Monday, 22 April 2013

Crime and Choice

A recent exposé about life inside the United States extra-territorial prison complex at Guantanamo (Adams, 2013) raises important questions about crime and punishment. As the unfortunate success of the torture glorification film Zero Dark Thirty shows (Greenwald, 2013), the catharsis to be found in reacting to crime with retribution remains an intoxicatingly popular idea. The problem is that there is no evidence that it works. There is a danger that real problems will go unresolved if legislators give in to the the popular, though unsubstantiated approach, in the name of giving the people what they demand. Further, doing so may only cause more suffering as problems are compounded by new blights created by the ineffective system.

In the UK, high reoffending rates, along with rising numbers of prisoners and a crime rate amongst the highest in Western Europe (Travis & Sparrow, 2010), suggests that a different approach needs to be found. Mr Ken Clarke, the 'liberal conservative' Secretary of State for Justice - before he was moved away from that office in the 2012 cabinet reshuffle - had been working to try and change Britain's prison and sentencing culture (Crook, 2012). The changes he sought to bring in included the improvement of rehabilitation in prisons. Through work and education, along with the tackling of drugs, drink and other social issues, he aimed at reducing the spiralling reoffending rates (Travis & Mulholland, 2010).

However, his departure from the position brought a halt to the UK's pursuit of prison reform.

There is plenty of reason to believe that the UK and other countries should get back on the path to prison reform. Norway is an example that shows us what we need to be working towards: it has amongst the lowest reoffending rates in the world, a small prison population, and all with humane prison conditions (Adams, 2010). Norway's system, a more humane system, while profoundly effective at reforming offenders, would also be less expensive than that employed presently in the UK or the US - where the high cost per inmate means that the high prison population is becoming a serious economic issue.

What stands in the way is the 'ideological criminal'. Most ideologies come pre-packed with perceptions of human beings and their relationships to each other. A problematic part of these dogmas are their inflexible attitudes towards human behaviour - categorising people without regard for individual circumstances: the poor are poor and the rich are rich because that is how that particular societal outlook says that things are (Hickson, 2009). The 'criminal classes' is an old idea. But it is a stigma that has - as crime has been studied more closely - been weakened, with a greater awareness being developed about the complex causes behind individual crimes (Emsley, 2002).

Unfortunately those stigmas can be reinforced by zealous vigilantism. These campaigns start with ordinary people in ordinary communities who want cathartic retribution on those who have caused them fear. But they are turned into something else as they are exploited, used and directed to whip up public pressure behind a particular course or legislative direction - becoming the 'loud voices' in society, demanding more punitive responses and less tolerance (Hancock, 2004).

The failures of extra-judicial terror to stop terrorism, the failure of retribution to stop crime and reoffending, should be telling us that part of the task of overcoming the blight of crime is to start tackling those stigmas that exist in public opinion towards criminals. We must understand and deal with, in an intelligent way, the social aspects to crime - the worlds that offenders come from, the situations, the opportunities - and make our response to crime more than just reaction.

Choice, is an essential aspect of human freedom. It is through the making of choices that we shape and learn our capacity to think reasonably and rationally about the world. So we must be ever vigilant for threats that limit choice. The conditions in which crime proliferates - poverty and squalidness - are a serious threat to choice. If we are to deal with those threats, then we must do more than punish or rehabilitate offenders; we must address the stigmas and falsehoods, and tackle the problems in the worlds that they come from.

==========
References:
==========
+ Tim Adams' 'The General: The Ordinary Man Who Challenged Guantánamo by Ahmed Errachidi – review'; in The Guardian; 7 April 2013.

+ Glenn Greenwald's 'Zero Dark Thirty, the CIA and film critics have a very bad evening'; in The Guardian; 25 February 2013.

+ Alan Travis & Andrew Sparrow's 'Kenneth Clarke hints at prison sentencing reform with attack on 'bang 'em' up culture'; 30 June 2010;

+ Frances Crook's 'We'll miss Ken Clarke as justice secretary - he's saved money and lives'; in the New Statesman; 4 September 2012.

+ Alan Travis & Hélène Mulholland's 'Prison system failing to tackle reoffending, says Ken Clarke'; 7 December 2010;

Halt on prison reform references:
Nicholas Watt's 'New migrants will have to wait a year for legal aid';
Press Association's 'Prisoners may lose legal aid for jail complaints';
Sarah Vine's 'Our justice system is being turned into Profit & Growth plc';
Nicholas Watt's 'Kenneth Clarke defends European court of human rights after Tory attacks';

+ William Lee Adams' 'Sentenced to Serving the Good Life in Norway'; in Time; 12 July 2010.

+ Kevin Hickson's 'Conservatism and the poor: Conservative party attitudes to poverty and inequality since the 1970s'; in British Politics; Palgrave; 2009.

+ Clive Emsley's 'The History of Crime and Crime Control Institutions'; in The Oxford Handbook of Criminology; Oxford University Press; 2002.

+ Lynn Hancock's 'Criminal Justice, Public Opinion, Fear and Popular Politics'; in Student Handbook of Criminal Justice and Criminology; Cavendish; 2004.

-For more on Crime & Rehabilitation
Prison Reform Trust submission to the Ministry of Justice 'Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment,  Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders';
Ministry of Justice 'Compendium of reoffending statistics and analysis';

Monday, 15 April 2013

National Service and Choice

The United Nations was set up in 1945 with an idea, that relations between peoples might be governed by diplomacy rather than war, conflict and violence. Sadly, the United Nations has not managed to bring an end to war. And as war continues, so too does the recruitment of soldiers.

The issue of how the military find their recruits was in the spotlight once more this month, as a refuser of compulsory military service in Israel faced, and received, imprisonment for the 8th time (Sherwood, 2013). Groups such as Amnesty International have protested on the grounds that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects the right to object to military service on the grounds of conscience (Amnesty International, 2013).

This issue is nothing new. Conscription and conscientious objection are age old companions. And for just as long there have been lazy means of waving down those objections. The most sinister being the accusation of cowardice.
'There is one thing that nobody can deny them: and that is courage. The most difficult form of courage in the world. The courage of the individual against the crowd.' (Capt Stephen Gwynn MP, on Conscientious Objectors)
The refusal to fight has never been cowardly. But those myths have always served as a powerful means to manipulate and cajole people into the ranks. And where that will not suffice, there are other words. Words like patriotism, and duty.

It has to be acknowledged as a reality that the military exists, and further that it is considered a political necessity for the completion of certain tasks: the protection of civilians from psychotic warlords not least amongst them. While many nations have reformed their military over time into volunteer-professional forces, many nations still cling to conscription.

By doing so, they also cling to a fundamental infringement of personal freedom: the restriction of choice. Doing so makes it all the more difficult to achieve peace, the very thing that those military forces are used to defend .
'It isn't enough to talk about peace. One must believe in it. And it isn't enough to believe in it. One must work at it.' (Eleanor Roosevelt, 1951)
The only real and stable means of bringing about peace is trust. Trust in diplomacy; trust in freedom; and trust in human beings to pursue the best in themselves. And that means discarding the systems that coerce, manipulate or otherwise take advantage of people - or force them by legal obligation - into paths that they would not otherwise find conscionable.

==========
References:
==========
+ Harriet Sherwood's 'Israel set to jail teenage conscientious objector for eighth time'; in The Guardian; 1 April 2013.

+ Amnesty International's 'Conscript facing jail again for refusing to go against his conscience'; from amnesty.org; 25 March 2013.

+ Ian Hislop's 'Not Forgotten: The Men who Wouldn't Fight'; on Channel 4; 10 November 2008.

+ Eleanor Roosevelt, quote taken from Wikiquote, referenced as Voice of America broadcast; 11 November 1951.

Monday, 8 April 2013

Margaret Thatcher: Demonisation, Empathy and Compassion

The passing of Mrs Margaret Thatcher today, loathed or adored for bringing Rand-esque 'libertarian' conservatism to the British political mainstream, has provoked sharp responses. The former Prime Minister encouraged a small state, limited welfare government which was often accused of a lack of compassion due to its aversion to state intervention.

As such, the outpourings of hate and good riddance can be understood. But, it can be argued, that those outpourings should not be condoned, as argued on Twitter by Johann Hari: 

Joy at the death of even the deadliest foe is a very dangerous road down which to travel. As the glorification of the death of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden provoked some concerned reaction, and the cinematic glorifying of the (inaccurate) role of torture used to discover his location, the British political left should be very wary before getting over excited about the passing of their most symbolic enemy.

It would be easy for opponents of Mrs Thatcher to turn to 'cruel jeering'. But if compassion is something you reserve only for those you call your friends or allies, you are embracing, not rejecting, the selfish ideologies you oppose.