Political Solutions

 

Political Solutions

Prison Reform:

Make Criminals Really Pay

This idea was offered to politicians by me in 2001. It is now 2007 and our UK prisons are worse than ever. While so many crimes appear to go unsolved it is worrying to note that our prisons are still overcrowded to bursting point. Police and Court jails are being used because there is no room left in conventional prisons. Many crimes appear to be drug related, another topic that I believe deserves separate consideration, but for the purpose of this proposal I would like to ensure that criminals, including those who commit drug related crime, really do pay for their crimes.

Introduction

Tony Blair (Labour Prime Minister 1997 - 2007) stated in 2006 that we were trying to apply 19th century solutions to 21st century problems. Indeed every political party has at some time declared the mantra of 'tough on crime - tough on the causes of crime' for more years than I care to remember. Yet very little has changed over the last 20 years (The Conservatives were in power for 17 years before Labour won in 1997) except that it may be just as well that only twenty percent of crime is solved because there are no prison places left. The UK's two main political parties have had at least 10 years a-piece to do something to bring 21st century solutions to our prison system, which means that you and I, the electorate, have endured more than a life sentence for murder (15 years) where all political parties have had (as Charles Kennedy (Liberal Democrat) put it, a 'poverty of ambition' within Government reform plans. Building more prisons, as has been suggested, is hardly a well thought out plan and letting criminals out of prison early to make space for other criminals is a tacit admission that politicians haven't a clue as to what they can do to regain effective control over our prison system. On the other hand I understand that this particular problem is not confined to the United Kingdom.

Having given the Government 5 years to consider my proposal, and receiving no reply, I am now offering my ideas to the general public. And why not? - especially when you and I are paying dearly for the criminal system as it is now. Think about it. Who pays for the police service? Who pays for the courts, judges, prosecution lawyers etc? Who pays for a criminal to be locked away? Who pays for the reforms that criminals should go through before release? Who pays for the parole officers?

We do!

Isn't it time we made the criminal really pay?

Background

As the world shrinks, in terms of accessibility, travel, communication and the reach of law, there are few places left where lawlessness is allowed to continue without redress. The main cause of crime where lawlessness continues is usually in third world countries where drugs and/or guns rule instead of democratic Government. Occasionally there might be criminal activity over the acquisition of precious gems, metal, oil etc. In the civilised world, however, the most common source of crime is often drug related (which in turn gives rise to gun crime). Clearly this invidious practice of selling death and destruction deserves serious attention towards a solution (see my proposal on drug reform) but for the purpose of this proposal I have confined my comments towards those whom the police have caught and the courts have convicted.

The tax payer spends an extraordinarily large amount of money on law and order. In a TV news report in 2006 it was reported that police detection rates had plummeted from 90% in 1951 to around 20% in 2006. One must surely wonder what would happen to our already overcrowded prisons if the police detection rate was still 90%. In any case one has to agree that the tax payer is hardly getting value for money.

So we pay for the police, and if they are fortunate enough to catch a criminal and prosecute successfully then we - the tax payer - pay bucket loads more for the expense of a trial, conviction, imprisonment, rehabilitation and parole.

And when the criminal has served his sentence we release him, often without any rehabilitation having taken place due to overcrowding and lack of resource, and give him back to society. The criminal record bans him from applying for work in almost every job. Some convictions can be deemed 'spent' after about 7 years but not all. So where does our criminal go? And we, the taxpayer, spend yet more money on benefit claims. Does anyone seriously think that we can afford to let this continue?

Doesn't it seem as though we, the law abiding tax payer, pay so much more than the criminal? If our system helped to reduce crime I could at least gain some feeling of justification for the expense. But the fact remains that our criminal system no longer works and the ordinary law abiding citizen is having to pay for the privilege of running an outmoded, outdated unwieldy and unworkable system. We hear often the trite comment that crime does not pay but I am left wondering, when one considers the expensive system that we are force to sustain, to whom it refers - the criminal or the tax payer?

Proposal

There are two professions that perpetuate expensive court cases within our legal system, namely lawyers and crooks. According to the way our legal system works it is the tax payer who pays for both of them. Our law gives certain rights to people who are charged with an offence. Among the highest of those is the assumption of being innocent until proven guilty. This is only right and proper that we maintain this assumption. But if a person is found guilty (or pleads guilty of course) then the criminal should pay for the cost of police time on that case, his court costs, his prosecution costs, travel to police stations/courts/prison, his prison costs in terms of bed and board, and also his rehabilitation, medication and parole. In short the criminal should pay for all the stuff that we the tax payer would not have had to pay if no crime had been committed in the first place.

No doubt such a bill would run into thousands of pounds. Naturally the criminal would need to pay it through employed work or, indeed, through benefit entitlement. It is already a fact in the UK that benefit customers who fail to follow rules can be sanctioned by up to 40% of their benefit entitlement. In my proposal the criminal should pay 20% of either their benefit entitlement or 10% of their wages if they find a job. The deduction of money can be monitored and maintained by the Inland Revenue (a reduction in personal allowance (lower tax code), perhaps, or at least a deducted from source) through the individual's national insurance number. People without a national insurance number (usually immigrants) should pay as soon as the system concludes that they are entitled to remain and work in this country or if they are not entitled to work they should be deported immediately after their custodial sentence. If such a regime were implemented it might well encourage would-be criminals to think again about committing crime.

In addition to the cost of going through the criminal justice system there should also be consideration for compensation to the victim, who is so often forgotten by everyone. Consideration should be given not just to criminal damage but also harm inflicted on the victim - and in all cases it should be this expense that is paid first. Where a criminal record is acquired that would never be spent (like murder for example) it would seem only proper that reparation to the victim should be reflected in a life-long payment for that crime by the convicted person. No one can bring back the dead but, at the very least, the killer should expect to pay for the remainder of their life. With respect to the next of kin (and most likely with all victim compensation payments) there should be only one payment made by a Government department and the interest added to the criminal's bill of debt to society.

Drug related crimes are, without doubt, embarrassingly common. I am amazed that we do not have a specialist prison dedicated to dealing with criminals who are drug users. Drug addicts will rob and burgle to feed their habit. Therefore it is only sensible that one of the conditions for their release is that they test negative for drug use and are free from their addiction. If a person in prison has failed a test for drugs it means that security isn't working. In addition, taking drugs that were not prescribed whilst in prison would automatically incur a one-year additional jail term to be served immediately. Freedom from addiction, in other words, becomes the primary condition for release. It should also be stressed here that the criminal is also paying, not only for their medication but also for their bed and board. So another avoidable year in prison is a very expensive consequence.

There also needs to be compulsory tests for drug use during an ex-offender's one-year probation period. Failing the test would mean an automatic return to the same specialist prison. Failure to appear for a test would mean an automatic arrest. It might also be sensible to enforce an injunction on the ex-offender, banning him from entering the area he lived in (thereby cutting the ties of known associates, fellow drug users and dealers).

If humanity is to evolve and better -more enlightened - times ahead envisaged, we must believe that people who commit crimes may be capable of feeling remorse and regret for their actions. In return we, as a society prepared to forgive and allow criminals the window of opportunity to put something positive into society, must make it possible for ex-offenders to pursue pathways into work. It is a nonsense to deprive an ex-offender the opportunity to earn an income to support and sustain himself and thereby putting him in poverty where committing further crime becomes more attractive. It also seems ludicrous that we, the tax payer, having paid large amounts of tax payer's money to deprive a criminal of their freedom, then condone the doling out of yet more money on long term benefit payments. Haven't we paid enough?

Employers at present are able to refuse employment to someone with a criminal record, even if the crime committed has no bearing on the job applied for. This practice must be stopped immediately. It would be a pertinent idea for Government to commission, shall we say, the departments responsible for employment and crime, to draw up a graded classification system where certain crimes may have a valid exclusion to certain job opportunities. The crimes of fraud or theft, for example, might be a conviction that excludes an ex-offender from working with money.

In order to protect their business (and that is as it should be) employers would apply to the employment department for permission to exclude ex-offenders of certain types of crime from applying to them for work. This kind of application means that ex-offenders who have not committed the excluded crimes may apply for work in that job (where currently they cannot) without having to declare their criminal record. This action would go some way to level the playing field in terms of equality for ex-offenders who have paid their debt to society for their crime but not as yet for the cost of implementing their punishment. The employer would be entitled to ask a job candidate if they had been convicted of a crime within the category the business is permitted to exclude but not if they had been convicted of a crime within any other category.

I would imagine that even if this idea was adopted and made policy, there would still be some criminals who would re-offend. Therefore it must be considered that ex-offenders who go on to re-offend may, on conviction, possibly incur an expense that far exceeds their ability to pay - even at 10% for life - the amount of money they cost the tax payer by running up bills related to police, courts, prisons, reparation, rehabilitation and probation. In such cases it would not be unreasonable to declare the individual bankrupt and to seize all goods and chattels for auction. Once again, the criminal would not have to meet this expense if he did not offend in the first place.

To be tough on crime we have to make sure that crime does not pay. Even the graffiti artist who is given a £200 fine and 50 hours community service (preferably cleaning off graffiti) should still get the bill for the amount of money he has cost the tax payer and reparation to the victim. His ability to pay the bill is irrelevant. All costs can be recovered through the Inland Revenue. Age is also irrelevant. If the person is old enough to commit the crime, to incur police, youth offenders, prosecution and court costs, he is old enough to pay the bill for it.

This is not an idea that can be implemented in retrospect. All crimes committed before the date of implementation would have to follow the previous system (except for exclusions to employment rules). Under this system the committing of a criminal offence suddenly becomes extremely costly. No longer is there a sigh of relief at the giving of a suspended sentence because ANY guilty verdict will automatically incur costs. Costs should not be transferable; particularly if a minor is found guilty of an offence. Parents may be responsible for many things but the child - who currently thinks he is above the law and believes that an Anti Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) is a status symbol - should be the one who pays the bill. The Inland Revenue will give the young offender a statement annually to show how much money is to be paid back to the tax payer and how much interest is accrued for the equivalent of 10% assuming one year's paid work set at the minimum wage.

Our current prison system clearly does not work and must undergo radical reform in as short a time as possible. All political parties have a responsibility to introduce a system whereby the criminal pays for their crime and not the tax payer. With fewer people committing crimes it may be reasonable to expect the police to, once again, reach a detection rate of 90%. The money saved on court time and prosecution costs alone would probably pay for the specialist prison(s). One would certainly expect that it would be only a matter of time before the revenue reimbursed by the (now working) ex-offender to the treasury would relieve the tax burden on the tax payer.

I challenge any Government (or wannabe Government) to come up with a better idea.

The author is happy to discuss the Prison Reform proposal with interested parties.

END

 

Contact Us