the administration of the account;
(c) for the making of payments out of the account to a prisoner before or after the prisoner’s release on fulfilment by the prisoner of prescribed conditions.
(9) Rules under this section may—
(a) make different provision for different cases;
(b) contain supplementary, incidental, transitional, transitory or saving provision.
(10) In this section references to the governor of a prison include—
(a) the director of a contracted out prison within the meaning of Part 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, and
(b) an officer of a prison who may exercise the functions of a governor in accordance with rules under section 47 or this section.
(11) In this section—
“prescribed” means prescribed by rules under this section;
“prisoner” includes a prisoner on temporary release.”
(5) In section 66(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (procedure applying to rules under section 47 of the Prison Act 1952) for “of the said Act of 1952” substitute “or section 47A of the Prison Act 1952”.
(6) In section 4 of the Prisoners’ Earnings Act 1996 (interpretation)—
(a) omit subsection (2) (application of the Act to England and Wales), and
(b) in subsection (3) (application of the Act to Scotland), for “In the
application of this Act to Scotland” substitute “In this Act”.
(7) In section 5 of that Act (short title, commencement and extent), for subsection
(3) substitute—
“(3) This Act extends to Scotland only.”
(8) Before the coming into force of section 59 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (abolition of power to provide remand centres), section 47(1A) of the Prison Act 1952 has effect as if it referred also to persons required to be detained in remand centres.
(9) Before the coming into force of section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (abolition of sentences of detention in a young offender institution, custody for life etc)—
(a) section 47(1A) of the Prison Act 1952 has effect as if the references to persons required to be detained in young offender institutions were to persons aged under 18 required to be so detained, and
(b) section 47A of that Act has effect as if—
(i) “prison” included a young offender institution, and
(ii) “prisoner” included a person aged 18 or over who is required to be detained in a young offender institution.
(10) The Secretary of State may make such payments to such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in connection with measures that appear to the Secretary of State to be intended to—
(a) rehabilitate offenders,
(b) prevent re-offending, or
(c) limit the impact of crime.
(11) In making payments under subsection (10), the Secretary of State must have regard to the sums that have been made available to, or received by, the Secretary of State by virtue of rules under section 47A of the Prison Act 1952 (reductions, deductions and levies in respect of payments to prisoners etc.).
Europe braced for MEPs' expenses storm
Europe braced for MEPs' expenses storm
Publication of suppressed report could undermine efforts to deal with eurozone debt crisis
By Oliver Wright, Whitehall Editor
The European Parliament will today back down and order the release of a secret report detailing the widespread abuse of expenses by MEPs, The Independent has learnt.
A meeting of senior MEPs is expected to accept a European Court of Justice ruling that there is an "overriding public interest in disclosure".
Publication of suppressed report could undermine efforts to deal with eurozone debt crisis
By Oliver Wright, Whitehall Editor
The European Parliament will today back down and order the release of a secret report detailing the widespread abuse of expenses by MEPs, The Independent has learnt.
A meeting of senior MEPs is expected to accept a European Court of Justice ruling that there is an "overriding public interest in disclosure".
Criminal justice: The revolution that never was
Criminal justice: The revolution that never was
After David Cameron's rewriting of the justice bill, Kenneth Clarke's rehabilitative revolution lies in tatters
The brief illusion of liberal government disappeared with the publication of the sentencing bill on Tuesday. The Rose Garden promise had been for a calm coalition animated by progressive values and guided by reason. That promise was fleetingly fulfilled by the justice secretary, Ken Clarke. Last year he stood ready to unlock 20 years of failed thinking, with a green paper which accepted that Britain's drift towards mass incarceration was imposing an unacceptable human and financial cost. Now it has been decisively breached by a prime minister who once claimed to be a liberal Conservative.
Related content...
David Cameron upsets prison reformers with sentencing crackdown
Kenneth Clarke's prison plans dashed by PM's call for tougher sentencing for violent and sexual offences and knife crime
After David Cameron's rewriting of the justice bill, Kenneth Clarke's rehabilitative revolution lies in tatters
The brief illusion of liberal government disappeared with the publication of the sentencing bill on Tuesday. The Rose Garden promise had been for a calm coalition animated by progressive values and guided by reason. That promise was fleetingly fulfilled by the justice secretary, Ken Clarke. Last year he stood ready to unlock 20 years of failed thinking, with a green paper which accepted that Britain's drift towards mass incarceration was imposing an unacceptable human and financial cost. Now it has been decisively breached by a prime minister who once claimed to be a liberal Conservative.
Related content...
David Cameron upsets prison reformers with sentencing crackdown
Kenneth Clarke's prison plans dashed by PM's call for tougher sentencing for violent and sexual offences and knife crime
Domestic violence is ok if committed by a judge!
Domestic violence is ok if committed by a judge!
Judge gets probation for beating his wife
James Allen QC convicted after court rejects claim that his deputy coroner wife punched herself during row at their home
"A high court judge has been put on probation and ordered to pay £5,000 costs for a "dangerous and unpleasant" attack on his wife.
James Allen QC, 61, who sits as a deputy in West Yorkshire, was convicted after police and a doctor challenged his claim that his wife punched her own head in frustration after a row".
Judge gets probation for beating his wife
James Allen QC convicted after court rejects claim that his deputy coroner wife punched herself during row at their home
"A high court judge has been put on probation and ordered to pay £5,000 costs for a "dangerous and unpleasant" attack on his wife.
James Allen QC, 61, who sits as a deputy in West Yorkshire, was convicted after police and a doctor challenged his claim that his wife punched her own head in frustration after a row".
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Prisoners and employment in prisons
Prisoners and employment in prisons
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
CHAPTER 5
PRISONERS ETC
103 Employment in prisons: deductions etc from payments to prisoners
(1) In section 47 of the Prison Act 1952 (power of Secretary of State to make rules for the regulation and management of prisons etc), in subsection (1) omit “employment,”.
(2) After that subsection insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State may make rules about—
(a) the employment of persons who are required to be detained in
secure training centres or young offender institutions;
(b) the making of payments to such persons in respect of work or other activities undertaken by them, or in respect of their unemployment.”
(3) In that section, after subsection (5) insert—
“(6) Rules made under this section may—
(a) make different provision for different cases;
(b) contain supplementary, incidental, transitional, transitory or
saving provision.”
(4) After that section insert—
“47A Rules about employment in prisons etc
(1) The Secretary of State may make rules about—
(a) the employment of prisoners;
(b) the making of payments to prisoners in respect of work or other activities undertaken by them, or in respect of their unemployment.
(2) The Secretary of State may make rules about the making, by the governor of the prison in which a prisoner is detained or the Secretary of State, of reductions in payments to the prisoner in respect of—
(a) work undertaken by the prisoner,
(b) other activities undertaken by the prisoner, or
(c) the prisoner’s unemployment,
where those payments are made by or on behalf of the Secretary of State.
(3) Rules under subsection (2) may make provision, in a case where reductions are made by the governor, for amounts generated by the reductions to be used by the governor—
(a) for making payments for the benefit of victims or communities;
(b) for making payments for the purposes of the rehabilitation of offenders;
(c) for other prescribed purposes.
(4) Rules under subsection (2) may make provision, in a case where reductions are made by the governor—
(a) for amounts generated by the reductions to be used by the governor for making payments into an account of a prescribed kind;
(b) for the administration of the account;
(c) for the making of payments out of the account to a prisoner before or after the prisoner’s release on fulfilment by the prisoner of prescribed conditions.
(5) Rules under subsection (2) that make provision for amounts generated by reductions to be used to make payments may provide for such payments to be made after the deduction of amounts of a prescribed description.
(6) The Secretary of State may make rules about the making of deductions from, or
the imposition of levies on, payments to a prisoner in respect of—
(a) work undertaken by the prisoner,
(b) other activities undertaken by the prisoner, or
(c) the prisoner’s unemployment, where those payments are made otherwise than by or on behalf of the Secretary of State.
(7) Rules under subsection (6)—
(a) may provide for deductions to be made, or levies to be imposed, by the governor of the prison or by the Secretary of State;
(b) must provide that, if the governor makes the deductions or imposes the levies, the governor must pay amounts generated to the Secretary of State.
(8) The Secretary of State may make rules providing—
(a) for the making of payments by the Secretary of State into an account of a prescribed kind;
(b) for the administration of the account;
(c) for the making of payments out of the account to a prisoner before or after the prisoner’s release on fulfilment by the prisoner of prescribed conditions.
(9) Rules under this section may—
(a) make different provision for different cases;
(b) contain supplementary, incidental, transitional, transitory or saving provision.
(10) In this section references to the governor of a prison include—
(a) the director of a contracted out prison within the meaning of Part 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, and
(b) an officer of a prison who may exercise the functions of a governor in accordance with rules under section 47 or this section.
(11) In this section—
“prescribed” means prescribed by rules under this section;
“prisoner” includes a prisoner on temporary release.”
(5) In section 66(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (procedure applying to rules
under section 47 of the Prison Act 1952) for “of the said Act of 1952” substitute
“or section 47A of the Prison Act 1952”.
(6) In section 4 of the Prisoners’ Earnings Act 1996 (interpretation)—
(a) omit subsection (2) (application of the Act to England and Wales), and
(b) in subsection (3) (application of the Act to Scotland), for “In the
application of this Act to Scotland” substitute “In this Act”.
(7) In section 5 of that Act (short title, commencement and extent), for subsection
(3) substitute—
“(3) This Act extends to Scotland only.”
(8) Before the coming into force of section 59 of the Criminal Justice and Court
Services Act 2000 (abolition of power to provide remand centres), section 47(1A) of the Prison Act 1952 has effect as if it referred also to persons required to be detained in remand centres.
(9) Before the coming into force of section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Court
Services Act 2000 (abolition of sentences of detention in a young offender
institution, custody for life etc)—
(a) section 47(1A) of the Prison Act 1952 has effect as if the references to
persons required to be detained in young offender institutions were to persons aged under 18 required to be so detained, and
(b) section 47A of that Act has effect as if—
(i) “prison” included a young offender institution, and
(ii) “prisoner” included a person aged 18 or over who is required to be detained in a young offender institution.
(10) The Secretary of State may make such payments to such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in connection with measures that appear to the Secretary of State to be intended to—
(a) rehabilitate offenders,
(b) prevent re-offending, or
(c) limit the impact of crime.
(11) In making payments under subsection (10), the Secretary of State must have
regard to the sums that have been made available to, or received by, the
Secretary of State by virtue of rules under section 47A of the Prison Act 1952
(reductions, deductions and levies in respect of payments to prisoners etc.).
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
CHAPTER 5
PRISONERS ETC
103 Employment in prisons: deductions etc from payments to prisoners
(1) In section 47 of the Prison Act 1952 (power of Secretary of State to make rules for the regulation and management of prisons etc), in subsection (1) omit “employment,”.
(2) After that subsection insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State may make rules about—
(a) the employment of persons who are required to be detained in
secure training centres or young offender institutions;
(b) the making of payments to such persons in respect of work or other activities undertaken by them, or in respect of their unemployment.”
(3) In that section, after subsection (5) insert—
“(6) Rules made under this section may—
(a) make different provision for different cases;
(b) contain supplementary, incidental, transitional, transitory or
saving provision.”
(4) After that section insert—
“47A Rules about employment in prisons etc
(1) The Secretary of State may make rules about—
(a) the employment of prisoners;
(b) the making of payments to prisoners in respect of work or other activities undertaken by them, or in respect of their unemployment.
(2) The Secretary of State may make rules about the making, by the governor of the prison in which a prisoner is detained or the Secretary of State, of reductions in payments to the prisoner in respect of—
(a) work undertaken by the prisoner,
(b) other activities undertaken by the prisoner, or
(c) the prisoner’s unemployment,
where those payments are made by or on behalf of the Secretary of State.
(3) Rules under subsection (2) may make provision, in a case where reductions are made by the governor, for amounts generated by the reductions to be used by the governor—
(a) for making payments for the benefit of victims or communities;
(b) for making payments for the purposes of the rehabilitation of offenders;
(c) for other prescribed purposes.
(4) Rules under subsection (2) may make provision, in a case where reductions are made by the governor—
(a) for amounts generated by the reductions to be used by the governor for making payments into an account of a prescribed kind;
(b) for the administration of the account;
(c) for the making of payments out of the account to a prisoner before or after the prisoner’s release on fulfilment by the prisoner of prescribed conditions.
(5) Rules under subsection (2) that make provision for amounts generated by reductions to be used to make payments may provide for such payments to be made after the deduction of amounts of a prescribed description.
(6) The Secretary of State may make rules about the making of deductions from, or
the imposition of levies on, payments to a prisoner in respect of—
(a) work undertaken by the prisoner,
(b) other activities undertaken by the prisoner, or
(c) the prisoner’s unemployment, where those payments are made otherwise than by or on behalf of the Secretary of State.
(7) Rules under subsection (6)—
(a) may provide for deductions to be made, or levies to be imposed, by the governor of the prison or by the Secretary of State;
(b) must provide that, if the governor makes the deductions or imposes the levies, the governor must pay amounts generated to the Secretary of State.
(8) The Secretary of State may make rules providing—
(a) for the making of payments by the Secretary of State into an account of a prescribed kind;
(b) for the administration of the account;
(c) for the making of payments out of the account to a prisoner before or after the prisoner’s release on fulfilment by the prisoner of prescribed conditions.
(9) Rules under this section may—
(a) make different provision for different cases;
(b) contain supplementary, incidental, transitional, transitory or saving provision.
(10) In this section references to the governor of a prison include—
(a) the director of a contracted out prison within the meaning of Part 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, and
(b) an officer of a prison who may exercise the functions of a governor in accordance with rules under section 47 or this section.
(11) In this section—
“prescribed” means prescribed by rules under this section;
“prisoner” includes a prisoner on temporary release.”
(5) In section 66(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (procedure applying to rules
under section 47 of the Prison Act 1952) for “of the said Act of 1952” substitute
“or section 47A of the Prison Act 1952”.
(6) In section 4 of the Prisoners’ Earnings Act 1996 (interpretation)—
(a) omit subsection (2) (application of the Act to England and Wales), and
(b) in subsection (3) (application of the Act to Scotland), for “In the
application of this Act to Scotland” substitute “In this Act”.
(7) In section 5 of that Act (short title, commencement and extent), for subsection
(3) substitute—
“(3) This Act extends to Scotland only.”
(8) Before the coming into force of section 59 of the Criminal Justice and Court
Services Act 2000 (abolition of power to provide remand centres), section 47(1A) of the Prison Act 1952 has effect as if it referred also to persons required to be detained in remand centres.
(9) Before the coming into force of section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Court
Services Act 2000 (abolition of sentences of detention in a young offender
institution, custody for life etc)—
(a) section 47(1A) of the Prison Act 1952 has effect as if the references to
persons required to be detained in young offender institutions were to persons aged under 18 required to be so detained, and
(b) section 47A of that Act has effect as if—
(i) “prison” included a young offender institution, and
(ii) “prisoner” included a person aged 18 or over who is required to be detained in a young offender institution.
(10) The Secretary of State may make such payments to such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in connection with measures that appear to the Secretary of State to be intended to—
(a) rehabilitate offenders,
(b) prevent re-offending, or
(c) limit the impact of crime.
(11) In making payments under subsection (10), the Secretary of State must have
regard to the sums that have been made available to, or received by, the
Secretary of State by virtue of rules under section 47A of the Prison Act 1952
(reductions, deductions and levies in respect of payments to prisoners etc.).
The Commission on a Bill of Rights gets it wrong!
The Commission on a Bill of Rights gets it wrong!
From: myhaven [mailto:john.hirst@myhaven.karoo.co.uk]
Sent: 20 June 2011 14:22
To: Enquiries (Commission on a Bill of Rights)
Subject: Commission website
Hi
Can you please provide the URL for the Commission's website please?
John Hirst
From: Enquiries (Commission on a Bill of Rights)
To: myhaven
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 3:16 PM
Subject: RE: Commission website
John
Thank you for your enquiry. The Commission’s website can be found at the following address:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/cbr/index.htm
Best wishes,
Robin Seaton
Secretariat
Commission on a Bill of Rights
9.55, 102 Petty France
London SW1H 9AJ
From: myhaven [mailto:john.hirst@myhaven.karoo.co.uk]
Sent: 20 June 2011 15:28
To: Enquiries (Commission on a Bill of Rights)
Subject: Re: Commission website
Hi Robin
I have already visited the Justice link you provided but there is no link to the Commission website.
I refer you to:
Sir Leigh Lewis: The straightforward answer to your question is we have not yet concluded on those questions because, although we have asked our secretariat to draw up a provisional programme of work, that will come to us at our next meeting and we have not yet considered it. But I think I can say a few things. First of all, we have done a few things in our short life already. We have created a website and we have invited people to give us their views, and rather encouragingly we have had something like 400 responses on our website. Subject to final decision, I think we are also minded to produce some kind of issues paper, which would try and set out some of the issues facing the Commission in language that is accessible to the community more widely and not just to human rights experts, and if we do do that, we would obviously put that on our website and in other ways invite responses to it.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmpolcon/uc1049-i/uc104901.htm
I ask again for a link to the website.
Best
John
Hi John
The link I sent should take you to the web page that Sir Leigh was referring to; the Commission doesn’t have a separate web presence. If the link isn’t working for any reason try going to www.justice.gov.uk, clicking on ‘Organisations’ and scrolling down to ‘Commission on a Bill of Rights’.
The Commission is currently developing its programme of work, including a plan for public consultation. More information will soon be available on the web page.
Incidentally, I should note that Sir Leigh misspoke when he said ‘400 responses’. He intended to say that the Commission had had ‘400 visits’ to its web pages. This correction has been submitted to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and we gather that the final transcript will be corrected accordingly.
Best wishes,
Robin Seaton
Secretariat
Commission on a Bill of Rights
9.55, 102 Petty France
London SW1H 9AJ
From: myhaven [mailto:john.hirst@myhaven.karoo.co.uk]
Sent: 20 June 2011 14:22
To: Enquiries (Commission on a Bill of Rights)
Subject: Commission website
Hi
Can you please provide the URL for the Commission's website please?
John Hirst
From: Enquiries (Commission on a Bill of Rights)
To: myhaven
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 3:16 PM
Subject: RE: Commission website
John
Thank you for your enquiry. The Commission’s website can be found at the following address:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/cbr/index.htm
Best wishes,
Robin Seaton
Secretariat
Commission on a Bill of Rights
9.55, 102 Petty France
London SW1H 9AJ
From: myhaven [mailto:john.hirst@myhaven.karoo.co.uk]
Sent: 20 June 2011 15:28
To: Enquiries (Commission on a Bill of Rights)
Subject: Re: Commission website
Hi Robin
I have already visited the Justice link you provided but there is no link to the Commission website.
I refer you to:
Sir Leigh Lewis: The straightforward answer to your question is we have not yet concluded on those questions because, although we have asked our secretariat to draw up a provisional programme of work, that will come to us at our next meeting and we have not yet considered it. But I think I can say a few things. First of all, we have done a few things in our short life already. We have created a website and we have invited people to give us their views, and rather encouragingly we have had something like 400 responses on our website. Subject to final decision, I think we are also minded to produce some kind of issues paper, which would try and set out some of the issues facing the Commission in language that is accessible to the community more widely and not just to human rights experts, and if we do do that, we would obviously put that on our website and in other ways invite responses to it.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmpolcon/uc1049-i/uc104901.htm
I ask again for a link to the website.
Best
John
Hi John
The link I sent should take you to the web page that Sir Leigh was referring to; the Commission doesn’t have a separate web presence. If the link isn’t working for any reason try going to www.justice.gov.uk, clicking on ‘Organisations’ and scrolling down to ‘Commission on a Bill of Rights’.
The Commission is currently developing its programme of work, including a plan for public consultation. More information will soon be available on the web page.
Incidentally, I should note that Sir Leigh misspoke when he said ‘400 responses’. He intended to say that the Commission had had ‘400 visits’ to its web pages. This correction has been submitted to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and we gather that the final transcript will be corrected accordingly.
Best wishes,
Robin Seaton
Secretariat
Commission on a Bill of Rights
9.55, 102 Petty France
London SW1H 9AJ
Now, if Ken Clarke had the balls to stand up to Dave Cameron...
Now, if Ken Clarke had the balls to stand up to Dave Cameron...
Norway's controversial 'cushy prison' experiment - could it catch on in the UK?
Can a prison possibly justify treating its inmates with saunas, sunbeds and deckchairs if that prison has the lowest reo ffending rate in Europe? Live reports from Norway on the penal system that runs contrary to all our instincts - but achieves everything we could wish for
An inmate convicted of murder sunbathes outside the wooden cottage where he lives at Bastoy Prison, Norway's only island prison
On a clear, bright morning in the tranquil, coastal town of Horten, just south of Oslo, a small ferry slides punctually into harbour. I am to take a short boat ride to the sunlit, green island of Bastoy shimmering on the horizon less than two miles away. It is a curious place. There are no secluded holiday homes or elegant hotels with moorings for passing yachts. The 120 people who live there never visit the mainland, but then why would they?
They spend their days happily winding around the network of paths that snake through the pine forests, or swimming and fishing along the five miles of pebble beaches, or playing on the tennis courts and football pitch; and recuperating later on sunbeds and in a sauna, a cinema room, a band rehearsal room and expansive library.
Their commune has handsomely furnished bungalows with cable TV. The residents eat together in an attractively spacious canteen thoughtfully decorated with Norwegian art. The centrepiece is a striking 10ft long model of a Norwegian merchant ship.
If it sounds like an oddball Scandinavian social experiment, you'd be right. Bastoy is home to Norway's only island prison. I am here to scrutinise its hugely controversial approach to crime and punishment, and to do so with some knowledge; the last time I set foot in a prison was as a foolish 23-year-old man.
The former lighthouse, now used by prison workers as a holiday retreat. The inmates of Bastoy are no small-time villains on their first custodial sentence
After my law degree, with a young man's lust for adventure, I ended up in a notoriously harsh prison in Nepal. Through crass stupidity I tried unlawfully to bring gold into the country. I wasn't in for long but the experience terrified me, which was all I needed to get my life in order. That, to me, is the purpose of a prison. Bastoy is the polar opposite.
On board the ferry I am greeted by a shaven-headed prison guard, Sigurd Fredericke, who is my guide and protector for the day.
'Don't worry,' he grins, shaking my hand with a reassuringly vice-like grip.
'Bastoy is not like any other prison you know.'
He pauses, looking furtively around the boat.
'You see that man there,' he whispers, pointing discreetly at one of the three uniformed ferry workers, 'he's one of our inmates - a murderer.'
As we chug ever nearer, and the outline of an old church steeple rises above a backdrop of pristine pines, it becomes clear that Sigurd is absolutely right.
Slowly, the idyllic sight of what appears to be a quaint Norwegian village reveals itself, complete with cosy cottages, dirt roads and even horses and carts.
The first person we see on the island, on a wooden verandah outside a modern bungalow, is a man in swimming trunks stretched out on a sun lounger. Nils is 36. He was given a 16-year sentence for shooting dead a fellow amphetamine smuggler over an unpaid debt. Now he's relaxing between his shifts as a ferry worker.
The prison library. With 120 inmates and 70 staff (35 of whom are guards) Bastoy is Norway's largest low-security prison but it is one of four others dotted around the country
'I spent eight-and-a-half years in a closed prison before moving here nine months ago and I'm much happier now,' he says, stating the obvious.
'I immediately trained to be a ferry worker. I'm going on a maritime course at university. I want to be a commercial captain when I get out. Normally all you leave prison with is two bin bags of clothes. It's like your life has been on pause. You just go on with all the bad habits you had before you went in.'
For many of us in Britain the idea of allowing a convicted murderer the freedom to work and mix openly with non-criminals is anathema. It offends our deeply ingrained ideas about prisons as a place of punishment and as a deterrent to possible offenders.
When he recently claimed of offenders that it was 'just very, very bad value for taxpayers' money to keep banging them up and warehousing them in overcrowded prisons where most of them get toughened up', our current Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice Kenneth Clarke was widely harangued for his progressive views.
A recent opinion poll showed the British public wants harsher prison conditions; they don't agree with the Government's response to over-population and reoffending by pushing through far-reaching reforms which emphasise shorter sentences while placing prisoners in a working environment.
And yet, an extensive new study undertaken by researchers across all the Nordic countries reveals that the reoffending average across Europe is about 70-75 per cent. In Denmark, Sweden and Finland, the average is 30 per cent. In Norway it is 20 per cent. Thus Bastoy, at just 16 per cent, has the lowest reoffending rate in Europe.
A prisoner in the bicycle repair workshop
Of course, Norway is one of the wealthiest, most sparsely populated and most stable countries in the world, with a population of just five million, and a prison population fluctuating around 3,500 inmates, the lowest percentage in Europe apart from Iceland; surely a special case.
Even so, whatever is happening here may be condemned, but cannot be ignored. Indeed, it is being positively embraced here - Norway is planning to build more prisons like Bastoy. At the expense of our own deep-seated unease, and with the possible benefits of safer streets, dare we ever contemplate such a prison regime in the UK?
What is sure is that the inmates of Bastoy are no small-time villains on their first custodial sentence.
Once on dry land, we climb onto one of the waiting horse-drawn carts and with a shake of the reins, the driver moves off.
Lars Ulmann, 48, is a jovial former amphetamine smuggler serving five years. He begins our climb up the winding road towards the church. On the way Sigurd reveals that having previously worked as a guard in one of Norway's conventional 'closed' prisons, he left six years ago to pursue a career as a property developer. Despite the big salary, car and office, three years later he jumped at the chance when his former boss offered him a job on Bastoy.
'Working here is much more rewarding than being a property developer or a conventional prison guard,' he explains, 'because not only do the prisoners have much more freedom and responsibility, the guards do too.'
A group of inmates is raking leaves in the church grounds as we pull up outside an old white administration building. In terms of food and décor, its canteen alone could pass for a trendy London restaurant. Upstairs in his neat office, the prison governor, Arne Kvernvik Nilsen, is keen to explain what this bizarre place is all about.
An inmate working the prison kitchen. From Monday to Friday, inmates are responsible for getting up in time to have breakfast, make themselves a packed lunch and be at their place of work by 8.30am
'I believe that we as human beings, if we are prepared to make fundamental changes in the way we regard crime and punishment, can dramatically improve the rehabilitation of prisoners and thereby reduce the reoffending rates,' he says.
'Bastoy is an ongoing experiment, but I really hope the results will benefit not only Norway but the UK, Europe and the rest of the world.'
Nilsen's impressive qualifications for the job are matched by a passionate, almost evangelical zeal for what is clearly a very personal and heartfelt mission. A qualified and practising psychotherapist (specialising in the Gestalt school, which emphasises personal responsibility) Nilsen worked in the UK for a year as Lewes prison's chaplain before returning to Norway and working his way up through the probationary services. After 12 years working for the Correctional Services Department of Norway's Ministry Of Justice, he took up the post of Bastoy's new governor in 2007.
He goes on to explain that because the Norwegian penal system has no death penalty or life terms and a maximum sentence of just 21 years, Norwegian society is forced to confront the fact that most prisoners, however heinous their crimes, will one day be released back into society. As a result by far the most significant statistic for Nilsen and Norway's law-abiding citizens is that of reoffending rates.
'Both society and the individual simply have to put aside their desire for revenge, and stop focusing on prisons as places of punishment and pain. Depriving a person of their freedom for a period of time is sufficient punishment in itself without any need whatsoever for harsh prison conditions.
'Bastoy takes the opposite approach to a conventional prison where prisoners are given no responsibility, locked up, fed and treated like animals and eventually end up behaving like animals.
'Here you are given personal responsibility and a job and asked to deal with all the challenges that entails. It is an arena in which the mind can heal, allowing prisoners to gain self-confidence, establish respect for themselves and in so doing respect for others too.'
Outdoor phone booths, which are used by the prisoners
There are no cells, bars, guns, truncheons or CCTV cameras here. Bearing in mind that among those housed here are murderers and other violent offenders, it's slightly unnerving that they have access to knives, axes and even chainsaws for their various jobs on what is trumpeted as the world's first self-sustaining 'Ecological Prison.'
'I have not had one violent incident here,' the governor continues. 'One inmate did manage to escape by stealing a fishing boat one night, and his punishment was to be sent back to a closed prison.'
Downstairs it's time for midday lunch - chicken risotto (from Bastoy's expansive chicken shed), cold meats and cheese and a wide variety of salads. All the food is prepared and served by the kitchen's inmates who then sit down and eat alongside the guards, administrative staff and even the governor in the canteen.
Back in the horse and cart we climb uphill to one of two18-bedroom houses where newcomers undergo an introductory week of 'living training' (learning how to make food and clean rooms) before gradually dispersing as spaces become available in some of the more private and spacious houses scattered around.
Outside Number 52 Bjorn Andersen, a former sociology researcher who arrived at Bastoy last week after three years in a closed prison, is having a cigarette break.
'I was married to a nice girl for 20 years and we have five kids but in 2008 she came to me and said she had secretly bought a new apartment and was leaving me. I snapped and attacked her,' he says gently shaking his head.
'Thankfully she wasn't hurt but I was found guilty of attempted murder.
'This prison is much better for me because now with access to a computer and the internet I can continue the sociology dissertation I was writing before I was arrested.
'I get released in January and I feel I'll be much better prepared to go back into real society. I've already been given back many of the freedoms and responsibilities that I'll have to deal with on the outside.'
The ferry arriving in Bastoy
From Monday to Friday, he says, inmates are responsible for getting up in time to have breakfast, make themselves a packed lunch and be at their place of work by 8.30am. The working day ends at 2.30pm and 'dinner' is then served at 2.45pm in the main hall. The inmates are then free to do whatever they like until 11pm when they must be back in their living quarters.
The angry whine of chainsaws grows steadily louder as we pull up outside Bastoy's team of six forestry workers busily chopping logs for sale on the mainland. Sigurd explains that prisoners generally choose their area of work, which can be based on previously learned skills or the desire to acquire new ones.
The range of jobs available includes farming animals and crops, ferry working, fishing, DIY, laundry, mechanics and rubbish collecting; the prisoners are paid an average of 57 kronas (£6.50) a day.
Peter, 28, a Dutch truck driver sentenced to six years for smuggling 150kg of hashish in his lorry from the Netherlands, takes a break from his work as the team's tractor driver.
'In closed prison I was locked up for 23 hours a day, so I'm really happy with this job. I am treated very well here and in return I will treat them very well also. Of course it's never nice being in any prison but it could be much, much worse.'
With 120 inmates and 70 staff (35 of whom are guards) Bastoy is Norway's largest low-security prison but it is one of four others dotted around the country. The governor claims that it is his goal of self-sufficiency that both creates jobs for prisoners and provides them with a common purpose.
'The prison is self-sustaining and as green as possible in terms of recycling, solar panels and using horses instead of cars. It means that the inmates have plenty to do and plenty of contact with nature - the farm animals, wildlife, the fresh air and sea. We try to teach inmates that they are part of their environment and that if you harm nature or your fellow man it comes back to you.'
He adds that a significant advantage of the ecological approach is that due to low staffing levels and producing their own food and fuel, Bastoy is actually the cheapest prison to run in the whole of Norway.
'We have a price for each prison bed in this country and we are much cheaper to run than a conventional closed prison.'
A prisoner serving 12 years for drugs offences refurbishes the cottage where he lives
The cost will be of some consolation to those who think the prisoners are having it too easy. Fifty-year-old Gunnar Sorbye, who is not an inmate but has commuted to the island every day for the past five years as the head of the carpentry, plumbing and DIY division, believes there are other consolations. Under him a team of nine prisoners learns the skills he teaches while maintaining the buildings on the island.
'If I was told that my new neighbours were going to be newly released prisoners I would far rather they had spent the last years of their sentence working in Bastoy than rotting in a conventional prison,' he says.
'I have never really felt like I am working in a prison, and nor have I ever felt the slightest bit threatened here. I think most Norwegians increasingly realise that closed prisons are the old-fashioned way of dealing with criminals and that in terms of rehabilitation they simply don't work.'
Sigurd shows me around the visiting block, which also houses the nurse, the priest, the dentist, the physiotherapist and a creche for small children. Prisoners are allowed at least one three-hour visit a week, and as is the case across the whole Norwegian prison system,' intimate relations' with visitors are also allowed. Inmates with young children are allowed day-long visits from their wives and girlfriends.
There are cardinal rules, however, even on Bastoy - no violence, no alcohol, no drugs. Should a prisoner break any of these then there are two small, well-hidden, spartan cells with heavy steel doors and blacked-out windows where they are held before being taken back to a closed prison. Sigurd tells me this place was last used two years ago for a prisoner found with alcohol in his room.
According to the governor, the principles upon which Bastoy are based can be traced back to a mixture of theories on psychology, sociology and ecology which emerged from the heady hothouse of early Seventies West Coast American academia. But the origins are even older.
'I very often quote the old North American Indian, Chief Seattle from 1854,' he grins sagely, 'Man does not weave the web of life - he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.'
We visit Fred, a 55-year-old former amphetamine dealer and now a shepherd, who proudly shows off his new lamb.
'It's a very, very nice place to do a sentence,' he beams.
A sunbed for inmates
Next door, the cattle herder Frank, 48, a former bank worker who wrote cheques to himself, shows us his new calves. In the laundry house, 36-year-old burly bank robber Espen is busily pressing floral bed sheets.
'I grew up in an orphan house and started crime at the age of 15,' he tells me through a cloud of steam.
'I've spent 13 years in different closed prisons but a friend told me about Bastoy, so I applied to come here. It is an extraordinary place to work and learn in. For the first time in my life I feel motivated and I believe in myself - I really believe I can break my circle of crime.'
At ten past three the ferry returns to what, by contrast, seems a drab mainland. Behind us only four guards will remain for the night to oversee the 120 inmates. I'm joined on deck by the governor who is also heading home and in chatty mood.
'Because of Bastoy's results the Norwegian government is currently changing the law so that people who receive a sentence of up to four years can serve their whole sentence in a prison like this,' he tells me.
'Don't get me wrong. There will always be a need for conventional high-security prisons for people who are simply too damaged. But those people are few and far between.
'I believe the UK is going in the wrong direction - down a completely mad and hopeless path, because you still insist on revenge by putting people into harsh prison conditions which harm them mentally and they leave a worse threat to society than when they entered.
'This system actually has nothing to do with Norway specifically or this island, so I see absolutely no reason why it can't be adopted in the UK.'
Whatever you think of Nilsen - deluded do-gooding hippy, boss of a kind of Butlin's for bad boys or just perhaps a visionary genius, Bastoy's results, like the prisoners, the guards and indeed the governor, have an unsettling way of speaking for themselves.
Norway's controversial 'cushy prison' experiment - could it catch on in the UK?
Can a prison possibly justify treating its inmates with saunas, sunbeds and deckchairs if that prison has the lowest reo ffending rate in Europe? Live reports from Norway on the penal system that runs contrary to all our instincts - but achieves everything we could wish for
An inmate convicted of murder sunbathes outside the wooden cottage where he lives at Bastoy Prison, Norway's only island prisonOn a clear, bright morning in the tranquil, coastal town of Horten, just south of Oslo, a small ferry slides punctually into harbour. I am to take a short boat ride to the sunlit, green island of Bastoy shimmering on the horizon less than two miles away. It is a curious place. There are no secluded holiday homes or elegant hotels with moorings for passing yachts. The 120 people who live there never visit the mainland, but then why would they?
They spend their days happily winding around the network of paths that snake through the pine forests, or swimming and fishing along the five miles of pebble beaches, or playing on the tennis courts and football pitch; and recuperating later on sunbeds and in a sauna, a cinema room, a band rehearsal room and expansive library.
Their commune has handsomely furnished bungalows with cable TV. The residents eat together in an attractively spacious canteen thoughtfully decorated with Norwegian art. The centrepiece is a striking 10ft long model of a Norwegian merchant ship.
If it sounds like an oddball Scandinavian social experiment, you'd be right. Bastoy is home to Norway's only island prison. I am here to scrutinise its hugely controversial approach to crime and punishment, and to do so with some knowledge; the last time I set foot in a prison was as a foolish 23-year-old man.
The former lighthouse, now used by prison workers as a holiday retreat. The inmates of Bastoy are no small-time villains on their first custodial sentenceAfter my law degree, with a young man's lust for adventure, I ended up in a notoriously harsh prison in Nepal. Through crass stupidity I tried unlawfully to bring gold into the country. I wasn't in for long but the experience terrified me, which was all I needed to get my life in order. That, to me, is the purpose of a prison. Bastoy is the polar opposite.
On board the ferry I am greeted by a shaven-headed prison guard, Sigurd Fredericke, who is my guide and protector for the day.
'Don't worry,' he grins, shaking my hand with a reassuringly vice-like grip.
'Bastoy is not like any other prison you know.'
He pauses, looking furtively around the boat.
'You see that man there,' he whispers, pointing discreetly at one of the three uniformed ferry workers, 'he's one of our inmates - a murderer.'
As we chug ever nearer, and the outline of an old church steeple rises above a backdrop of pristine pines, it becomes clear that Sigurd is absolutely right.
Slowly, the idyllic sight of what appears to be a quaint Norwegian village reveals itself, complete with cosy cottages, dirt roads and even horses and carts.
The first person we see on the island, on a wooden verandah outside a modern bungalow, is a man in swimming trunks stretched out on a sun lounger. Nils is 36. He was given a 16-year sentence for shooting dead a fellow amphetamine smuggler over an unpaid debt. Now he's relaxing between his shifts as a ferry worker.
The prison library. With 120 inmates and 70 staff (35 of whom are guards) Bastoy is Norway's largest low-security prison but it is one of four others dotted around the country'I spent eight-and-a-half years in a closed prison before moving here nine months ago and I'm much happier now,' he says, stating the obvious.
'I immediately trained to be a ferry worker. I'm going on a maritime course at university. I want to be a commercial captain when I get out. Normally all you leave prison with is two bin bags of clothes. It's like your life has been on pause. You just go on with all the bad habits you had before you went in.'
For many of us in Britain the idea of allowing a convicted murderer the freedom to work and mix openly with non-criminals is anathema. It offends our deeply ingrained ideas about prisons as a place of punishment and as a deterrent to possible offenders.
When he recently claimed of offenders that it was 'just very, very bad value for taxpayers' money to keep banging them up and warehousing them in overcrowded prisons where most of them get toughened up', our current Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice Kenneth Clarke was widely harangued for his progressive views.
A recent opinion poll showed the British public wants harsher prison conditions; they don't agree with the Government's response to over-population and reoffending by pushing through far-reaching reforms which emphasise shorter sentences while placing prisoners in a working environment.
And yet, an extensive new study undertaken by researchers across all the Nordic countries reveals that the reoffending average across Europe is about 70-75 per cent. In Denmark, Sweden and Finland, the average is 30 per cent. In Norway it is 20 per cent. Thus Bastoy, at just 16 per cent, has the lowest reoffending rate in Europe.
A prisoner in the bicycle repair workshopOf course, Norway is one of the wealthiest, most sparsely populated and most stable countries in the world, with a population of just five million, and a prison population fluctuating around 3,500 inmates, the lowest percentage in Europe apart from Iceland; surely a special case.
Even so, whatever is happening here may be condemned, but cannot be ignored. Indeed, it is being positively embraced here - Norway is planning to build more prisons like Bastoy. At the expense of our own deep-seated unease, and with the possible benefits of safer streets, dare we ever contemplate such a prison regime in the UK?
What is sure is that the inmates of Bastoy are no small-time villains on their first custodial sentence.
Once on dry land, we climb onto one of the waiting horse-drawn carts and with a shake of the reins, the driver moves off.
Lars Ulmann, 48, is a jovial former amphetamine smuggler serving five years. He begins our climb up the winding road towards the church. On the way Sigurd reveals that having previously worked as a guard in one of Norway's conventional 'closed' prisons, he left six years ago to pursue a career as a property developer. Despite the big salary, car and office, three years later he jumped at the chance when his former boss offered him a job on Bastoy.
'Working here is much more rewarding than being a property developer or a conventional prison guard,' he explains, 'because not only do the prisoners have much more freedom and responsibility, the guards do too.'
A group of inmates is raking leaves in the church grounds as we pull up outside an old white administration building. In terms of food and décor, its canteen alone could pass for a trendy London restaurant. Upstairs in his neat office, the prison governor, Arne Kvernvik Nilsen, is keen to explain what this bizarre place is all about.
An inmate working the prison kitchen. From Monday to Friday, inmates are responsible for getting up in time to have breakfast, make themselves a packed lunch and be at their place of work by 8.30am'I believe that we as human beings, if we are prepared to make fundamental changes in the way we regard crime and punishment, can dramatically improve the rehabilitation of prisoners and thereby reduce the reoffending rates,' he says.
'Bastoy is an ongoing experiment, but I really hope the results will benefit not only Norway but the UK, Europe and the rest of the world.'
Nilsen's impressive qualifications for the job are matched by a passionate, almost evangelical zeal for what is clearly a very personal and heartfelt mission. A qualified and practising psychotherapist (specialising in the Gestalt school, which emphasises personal responsibility) Nilsen worked in the UK for a year as Lewes prison's chaplain before returning to Norway and working his way up through the probationary services. After 12 years working for the Correctional Services Department of Norway's Ministry Of Justice, he took up the post of Bastoy's new governor in 2007.
He goes on to explain that because the Norwegian penal system has no death penalty or life terms and a maximum sentence of just 21 years, Norwegian society is forced to confront the fact that most prisoners, however heinous their crimes, will one day be released back into society. As a result by far the most significant statistic for Nilsen and Norway's law-abiding citizens is that of reoffending rates.
'Both society and the individual simply have to put aside their desire for revenge, and stop focusing on prisons as places of punishment and pain. Depriving a person of their freedom for a period of time is sufficient punishment in itself without any need whatsoever for harsh prison conditions.
'Bastoy takes the opposite approach to a conventional prison where prisoners are given no responsibility, locked up, fed and treated like animals and eventually end up behaving like animals.
'Here you are given personal responsibility and a job and asked to deal with all the challenges that entails. It is an arena in which the mind can heal, allowing prisoners to gain self-confidence, establish respect for themselves and in so doing respect for others too.'
Outdoor phone booths, which are used by the prisonersThere are no cells, bars, guns, truncheons or CCTV cameras here. Bearing in mind that among those housed here are murderers and other violent offenders, it's slightly unnerving that they have access to knives, axes and even chainsaws for their various jobs on what is trumpeted as the world's first self-sustaining 'Ecological Prison.'
'I have not had one violent incident here,' the governor continues. 'One inmate did manage to escape by stealing a fishing boat one night, and his punishment was to be sent back to a closed prison.'
Downstairs it's time for midday lunch - chicken risotto (from Bastoy's expansive chicken shed), cold meats and cheese and a wide variety of salads. All the food is prepared and served by the kitchen's inmates who then sit down and eat alongside the guards, administrative staff and even the governor in the canteen.
Back in the horse and cart we climb uphill to one of two18-bedroom houses where newcomers undergo an introductory week of 'living training' (learning how to make food and clean rooms) before gradually dispersing as spaces become available in some of the more private and spacious houses scattered around.
Outside Number 52 Bjorn Andersen, a former sociology researcher who arrived at Bastoy last week after three years in a closed prison, is having a cigarette break.
'I was married to a nice girl for 20 years and we have five kids but in 2008 she came to me and said she had secretly bought a new apartment and was leaving me. I snapped and attacked her,' he says gently shaking his head.
'Thankfully she wasn't hurt but I was found guilty of attempted murder.
'This prison is much better for me because now with access to a computer and the internet I can continue the sociology dissertation I was writing before I was arrested.
'I get released in January and I feel I'll be much better prepared to go back into real society. I've already been given back many of the freedoms and responsibilities that I'll have to deal with on the outside.'
The ferry arriving in BastoyFrom Monday to Friday, he says, inmates are responsible for getting up in time to have breakfast, make themselves a packed lunch and be at their place of work by 8.30am. The working day ends at 2.30pm and 'dinner' is then served at 2.45pm in the main hall. The inmates are then free to do whatever they like until 11pm when they must be back in their living quarters.
The angry whine of chainsaws grows steadily louder as we pull up outside Bastoy's team of six forestry workers busily chopping logs for sale on the mainland. Sigurd explains that prisoners generally choose their area of work, which can be based on previously learned skills or the desire to acquire new ones.
The range of jobs available includes farming animals and crops, ferry working, fishing, DIY, laundry, mechanics and rubbish collecting; the prisoners are paid an average of 57 kronas (£6.50) a day.
Peter, 28, a Dutch truck driver sentenced to six years for smuggling 150kg of hashish in his lorry from the Netherlands, takes a break from his work as the team's tractor driver.
'In closed prison I was locked up for 23 hours a day, so I'm really happy with this job. I am treated very well here and in return I will treat them very well also. Of course it's never nice being in any prison but it could be much, much worse.'
With 120 inmates and 70 staff (35 of whom are guards) Bastoy is Norway's largest low-security prison but it is one of four others dotted around the country. The governor claims that it is his goal of self-sufficiency that both creates jobs for prisoners and provides them with a common purpose.
'The prison is self-sustaining and as green as possible in terms of recycling, solar panels and using horses instead of cars. It means that the inmates have plenty to do and plenty of contact with nature - the farm animals, wildlife, the fresh air and sea. We try to teach inmates that they are part of their environment and that if you harm nature or your fellow man it comes back to you.'
He adds that a significant advantage of the ecological approach is that due to low staffing levels and producing their own food and fuel, Bastoy is actually the cheapest prison to run in the whole of Norway.
'We have a price for each prison bed in this country and we are much cheaper to run than a conventional closed prison.'
A prisoner serving 12 years for drugs offences refurbishes the cottage where he livesThe cost will be of some consolation to those who think the prisoners are having it too easy. Fifty-year-old Gunnar Sorbye, who is not an inmate but has commuted to the island every day for the past five years as the head of the carpentry, plumbing and DIY division, believes there are other consolations. Under him a team of nine prisoners learns the skills he teaches while maintaining the buildings on the island.
'If I was told that my new neighbours were going to be newly released prisoners I would far rather they had spent the last years of their sentence working in Bastoy than rotting in a conventional prison,' he says.
'I have never really felt like I am working in a prison, and nor have I ever felt the slightest bit threatened here. I think most Norwegians increasingly realise that closed prisons are the old-fashioned way of dealing with criminals and that in terms of rehabilitation they simply don't work.'
Sigurd shows me around the visiting block, which also houses the nurse, the priest, the dentist, the physiotherapist and a creche for small children. Prisoners are allowed at least one three-hour visit a week, and as is the case across the whole Norwegian prison system,' intimate relations' with visitors are also allowed. Inmates with young children are allowed day-long visits from their wives and girlfriends.
There are cardinal rules, however, even on Bastoy - no violence, no alcohol, no drugs. Should a prisoner break any of these then there are two small, well-hidden, spartan cells with heavy steel doors and blacked-out windows where they are held before being taken back to a closed prison. Sigurd tells me this place was last used two years ago for a prisoner found with alcohol in his room.
According to the governor, the principles upon which Bastoy are based can be traced back to a mixture of theories on psychology, sociology and ecology which emerged from the heady hothouse of early Seventies West Coast American academia. But the origins are even older.
'I very often quote the old North American Indian, Chief Seattle from 1854,' he grins sagely, 'Man does not weave the web of life - he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.'
We visit Fred, a 55-year-old former amphetamine dealer and now a shepherd, who proudly shows off his new lamb.
'It's a very, very nice place to do a sentence,' he beams.
A sunbed for inmatesNext door, the cattle herder Frank, 48, a former bank worker who wrote cheques to himself, shows us his new calves. In the laundry house, 36-year-old burly bank robber Espen is busily pressing floral bed sheets.
'I grew up in an orphan house and started crime at the age of 15,' he tells me through a cloud of steam.
'I've spent 13 years in different closed prisons but a friend told me about Bastoy, so I applied to come here. It is an extraordinary place to work and learn in. For the first time in my life I feel motivated and I believe in myself - I really believe I can break my circle of crime.'
At ten past three the ferry returns to what, by contrast, seems a drab mainland. Behind us only four guards will remain for the night to oversee the 120 inmates. I'm joined on deck by the governor who is also heading home and in chatty mood.
'Because of Bastoy's results the Norwegian government is currently changing the law so that people who receive a sentence of up to four years can serve their whole sentence in a prison like this,' he tells me.
'Don't get me wrong. There will always be a need for conventional high-security prisons for people who are simply too damaged. But those people are few and far between.
'I believe the UK is going in the wrong direction - down a completely mad and hopeless path, because you still insist on revenge by putting people into harsh prison conditions which harm them mentally and they leave a worse threat to society than when they entered.
'This system actually has nothing to do with Norway specifically or this island, so I see absolutely no reason why it can't be adopted in the UK.'
Whatever you think of Nilsen - deluded do-gooding hippy, boss of a kind of Butlin's for bad boys or just perhaps a visionary genius, Bastoy's results, like the prisoners, the guards and indeed the governor, have an unsettling way of speaking for themselves.
McShane: Daughter's death and divorce to blame for fiddled expenses!
McShane: Daughter's death and divorce to blame for fiddled expenses!
MPs expenses: former Labour minister faces new expenses investigation
Police investigating the expenses of the former Labour minister Denis MacShane have been handed fresh evidence that he over-claimed thousands of pounds for his second home, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
"The mistake occurred in the period immediately following my daughter Clare’s death in a sky-diving accident in Australia and in the aftermath of a divorce with all its attendant difficulties of moving homes".
MPs expenses: former Labour minister faces new expenses investigation
Police investigating the expenses of the former Labour minister Denis MacShane have been handed fresh evidence that he over-claimed thousands of pounds for his second home, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
"The mistake occurred in the period immediately following my daughter Clare’s death in a sky-diving accident in Australia and in the aftermath of a divorce with all its attendant difficulties of moving homes".
Monday, June 20, 2011
Carole Caplin libel case given the go-ahead
Carole Caplin libel case given the go-ahead
A libel case brought by Cherie Blair's lifestyle guru Carole Caplin over her alleged portrayal as ''some sort of sexpot or randy masseuse'' got the go-ahead today.
Telegraph report.
Read the full court judgment here.
Did Tony and Cherie Blair have a super injunction?
A libel case brought by Cherie Blair's lifestyle guru Carole Caplin over her alleged portrayal as ''some sort of sexpot or randy masseuse'' got the go-ahead today.
Telegraph report.
Read the full court judgment here.
Did Tony and Cherie Blair have a super injunction?
Jersey City and prisoners votes
Jersey City and prisoners votes
New Jersey can start by decentralizing state legislative power, as I just noted. It can promote aggressive, government-sponsored voter registration through full compliance with the National Voter Registration Act. It can adopt Early Voting and/or Election Day Voting Registration to increase access to the ballot. It can break the stranglehold of the two-party system in the state, or at least diminish the dominant slating power that the parties currently exercise. It can stop the outrageous, discriminatory and undemocratic practice of depriving the vote to persons with felony convictions — in Vermont, Maine, Canada, Puerto Rico, Israel and South Africa, prisoners vote from their cells. And it can readjust the Census count of prisoners for redistricting purposes to have them counted as residents of their home districts and not the districts in Gloucester County where prisons are located, for example. It can consider non-citizen voting in very local elections for school boards and/or city councils. In short, it can be a leader in expanding the electorate, a leader in democracy.
New Jersey can start by decentralizing state legislative power, as I just noted. It can promote aggressive, government-sponsored voter registration through full compliance with the National Voter Registration Act. It can adopt Early Voting and/or Election Day Voting Registration to increase access to the ballot. It can break the stranglehold of the two-party system in the state, or at least diminish the dominant slating power that the parties currently exercise. It can stop the outrageous, discriminatory and undemocratic practice of depriving the vote to persons with felony convictions — in Vermont, Maine, Canada, Puerto Rico, Israel and South Africa, prisoners vote from their cells. And it can readjust the Census count of prisoners for redistricting purposes to have them counted as residents of their home districts and not the districts in Gloucester County where prisons are located, for example. It can consider non-citizen voting in very local elections for school boards and/or city councils. In short, it can be a leader in expanding the electorate, a leader in democracy.
Gyrfalcons are 'secret seabirds'
Gyrfalcons are 'secret seabirds'
By Matt Walker Editor, BBC Nature
Ice lover and ocean wanderer
The world's largest falcon, the fast, taloned gyrfalcon, is a secret seabird, scientists have discovered.
Gyrfalcons living in the high Arctic overwinter out at sea, spending long periods living and hunting on pack ice.
It is the first time any falcon species has been found regularly living at sea.
The birds likely rest on the ice and hunt other seabirds such as gulls and guillemots, over what appears to be one of the largest winter ranges yet documented for any raptor.
By Matt Walker Editor, BBC Nature
Ice lover and ocean wandererThe world's largest falcon, the fast, taloned gyrfalcon, is a secret seabird, scientists have discovered.
Gyrfalcons living in the high Arctic overwinter out at sea, spending long periods living and hunting on pack ice.
It is the first time any falcon species has been found regularly living at sea.
The birds likely rest on the ice and hunt other seabirds such as gulls and guillemots, over what appears to be one of the largest winter ranges yet documented for any raptor.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
HoC Political and Constitutional Reform Committee
HoC Political and Constitutional Reform Committee
HOUSE OF COMMONS
ORAL EVIDENCE
TAKEN BEFORE THE
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee
UK Bill of Rights Commission
THURSday 9 June 2011
Sir Leigh Lewis KCB
Anthony Speaight QC
Evidence heard in Public Questions 1 - 51
Wilson Room
Meeting started on Thursday 16 June at 10.03am ended at 12.08pm
UK Bill of Rights Commission
Witnesses
1. Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC
2. Martin Howe QC
3. Professor Philippe Sands QC
4. Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws QC
Written evidence submitted by Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky
HOUSE OF COMMONS
ORAL EVIDENCE
TAKEN BEFORE THE
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee
UK Bill of Rights Commission
THURSday 9 June 2011
Sir Leigh Lewis KCB
Anthony Speaight QC
Evidence heard in Public Questions 1 - 51
Wilson Room
Meeting started on Thursday 16 June at 10.03am ended at 12.08pm
UK Bill of Rights Commission
Witnesses
1. Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC
2. Martin Howe QC
3. Professor Philippe Sands QC
4. Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws QC
Written evidence submitted by Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky
Manchester chip litter killer Stuart Aherne found hanging
Manchester chip litter killer Stuart Aherne found hanging
A man jailed for life for stabbing a woman who asked him to pick up his litter has died after being found hanging in his cell.
Aherne was a teenager when he carried out the attack
Stuart Aherne was 18 when he killed Jean Ryder, 45, in Wythenshawe, Manchester, in 2003. He was sentenced to life in prison later that year.
The 26-year-old was found at HMP Lindholme, South Yorkshire, on Saturday morning.
An investigation has begun, the Prison Service said.
Staff attempted to save Aherne but he was pronounced dead 10 minutes later.
He had stabbed Mrs Ryder, later bragging about it to a friend, because she asked him to pick up a chip wrapper he had dropped in the street in February 2003.
Lying face down
She had calmly told him to "pick it up" before he swore at her and told her she should clear it up.
His victim then bent down to pick up the litter and put it in the bin and Aherne stabbed her with a knife engraved with the word "Judge".
Jean Ryder died from a single stab wound to the back
Mrs Ryder, from Baguley, was found lying face down in the street and died in hospital.
Aherne was arrested after he told a friend what had happened while they watched the violent 1972 movie Deliverance.
He was also convicted of a separate wounding charge at Manchester Crown Court, relating to an attack a week before Mrs Ryder's death.
A Prison Service spokesman said: "As with every death in custody, the prisons and probation ombudsman will conduct a full investigation."
A man jailed for life for stabbing a woman who asked him to pick up his litter has died after being found hanging in his cell.
Aherne was a teenager when he carried out the attackStuart Aherne was 18 when he killed Jean Ryder, 45, in Wythenshawe, Manchester, in 2003. He was sentenced to life in prison later that year.
The 26-year-old was found at HMP Lindholme, South Yorkshire, on Saturday morning.
An investigation has begun, the Prison Service said.
Staff attempted to save Aherne but he was pronounced dead 10 minutes later.
He had stabbed Mrs Ryder, later bragging about it to a friend, because she asked him to pick up a chip wrapper he had dropped in the street in February 2003.
Lying face down
She had calmly told him to "pick it up" before he swore at her and told her she should clear it up.
His victim then bent down to pick up the litter and put it in the bin and Aherne stabbed her with a knife engraved with the word "Judge".
Jean Ryder died from a single stab wound to the backMrs Ryder, from Baguley, was found lying face down in the street and died in hospital.
Aherne was arrested after he told a friend what had happened while they watched the violent 1972 movie Deliverance.
He was also convicted of a separate wounding charge at Manchester Crown Court, relating to an attack a week before Mrs Ryder's death.
A Prison Service spokesman said: "As with every death in custody, the prisons and probation ombudsman will conduct a full investigation."
Parliament Square peace campaigner Brian Haw dies
Parliament Square peace campaigner Brian Haw dies
Peace campaigner Brian Haw has died after "a long hard fight" against lung cancer, his family has announced.
Mr Haw, 62, set up a camp in London's Parliament Square in 2001 in protest against UK and US foreign policy.
In March 2011, a High Court ruling obtained by London's mayor forced him to move his camp on to the pavement.
In a statement posted on Mr Haw's website, his family said he had died on 18 June in Germany, where he had been receiving medical treatment.
They said Mr Haw, previously from Redditch, Worcestershire, passed away in his sleep in no pain.
'Courage and determination'
An additional statement on his website from his campaign representatives said: "Brian showed great determination and courage during the many long hard years he led his Peace Campaign in Parliament Square, during which it is well documented that he was relentlessly persecuted by the authorities which eventually took its toll on his health.
"Brian showed the same courage and determination in his battle with cancer. He was keenly aware of and deeply concerned that so many civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine did not have access to the same treatments that were made available to him.
"Parliament, the police, and courts etc, should forever be ashamed of their disgraceful behaviour towards Brian."
Camp battle
Mr Haw set up camp in Parliament Square Gardens on 2 June 2001, in response to sanctions against Iraq. His protest grew broader after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. His camp displayed photos of war victims and hand-written posters with slogans such as "baby killers".
Mr Haw fought a lengthy battle with the authorities to keep his camp in place.
Legislation passed in 2005 banned unauthorised protests within a square mile of Parliament, but a drafting error saw Mr Haw win a legal battle to remain.
In May 2010, Mr Haw was charged with obstructing police during searches of tents on the green. Speaking after a court appearance, he set out his intention to remain in the square for the rest of his life.
"We're there because our country is committing infanticide, genocide, the looting of nations. I'm determined to be there until they kill me. How much longer will that be?"
In March this year, Mayor of London Boris Johnson won a possession order to evict Mr Haw and other campaigners from Parliament Square Gardens, which is owned by the Greater London Authority (GLA).
Mr Haw and many of the protesters subsequently moved on to the pavement - owned by Westminster Council. Westminster Council has been seeking a removal order, on the grounds the camp is obstructing the public highway.
If the council wins its court bid, the camp could be permanently removed.
Peace campaigner Brian Haw has died after "a long hard fight" against lung cancer, his family has announced.
Mr Haw, 62, set up a camp in London's Parliament Square in 2001 in protest against UK and US foreign policy.
In March 2011, a High Court ruling obtained by London's mayor forced him to move his camp on to the pavement.
In a statement posted on Mr Haw's website, his family said he had died on 18 June in Germany, where he had been receiving medical treatment.
They said Mr Haw, previously from Redditch, Worcestershire, passed away in his sleep in no pain.
'Courage and determination'
An additional statement on his website from his campaign representatives said: "Brian showed great determination and courage during the many long hard years he led his Peace Campaign in Parliament Square, during which it is well documented that he was relentlessly persecuted by the authorities which eventually took its toll on his health.
"Brian showed the same courage and determination in his battle with cancer. He was keenly aware of and deeply concerned that so many civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine did not have access to the same treatments that were made available to him.
"Parliament, the police, and courts etc, should forever be ashamed of their disgraceful behaviour towards Brian."
Camp battle
Mr Haw set up camp in Parliament Square Gardens on 2 June 2001, in response to sanctions against Iraq. His protest grew broader after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. His camp displayed photos of war victims and hand-written posters with slogans such as "baby killers".
Mr Haw fought a lengthy battle with the authorities to keep his camp in place.
Legislation passed in 2005 banned unauthorised protests within a square mile of Parliament, but a drafting error saw Mr Haw win a legal battle to remain.
In May 2010, Mr Haw was charged with obstructing police during searches of tents on the green. Speaking after a court appearance, he set out his intention to remain in the square for the rest of his life.
"We're there because our country is committing infanticide, genocide, the looting of nations. I'm determined to be there until they kill me. How much longer will that be?"
In March this year, Mayor of London Boris Johnson won a possession order to evict Mr Haw and other campaigners from Parliament Square Gardens, which is owned by the Greater London Authority (GLA).
Mr Haw and many of the protesters subsequently moved on to the pavement - owned by Westminster Council. Westminster Council has been seeking a removal order, on the grounds the camp is obstructing the public highway.
If the council wins its court bid, the camp could be permanently removed.
Paroled lifers pose high risk of new crimes
Paroled lifers pose high risk of new crimes
Serious offenders often back in jail in 3 years, review finds
The Boston Globe
By Michael Rezendes
Globe Staff / June 19, 2011
Inmate James Allen
More than a third of the most serious criminal offenders paroled in Massachusetts over the past five years were returned to prison for committing new crimes or violating the conditions of their release, a Globe review has found, raising questions about the public risk posed by granting early release to scores of convicted murderers, as well as the state’s ability to supervise violent criminals on parole.
The Globe analysis, undertaken after last December’s fatal shooting of a Woburn police officer by a career criminal on parole from a life sentence, found that the Parole Board freed 201 prisoners serving 15 years to life from January 2006 through December 2010.
Thirty of the parolees, or 14.9 percent, were returned to prison after being accused of committing new crimes, including murder and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, as well as less serious offenses such as assault and drunken driv ing. An additional 39, or 19.4 percent, were sent back because of parole violations such as failing a drug test.
The 34.3 percent reincarceration rate goes directly to the question the Parole Board could not answer after the shooting death of Woburn officer John Maguire last winter: How often do Parole Board decisions to release serious criminals go awry, resulting in new threats to the public? Was paroled lifer Domenic Cinelli’s murderous rampage an anomaly or part of a pattern?
The Globe analysis also appears to contradict a widely held belief in criminal justice circles: that lifers are less likely than other parolees to return to prison because they tend to be older and face the risk of resuming a life sentence if they violate the conditions of their release.
In fact, in 2009, Massachusetts lifers returned to prison more often than parolees convicted of lesser offenses, based on a Parole Board study that found that 22 percent of non-lifers on parole returned to prison.
Josh Wall, the newly installed chairman of the Massachusetts Parole Board, said the Globe’s findings reflect an urgent need for change in the decision-making process used by board members when considering parole applications from violent criminals. He said the board has approved parole for about one-third of the lifers who applied in recent years, but that rate is likely to drop as it adopts newly written guidelines and more rigorous standards.
“People who are serving a life sentence who come before the Parole Board assure the Parole Board that they will not commit any new crimes and will obey all the conditions of parole,’’ Wall said. “As we see, 35 percent of those lifers who received parole were unsuccessful in completing those promises. That rate is too high.’’
Wall also said the board will begin tracking the return rate for paroled lifers and improve its collection of information on all parolees — an area in which Massachusetts is severely lacking, especially in comparison with states such as New York. The goal is to improve decision-making on individual parole applications as well as general policy-making. “It’s a record that should be kept,’’ he said, referring to the return rate for lifers. “And it will be maintained going forward.’’
In the course of its review, the Globe found a number of Parole Board decisions that resulted in the release of repeat, violent criminals who committed serious new crimes once they were paroled. In addition to Cinelli, who was released in 2008 on a unanimous vote, they include:
■ Edward Corliss. A repeat offender, Corliss began serving a second-degree murder sentence in 1974 for killing a store clerk after escaping from prison for previous crimes. He was paroled in 2006 and, three years later, fatally shot another store clerk while holding up a Jamaica Plain food shop, according to authorities. He is currently awaiting trial for murder.
■ Gerald Hill. Convicted of taking part in two slayings, including the murder of an oil delivery man during the Blizzard of 1978, Hill was released from prison in September 2009. Only 67 days later, he was arrested and accused of pistol-whipping a taxi dispatcher and making off with $20,000. His parole has been revoked.
■ Emmett Snow. Also convicted of two murders — one of them committed as a juvenile — Snow was initially paroled from a life sentence in 2004. While on parole, he was jailed for his role in a credit card scam and released again, only to be returned to prison in 2008 after Boston police arrested him on charges of drug possession. A year later, the Parole Board voted to release him yet again. But Wall moved to rescind that vote earlier this year after he found that Snow had been cited for carrying a weapon behind bars.
Other paroled lifers who ended up back in prison appeared to make genuine attempts to forge new lives before they reoffended by committing less serious crimes.
Mark Jones, for instance, seemed to make progress after the board paroled him in 2006, nearly 25 years after he was convicted of second-degree murder for his role in a Roxbury shooting when he was a teenager.
Jones married and found work at a Home Depot and later as an ambulance driver and a cabbie, and began building a new life, primarily in Lynn. But his marriage foundered as he and his wife fought and finally separated. Jones also failed a urine test that detected marijuana use — an infraction that could have landed him back in prison.
Jones’s parole officer and the officer’s supervisor gave him another chance. But Jones and his estranged wife had another argument, this time over a car she was using, that culminated when Jones punctured the tires of the vehicle. He has been back in prison ever since.
Jones, who is now 49, said he did not blame the Parole Board for returning him to prison. But he also said that, if paroled again, he would attempt to begin his freedom under the supervision of a sponsoring organization such as a church that might provide more help than a parole officer is able to give.
“You know how to live out there, and I don’t,’’ he said. “I don’t have nobody to teach me, and I keep making bad choices.’’
Some advocates say that the reincarceration rate for lifers in Massachusetts is not alarming, noting that most went back to jail for violating the terms of their release, while only 15 percent committed new crimes.
“The fact that only 30 people were returned for new crimes is a fantastic number and speaks well of parole as a public safety measure,’’ said Leslie Walker, executive director of Prisoners’ Legal Services, which provides legal services for inmates.
But Wall, a veteran prosecutor who was Governor Deval Patrick’s pick to revamp the Parole Board in the wake of the Cinelli case, said minor criminal offenses or technical violations of parole, such as failing a drug or alcohol test, can be precursors to more serious, violent crimes.
“If you know the initial offense, most likely a murder, was committed while drinking, the failure to pass a urine test is more serious than it might be for a parolee whose initial offense was larceny,’’ he said.
Overall, the rate of reincarceration for Massachusetts lifers appears relatively high, at least when compared with New York State, which has tracked murderers and other offenders on parole for decades.
Only 19.1 percent of the 1,480 convicted murderers paroled from 1986 to 2006 in New York were returned to prison. In addition, only 2.6 percent were returned for committing new crimes, while 16.6 percent were sent back to prison for committing technical violations of their parole.
The reason for the difference between the states is hard to discern, complicated by the Massachusetts Parole Board’s failure to keep detailed data on recidivism.
Peter Cutler, spokesman for New York’s Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, attributed the low return rate in his state to a comprehensive effort to assess every inmate’s shortcomings when they enter prison, along with mandatory treatment and job training designed to prepare them for life outside of prison.
On the other hand, the return rate for Massachusetts lifers is lower than the return rate for all state prison inmates, including those who completed shorter sentences and those released with no post-prison supervision.
A recent study by the Pew Center on the States, a nonprofit public policy research organization, found that 43.3 percent of people released from the nation’s prisons in 2004 were reincarcerated within three years. But many state prison inmates — more than a third in Massachusetts in 2009 — are released after serving their sentence without any requirement that they check in with authorities to make sure they’re not getting into trouble again.
Theoretically, at least, inmates who leave prison under supervision ought to have a much lower recidivism rate than those who do not.
For decades, Massachusetts has used parole as a means of rewarding inmates’ good behavior and as a relief valve for the state’s perpetually overcrowded prisons — a system designed to house about 8,000 inmates, but now home to about 11,500.
But, earlier this year, the Massachusetts Parole Board temporarily halted parole hearings for lifers after the shooting of police officer Maguire by Cinelli, a career criminal, on the day after Christmas. Cinelli also was killed in the shootout.
Amid a public outcry, Patrick accepted the resignations of five Parole Board members while vowing to reform the system for granting early release to repeat, violent criminals.
Today, 2,100 former inmates are on parole in Massachusetts, 340 of them lifers who must serve at least 15 years before they are even eligible for parole. Once freed, they have to report to a parole officer for the rest of their lives and face the risk of returning to prison even if they’re not convicted of a new crime.
Gerald Hill, the convicted murderer who was accused of assaulting and robbing a taxi dispatcher while on parole, went back to prison even though the charges against him were dropped after a judge tossed out the main evidence on a technicality. But the Parole Board, which is legally permitted to examine suppressed evidence, revoked Hill’s parole and kept him in prison, where he remains today.
In the post-Cinelli world, Patrick and legislators are pushing to make it even harder for violent lifers to win release.
And while the Parole Board recently resumed parole hearings for lifers, Wall warned that it is going to be more difficult for violent offenders to win their freedom under new Parole Board guidelines.
From now on, Wall said, it will not be good enough for a lifer to maintain a good prison record. In addition, the board will consider whether an inmate has been punished sufficiently.
“If you have someone who murdered a child,’’ Wall said, “does that mean that person gets out in 15 years? Is that fit punishment?’’
But Patricia Garin, a defense attorney who helps run a Northeastern University program that provides legal counsel for parole applicants, objected to the notion that Parole Board members would deny parole for a well-behaved inmate just to increase punishment.
“If an inmate does everything right for 15 years, takes every program, and is a model of good behavior, should the Parole Board be able to say, ‘We think you should serve more time’? That’s not how the system is supposed to work,’’ she said.
Garin and other inmate advocates also say that more restrictive parole guidelines could backfire by discouraging accused murderers from pleading guilty to second-degree murder, clogging the courts with expensive murder trials, and by adding to the population of an overcrowded prison system.
But the debate over parole for convicted murderers is often emotional, pitting the families of murder victims against inmates who may have committed their crimes as teenagers, behaved well behind bars, and persuaded the Parole Board that they are ready to live outside prison walls.
Since 2006, Sue Maynard of Lynn has decried the board’s decision to parole Charles Doucette, the man who murdered her brother, Raymond Bufalino. The board paroled Doucette on a divided vote, even though Doucette resisted acknowledging during his Parole Board hearing that he shot Bufalino execution-style.
“He wouldn’t verbally confess until they dragged it out of him,’’ said Maynard, who provided a recording of the hearing to the Globe. “I just don’t get our system.’’
In February, Doucette was arrested on charges of assaulting his girlfriend, dragging her with his car, and warning that he would “put a bullet’’ in her head if she called police. Last month, a jury found him not guilty of the charges, but he remains in custody pending a review by the new Parole Board.
Laurie Myers, president of Community Voices, a group that represents the interests of victims of violent crimes and their families, said that all the legislative proposals to restrict parole for repeat, violent offenders have at least some merit and called for a compromise.
“I’m hoping something will get done sooner rather than later,’’ she said. “This is not something that should go on the back burner.’’
Matt Carroll of the Globe staff contributed to this report. Michael Rezendes can be reached at rezendes@globe.com.
© Copyright 2011 Globe Newspaper Company.
Serious offenders often back in jail in 3 years, review finds
The Boston Globe
By Michael Rezendes
Globe Staff / June 19, 2011
Inmate James Allen More than a third of the most serious criminal offenders paroled in Massachusetts over the past five years were returned to prison for committing new crimes or violating the conditions of their release, a Globe review has found, raising questions about the public risk posed by granting early release to scores of convicted murderers, as well as the state’s ability to supervise violent criminals on parole.
The Globe analysis, undertaken after last December’s fatal shooting of a Woburn police officer by a career criminal on parole from a life sentence, found that the Parole Board freed 201 prisoners serving 15 years to life from January 2006 through December 2010.
Thirty of the parolees, or 14.9 percent, were returned to prison after being accused of committing new crimes, including murder and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, as well as less serious offenses such as assault and drunken driv ing. An additional 39, or 19.4 percent, were sent back because of parole violations such as failing a drug test.
The 34.3 percent reincarceration rate goes directly to the question the Parole Board could not answer after the shooting death of Woburn officer John Maguire last winter: How often do Parole Board decisions to release serious criminals go awry, resulting in new threats to the public? Was paroled lifer Domenic Cinelli’s murderous rampage an anomaly or part of a pattern?
The Globe analysis also appears to contradict a widely held belief in criminal justice circles: that lifers are less likely than other parolees to return to prison because they tend to be older and face the risk of resuming a life sentence if they violate the conditions of their release.
In fact, in 2009, Massachusetts lifers returned to prison more often than parolees convicted of lesser offenses, based on a Parole Board study that found that 22 percent of non-lifers on parole returned to prison.
Josh Wall, the newly installed chairman of the Massachusetts Parole Board, said the Globe’s findings reflect an urgent need for change in the decision-making process used by board members when considering parole applications from violent criminals. He said the board has approved parole for about one-third of the lifers who applied in recent years, but that rate is likely to drop as it adopts newly written guidelines and more rigorous standards.
“People who are serving a life sentence who come before the Parole Board assure the Parole Board that they will not commit any new crimes and will obey all the conditions of parole,’’ Wall said. “As we see, 35 percent of those lifers who received parole were unsuccessful in completing those promises. That rate is too high.’’
Wall also said the board will begin tracking the return rate for paroled lifers and improve its collection of information on all parolees — an area in which Massachusetts is severely lacking, especially in comparison with states such as New York. The goal is to improve decision-making on individual parole applications as well as general policy-making. “It’s a record that should be kept,’’ he said, referring to the return rate for lifers. “And it will be maintained going forward.’’
In the course of its review, the Globe found a number of Parole Board decisions that resulted in the release of repeat, violent criminals who committed serious new crimes once they were paroled. In addition to Cinelli, who was released in 2008 on a unanimous vote, they include:
■ Edward Corliss. A repeat offender, Corliss began serving a second-degree murder sentence in 1974 for killing a store clerk after escaping from prison for previous crimes. He was paroled in 2006 and, three years later, fatally shot another store clerk while holding up a Jamaica Plain food shop, according to authorities. He is currently awaiting trial for murder.
■ Gerald Hill. Convicted of taking part in two slayings, including the murder of an oil delivery man during the Blizzard of 1978, Hill was released from prison in September 2009. Only 67 days later, he was arrested and accused of pistol-whipping a taxi dispatcher and making off with $20,000. His parole has been revoked.
■ Emmett Snow. Also convicted of two murders — one of them committed as a juvenile — Snow was initially paroled from a life sentence in 2004. While on parole, he was jailed for his role in a credit card scam and released again, only to be returned to prison in 2008 after Boston police arrested him on charges of drug possession. A year later, the Parole Board voted to release him yet again. But Wall moved to rescind that vote earlier this year after he found that Snow had been cited for carrying a weapon behind bars.
Other paroled lifers who ended up back in prison appeared to make genuine attempts to forge new lives before they reoffended by committing less serious crimes.
Mark Jones, for instance, seemed to make progress after the board paroled him in 2006, nearly 25 years after he was convicted of second-degree murder for his role in a Roxbury shooting when he was a teenager.
Jones married and found work at a Home Depot and later as an ambulance driver and a cabbie, and began building a new life, primarily in Lynn. But his marriage foundered as he and his wife fought and finally separated. Jones also failed a urine test that detected marijuana use — an infraction that could have landed him back in prison.
Jones’s parole officer and the officer’s supervisor gave him another chance. But Jones and his estranged wife had another argument, this time over a car she was using, that culminated when Jones punctured the tires of the vehicle. He has been back in prison ever since.
Jones, who is now 49, said he did not blame the Parole Board for returning him to prison. But he also said that, if paroled again, he would attempt to begin his freedom under the supervision of a sponsoring organization such as a church that might provide more help than a parole officer is able to give.
“You know how to live out there, and I don’t,’’ he said. “I don’t have nobody to teach me, and I keep making bad choices.’’
Some advocates say that the reincarceration rate for lifers in Massachusetts is not alarming, noting that most went back to jail for violating the terms of their release, while only 15 percent committed new crimes.
“The fact that only 30 people were returned for new crimes is a fantastic number and speaks well of parole as a public safety measure,’’ said Leslie Walker, executive director of Prisoners’ Legal Services, which provides legal services for inmates.
But Wall, a veteran prosecutor who was Governor Deval Patrick’s pick to revamp the Parole Board in the wake of the Cinelli case, said minor criminal offenses or technical violations of parole, such as failing a drug or alcohol test, can be precursors to more serious, violent crimes.
“If you know the initial offense, most likely a murder, was committed while drinking, the failure to pass a urine test is more serious than it might be for a parolee whose initial offense was larceny,’’ he said.
Overall, the rate of reincarceration for Massachusetts lifers appears relatively high, at least when compared with New York State, which has tracked murderers and other offenders on parole for decades.
Only 19.1 percent of the 1,480 convicted murderers paroled from 1986 to 2006 in New York were returned to prison. In addition, only 2.6 percent were returned for committing new crimes, while 16.6 percent were sent back to prison for committing technical violations of their parole.
The reason for the difference between the states is hard to discern, complicated by the Massachusetts Parole Board’s failure to keep detailed data on recidivism.
Peter Cutler, spokesman for New York’s Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, attributed the low return rate in his state to a comprehensive effort to assess every inmate’s shortcomings when they enter prison, along with mandatory treatment and job training designed to prepare them for life outside of prison.
On the other hand, the return rate for Massachusetts lifers is lower than the return rate for all state prison inmates, including those who completed shorter sentences and those released with no post-prison supervision.
A recent study by the Pew Center on the States, a nonprofit public policy research organization, found that 43.3 percent of people released from the nation’s prisons in 2004 were reincarcerated within three years. But many state prison inmates — more than a third in Massachusetts in 2009 — are released after serving their sentence without any requirement that they check in with authorities to make sure they’re not getting into trouble again.
Theoretically, at least, inmates who leave prison under supervision ought to have a much lower recidivism rate than those who do not.
For decades, Massachusetts has used parole as a means of rewarding inmates’ good behavior and as a relief valve for the state’s perpetually overcrowded prisons — a system designed to house about 8,000 inmates, but now home to about 11,500.
But, earlier this year, the Massachusetts Parole Board temporarily halted parole hearings for lifers after the shooting of police officer Maguire by Cinelli, a career criminal, on the day after Christmas. Cinelli also was killed in the shootout.
Amid a public outcry, Patrick accepted the resignations of five Parole Board members while vowing to reform the system for granting early release to repeat, violent criminals.
Today, 2,100 former inmates are on parole in Massachusetts, 340 of them lifers who must serve at least 15 years before they are even eligible for parole. Once freed, they have to report to a parole officer for the rest of their lives and face the risk of returning to prison even if they’re not convicted of a new crime.
Gerald Hill, the convicted murderer who was accused of assaulting and robbing a taxi dispatcher while on parole, went back to prison even though the charges against him were dropped after a judge tossed out the main evidence on a technicality. But the Parole Board, which is legally permitted to examine suppressed evidence, revoked Hill’s parole and kept him in prison, where he remains today.
In the post-Cinelli world, Patrick and legislators are pushing to make it even harder for violent lifers to win release.
And while the Parole Board recently resumed parole hearings for lifers, Wall warned that it is going to be more difficult for violent offenders to win their freedom under new Parole Board guidelines.
From now on, Wall said, it will not be good enough for a lifer to maintain a good prison record. In addition, the board will consider whether an inmate has been punished sufficiently.
“If you have someone who murdered a child,’’ Wall said, “does that mean that person gets out in 15 years? Is that fit punishment?’’
But Patricia Garin, a defense attorney who helps run a Northeastern University program that provides legal counsel for parole applicants, objected to the notion that Parole Board members would deny parole for a well-behaved inmate just to increase punishment.
“If an inmate does everything right for 15 years, takes every program, and is a model of good behavior, should the Parole Board be able to say, ‘We think you should serve more time’? That’s not how the system is supposed to work,’’ she said.
Garin and other inmate advocates also say that more restrictive parole guidelines could backfire by discouraging accused murderers from pleading guilty to second-degree murder, clogging the courts with expensive murder trials, and by adding to the population of an overcrowded prison system.
But the debate over parole for convicted murderers is often emotional, pitting the families of murder victims against inmates who may have committed their crimes as teenagers, behaved well behind bars, and persuaded the Parole Board that they are ready to live outside prison walls.
Since 2006, Sue Maynard of Lynn has decried the board’s decision to parole Charles Doucette, the man who murdered her brother, Raymond Bufalino. The board paroled Doucette on a divided vote, even though Doucette resisted acknowledging during his Parole Board hearing that he shot Bufalino execution-style.
“He wouldn’t verbally confess until they dragged it out of him,’’ said Maynard, who provided a recording of the hearing to the Globe. “I just don’t get our system.’’
In February, Doucette was arrested on charges of assaulting his girlfriend, dragging her with his car, and warning that he would “put a bullet’’ in her head if she called police. Last month, a jury found him not guilty of the charges, but he remains in custody pending a review by the new Parole Board.
Laurie Myers, president of Community Voices, a group that represents the interests of victims of violent crimes and their families, said that all the legislative proposals to restrict parole for repeat, violent offenders have at least some merit and called for a compromise.
“I’m hoping something will get done sooner rather than later,’’ she said. “This is not something that should go on the back burner.’’
Matt Carroll of the Globe staff contributed to this report. Michael Rezendes can be reached at rezendes@globe.com.
© Copyright 2011 Globe Newspaper Company.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Independent libels innocent man!
Independent libels innocent man!
According to The Independent
Government to launch inquiry into 'outdated' cyberstalking laws
Cases of Online Harassment
*Ian Puddick was in court this week for launching an internet campaign (through Twitter, LinkedIn and blogs) against Timothy Haynes after he discovered that the City broker had had a 10-year affair with his wife.
According to the BBC
Puddick cleared of harassing wife's lover on internet
Plumber Ian Puddick has been cleared of internet harassment after tweeting and blogging details of his wife's affair.
Surely the above is not a case of online harassment, and for The Independent to suggest as much amounts to defamation.
According to The Independent
Government to launch inquiry into 'outdated' cyberstalking laws
Cases of Online Harassment
*Ian Puddick was in court this week for launching an internet campaign (through Twitter, LinkedIn and blogs) against Timothy Haynes after he discovered that the City broker had had a 10-year affair with his wife.
According to the BBC
Puddick cleared of harassing wife's lover on internet
Plumber Ian Puddick has been cleared of internet harassment after tweeting and blogging details of his wife's affair.
Surely the above is not a case of online harassment, and for The Independent to suggest as much amounts to defamation.
Friday, June 17, 2011
David Davis big bang theory was in practice a damp squib!
David Davis big bang theory was in practice a damp squib!
Knob head David Davis
"The previous big bang exercise was the vote on prisoner votes. [Davis and Jack Straw tabled the motion that led to the Commons voting to defy the European court of human rights and insist on prisoners not being allowed to vote].
It was plain as a pikestaff what we wanted to do there. We wanted to put the government in a position where it had to have an argument with the European court of human rights over this issue".
The Court has given the UK until October 11 to fully comply.
Knob head David Davis"The previous big bang exercise was the vote on prisoner votes. [Davis and Jack Straw tabled the motion that led to the Commons voting to defy the European court of human rights and insist on prisoners not being allowed to vote].
It was plain as a pikestaff what we wanted to do there. We wanted to put the government in a position where it had to have an argument with the European court of human rights over this issue".
The Court has given the UK until October 11 to fully comply.
Super injunctions under attack
Super injunctions under attack
Thomas Hammarberg, the Council of Europe's commissioner for human rights, has condemned the UK in relation to super injunctions "That means you are not allowed to say there's even been a case about this and I believe that's a violation of expression."
Thomas Hammarberg, the Council of Europe's commissioner for human rights, has condemned the UK in relation to super injunctions "That means you are not allowed to say there's even been a case about this and I believe that's a violation of expression."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)