SOCIETY'S WASHING MACHINES

Saskia Jones and Jack Merritt - victims of Usman Khan

When David Cameron was asked what would be his priority when he was re-elected as Prime Minister in 2015, he replied simply ‘prison reform’.  Well, that all went south because of Brexit and little more than a year later he was replaced by Theresa May and later by Boris Johnson.  Prison reform was forgotten after Brexit and the anti-reform attitude which went with it.

Another nail in its coffin was the recent inquest into those who were killed on London Bridge in 2019.  Briefly, what happened was that two young idealistic people (photos above) were killed by the supposedly reformed terrorist Usman Khan after attending a rehabilitation meeting at nearby Fishmonger’s Hall.  Khan had been given a clean bill of health and promoted as the ‘poster boy’ for prison reform and the deradicalization of extremists. 

The key word here is ‘extremists’.  There is a world of difference between making criminals feel worthwhile members of society who can make a contribution by giving up crime and persuading those who want to destroy western style democracy and replace it with a version of Islamic fundamentalism to see the error of their ways.  Persuading a crook to go straight is one thing, deradicalizing an extremist is another.

Despite the terrible failure of the idea of reforming a radical like Khan after he has been locked up, it is still worth making the effort.  But it is a tough sell.  There are very few votes in prison reform and nominally radical politicians tend to run scared from issues which they feel will lose them votes and make them look weak.

As is often the case, it is the conservative who effects change because he is mindful of his legacy, as Nixon did when he went to China.  Wouldn’t be cool to go down in history as the man who opened up the communist east to the capitalist west, thought Nixon?  Likewise Cameron may well have thought his administration would look good to posterity if prisons were genuinely reformed during his watch.

I have written before about the need for us to have prisons to make society work, my argument being basically that, once you lock the door of your house you are effectively voting for a criminal justice system.  (Go here for that post.)  However, they should not be, as they so often are, universities of crime, rather the washing machines of our society.

When I buy and use a washing machine I expect it to work.  I put in dirty clothes and take them out clean.  If it does not work, I want my money back or at least the machine repaired.  Similarly, if I support sending people to prison, I expect those convicted and sentenced to come out better citizens than when they went in. 

Some hope.  According to the Howard League for Penal Reform there are nearly 80,000 people in prison in Britain at present and there is little sign of that number going down, especially as the government thinks it can win votes by promising longer sentences - such as ten years for defacing a statue.  The League compares the prison system to a river which sweeps away people stuck in the middle of the flow.

In a sensible system, locking up people convicted of a crime and then working hard to help them turn their lives around would be a cause for celebration.  Look, John or Jane has been inside for five years and came out determined to go straight, find a job, reconnect with their families and leave their criminality behind them. They would become contributors to society rather than a drain on resources.

Prisons can be quite a drain.  We spend about £4.4 billion pounds a year in Britain on prisons (not on the justice system) and each prisoner we lock up costs nearly £45,000 annually.  (You could send them to a decent hotel for that.)  Yet the reoffending rates are shockingly high. Nearly 50% of prisoners who have been released are reconvicted within a year and these rates are higher for young and petty offenders.  The washing machine is not working.

Success stories like the (entirely imaginary) ones of John and Jane are not only rare but are widely mistrusted by those who never go to prison.  Talking to prisoners, as I do occasionally when working as a Samaritan, makes you realise what hopeless places they are, yet the appetite for punishment is increasing all the time and our prison population has almost doubled in thirty years from 45,000 to 83,000.

Many ordinary people are sceptical of concepts like prison reform and rehabilitation.  It is widely assumed that all prisoners have fancy flat screen televisions in their cells and can watch anything they want.  In fact, flat screen tvs are the only kind that are made now and access to a limited number of channels depends on good behaviour.  Yet just say ‘flat screen televisions in prison cells’ and people immediately assume that going to prison is like staying in a holiday camp.

In reality, it is often very difficult to get a job if you have time in prison on your cv.  Timpsons, ironically a company that specialises in locks for people's houses, has instituted a successful programme of employing former prisoners and says on its website that:

'The vast majority of ex-offenders we recruit are extremely loyal, productive, hardworking and make excellent colleagues. Many have been promoted and fully grasped the second chance they have been given. To put it simply, recruiting ex-offenders has been great for our business.'

Rather than regarding them as society’s washing machines in which those who have gone wrong can be cleaned up, we are all too happy to see prisons as the rubbish dumps of society, where people are tossed and left to rot.  Yet, as the Timpson story shows, this not need be the case.  Washing machines or rubbish dumps?  We have a long way to go to convince people that prisons can be the former rather than the latter but it is a step well worth taking. 

Edwin Lerner

Go to: https://www.timpson-group.co.uk/timpson-foundation/ex-offenders/ for more on Timpsons.

My other blog is diaryofatouristguide.blogspot.com.