Jump to content

Reducing prisoner re-offending rates


Recommended Posts

There was a prison inspection in 2011, which took a dismal view of the Island's investment in reducing re-offending rates.

 

Has anything changed since then? Was this recommendation followed? It was one of [edited: eight] Main Recommendations made in the report (p77, 10.2)

 

HP54 Concern: There was no island-wide strategy to reduce reoffending and resettlement

activity in the prison was very limited. Consequently, prisoners were not adequately

prepared for release into the community and the risk of harm to the public was not

sufficiently addressed.

 

Recommendation: An Isle of Man reducing reoffending strategy should be

developed, setting out the commitment to resettlement and the agencies

available to respond to the range of prisoners’ needs. A prison reducing

reoffending strategy should be developed as part of this, based on a through

needs analysis, with a detailed action plan and adequate governance

arrangements to ensure progress against priorities.

 

 

I'd be grateful for any informed knowledge of what actions have been taken since this report was issued.

 

 

Source:

www.gov.im/media/55040/prisonreport2011.pdf

 

Other selected quotes:

 

p5, Introduction

Very little was done to address prisoners’ offending behaviour or to help them obtain work and

accommodation when they left the prison, which was necessary if they were to live productive

and law-abiding lives. Prisoners returning to the prison, as they did all too frequently, were

greeted almost as absent friends. The prison’s weaknesses in this area were compounded by

the lack of an island-wide strategy to reduce reoffending. I hope the governor and relevant

parts of the IOM government can work together to address this, as the costs and risks to future

victims of not doing so are likely to be considerable.

 

 

p15, HP36

Resettlement outcomes for prisoners were poor. There was no resettlement needs

analysis or comprehensive resettlement strategy and the governance arrangements

to drive improvement were not well developed. The prison’s approach was further

hindered by the lack of a broader island resettlement strategy. There was no formal

and systematic process for identifying and managing public protection cases.

 

p15, HP37

There was no reducing reoffending strategy in operation on the Isle of Man to which

the prison could contribute.

 

HP49 Concern:

Half the prisoners in our survey said that they had a drug problem when

they came into the prison and 20% said that they had developed a drug problem in

the prison. Forty-eight per cent said that they thought they would have a problem with

drugs when they left the prison.

 

HP52 Concern:

There was a high incidence of mental health and dual mental health and

addiction problems among prisoners. These prisoners were not receiving adequate

support. Mental health services were underdeveloped and poorly coordinated.

Edited by Ceaseless Change
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Don't send people to prison. It should be a total last resort.   Don't cripple people with fines and punishments that put them into a position where they are tempted to break the law. Excessive fine

None of the above (well maybe the first bullet point)   It wasn't effective most people birched in the period from 1948 to the end were convicted of further offences. The recidivism rate was higher

Letter to: Minister of Home Affairs Date: 31/12/2009 Subject: Restorative Justice   QUOTE Dear Minister Please can you advise me on what progress (or otherwise) Gov. (executive and legislature)

The quotes from that report make for shameful reading,it would indeed be interesting to know what remedial actions have been implemented and how effective they are.

 

ETA: Does anyone have a figure for the cost of incarcerating a person at Jurby prison per week? i have heard it is somewhere in the region of £4,000 per week.

Edited by Lisenchuk
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

In last years annual report the DHA gave itself a Green rating, a nice pat on the back, for meeting it's objective of "reduce the risk of re-offending", on the basis that all prisoners now have a "custody and settlement plan", 93% undertook a prison job, and a lot of qualifications were awarded. See page 14.

 

However on page 13, it says that 67.7% of prison leavers, 132 of them that year, were released with "no employment or education opportunities". And 5 of them were "released with no fixed abode".

 

Also, the report provides literally NO data on re-offending rates, despite having an explicit objective to reduce the "risk". How can you give yourself a Green rating when you haven't even measured it? Or perhaps they did measure it and didn't publish the results.... only one reason THAT would ever happen of course.

 

The report says "Offenders leave prison with improved skills and improved chance of employment, leading to a reduced risk of reoffending" - how do they know? If they know it has reduced reoffending, why isn't it in the report?

 

Just because prisoners get qualified inside, or take jobs inside, does NOT mean they won't reoffend. What matters is whether the interventions WORKED. Did they work? The report doesn't even try to answer the question.

 

The recidivism rate is not even a "key performance indicator". Who ever heard of a prison system that didn't track the recidivism rate?!

 

www.gov.im/media/1212286/dha_annual_report_2013-14.pdf

Edited by Ceaseless Change
Link to post
Share on other sites

The quotes from that report make for shameful reading,it would indeed be interesting to know what remedial actions have been implemented and how effective they are.

 

ETA: Does anyone have a figure for the cost of incarcerating a person at Jurby prison per week? i have heard it is somewhere in the region of £4,000 per week.

 

The annual report I linked to above had a 2013/14 expenditure for the Prison + Probation Service (it doesn't separate them) of £8,378,981 for the year (page 6), and an average of 93 prisoners (page 5).

 

So 8,378,981 / 93 / 52 = £1,733 per prisoner per week or £90k per year, but that includes probation costs as well.

Edited by Ceaseless Change
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for highlighting this information. Most of us are vaguely aware of the failings of the penal system as it is operated now but the concerns outlined in the report make for a depressing corroboration - those detained at her Majesty's pleasure, mostly for low level crimes related to their chaotic lifestyles, mental health and addiction problems, lack of education and job prospects, are coming out of prison in no better, and too often, a worse position with regard to these problems than when they went in, and are highly likely to re-offend.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that why the birch was such an effective punishment

 

* Cheap

* Quick - the punishment is associated with the crime in the offenders memory

* Effective - very few offenders were birched more than once

 

The modern approach is more humane, but I wonder if we can afford £1,700 per week per person?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The quotes from that report make for shameful reading,it would indeed be interesting to know what remedial actions have been implemented and how effective they are.

 

ETA: Does anyone have a figure for the cost of incarcerating a person at Jurby prison per week? i have heard it is somewhere in the region of £4,000 per week.

 

The annual report I linked to above had a 2013/14 expenditure for the Prison + Probation Service (it doesn't separate them) of £8,378,981 for the year (page 6), and an average of 93 prisoners (page 5).

 

So 8,378,981 / 93 / 52 = £1,733 per prisoner per week or £90k per year, but that includes probation costs as well.

 

 

>= £1,733 per prisoner per week.

 

Given that, would it not be cheaper to pay the prisoner £1 732/week on their release and make it a condition of continued payment that he/she doesn't reoffend?

 

Thus saving £93 per week (£4836/annum) to the Exchequer.

 

Win/win?

 

TBT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the above (well maybe the first bullet point)

 

It wasn't effective most people birched in the period from 1948 to the end were convicted of further offences. The recidivism rate was higher than the prison recidivism rate now. By that measure of effective it was an abysmal failure. The only punishment with a low recidivism rate is a fine (but that's to do with the demographic of who gets fined) and that is cheaper, the offender pays!

 

It wasn't quick. It had to get to court. That can take forever anyway, and that isn't the fault of advocates. The Law provided that birching couldn't be carried out for 42 days after sentence was imposed. The Courts administered the birch immediately, thereby damaging the rule of law. (Authority ignoring the law/rules)

 

The number birched more than once ran at 5%+ but the recidivism rate was 70% +

 

Birching was not used for thugs who were in their teens and had used violence against the person. In the last period of use the majority of cases were things like 8, 9 and 10 year olds scrumping apples, nicking milk off doorsteps. Seriously. it had no effect at all.

 

NB my Masters Degree research and thesis was on the effect of birching on Manx Crime rates. I've produced the tables I drew up then on here historically and there is a copy ion the Manx Museum library. Do a search.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Make a spell in jail such an horrific experience that the prospect of ever returning would be so terrifying that to repeat offend would be unthinkable.

 

And I really mean it.

 

Living conditions barely above those required for survival and not a single thing to break the monotony of constant punishment by everything from hard labour to periods in the dark and solitary confinement.

 

That would be a more rehabilitating regime than anything else.

 

When a person breaks The Law then The Law should break the person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the above (well maybe the first bullet point)It wasn't effective most people birched in the period from 1948 to the end were convicted of further offences. The recidivism rate was higher than the prison recidivism rate now. By that measure of effective it was an abysmal failure. The only punishment with a low recidivism rate is a fine (but that's to do with the demographic of who gets fined) and that is cheaper, the offender pays!It wasn't quick. It had to get to court. That can take forever anyway, and that isn't the fault of advocates. The Law provided that birching couldn't be carried out for 42 days after sentence was imposed. The Courts administered the birch immediately, thereby damaging the rule of law. (Authority ignoring the law/rules)The number birched more than once ran at 5%+ but the recidivism rate was 70% +Birching was not used for thugs who were in their teens and had used violence against the person. In the last period of use the majority of cases were things like 8, 9 and 10 year olds scrumping apples, nicking milk off doorsteps. Seriously. it had no effect at all.NB my Masters Degree research and thesis was on the effect of birching on Manx Crime rates. I've produced the tables I drew up then on here historically and there is a copy ion the Manx Museum library. Do a search.

Birching worked. It really did. It also offered revenge-by-proxy for those who were victims of scum. Revenge that they could not take or themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Living conditions barely above those required for survival and not a single thing to break the monotony of constant punishment by everything from hard labour to periods in the dark and solitary confinement.

 

That would be a more rehabilitating regime than anything else.

 

When a person breaks The Law then The Law should break the person.

And for those who are framed for wrongdoing? what then?

 

You are beyond me

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...