Friday 11 November 2011

A Controversial Suggestion

It's now well over a year since I started writing in earnest about probation and I'm conscious that a degree of repetition may be creeping in. I guess this is an occupational hazard and maybe there is only so much to be said about what is in essence quite a simple concept. 

This post from 22nd October on the Justice of the Peace Blog has encouraged a return to the perrenial problem faced by all courts, that of the chronic alcohol or drug-addicted homeless offender.   

"They are generally 45 year old males who look to be at death’s door. They appear at the magistrates` court with NFA….no fixed abode……on shoplifting or public disorder offences and they invariably have a long record of previous. There is no sentencing outcome which is appropriate. They are often given a notional fine and immediately released the fine deemed having been paid by their having been in custody overnight."

The piece goes on to quote a case reported by 'This is Derbyshire' and concerning a serial homeless shoplifter whose only intention is to get back to prison as soon as possible because he simply cannot cope in the outside world. Reading the piece you can sense that the frustration and despair is clearly shared by the journalist:- 


"WHAT a dilemma for a judge or magistrates – what should they do with a crook whose only intent is being sent back to prison? Darren Newsome has eventually got his wish. The serial shoplifter had hoped for this outcome back in July, only to be disappointed, when he appeared in court charged with theft.
Undeterred, he went straight back to shoplifting in August, September and October – and now Recorder Christopher Donnellan has locked him up for 40 weeks.

"Thank you very much, sir," responded Newsome.

He makes no secret of the attraction of prison – he gets regular meals and a roof over his head without having to worry about how he is going to pay for that every day. But what alternative does a judge have in such circumstances? He can hardly leave him free to carry on in his merry, criminal way. Traders have to be protected."

"We have to recognise that some people just cannot cope with life outside the prison environment.
It is sad and they deserve some sympathy for that – but our law-makers need to explore the options for helping them minimise their reliance on this costly last resort."

Well of course this problem has been around for a very long time and in fact was the driving force behind the establishment of the probation service way back in 1907. It was recognised that a criminal justice system needed a welfare arm in order to try and deal with such problem cases, and eventually the early Christian pioneers became professionally qualified social workers. What was never properly understood however was the probation officers dual role encompassing welfare with public protection. Politicians of both parties subsequently decided that there was political advantage to be had in dropping the welfare role of the probation service completely, substituting it for punishment instead.

Now regular readers will be aware that there are still some officers around that are experienced and practiced in the old ways and find it very hard indeed to forget their welfare roots. Cases like the one described above are very familiar indeed to such officers and it is quite obvious that the problem has not gone away - it's just that the State seemingly has absolutely no method of dealing with it any more. The frustration of sentencers is palpable.
What on earth can be done?

I have made this suggestion before, but I think it's worth repeating. Make a Community Order with supervision. I say this not just because it will in all probability infuriate probation staff at all levels, I say it because I feel it is right and humane. We used to handle these cases and we can re-learn the skills required. Orders can be made on people who are homeless and permission of the probation service is not required. There is no other agency able to do this work and therefore I would remind sentencers that it is within their power to sentence how they see fit and it's up to the probation service to respond.    

8 comments:

  1. I have been saying for some time that the institutional developments resulting from managerialsm, poorly considered performance targets, gradual de-professionalisation of welfare services and now funding withdrawal have served to remarginalise those who we used to be able to help at least a little.

    Be it drug users, alcoholics, mental health cases or whatever, the closure of local services and the centralisation of everything from Probation offices to hospitals has seen provision for a whole range of dysfunctional individuals becoming more and more inaccessible and the options available for those needing help slipping backwards, decades at a time.

    I thought we were making progress but recent events leave me concerned that we are, once again, addressing the needs of the majority at the expense of the marginalised minority. The least we can expect is the uncomfortable reality of street drinkers, the visible homeless, the mentally ill wandering around town centres muttering to themselves etc. My fear is that it is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

    The latest nugget of wisdom is a proposed adult careers service that is primarily managed through on-line or telephone serivces, not through traditional face to face meetings. I guess this means the careers service can open a call centre in Delhi. Is that the next Probation cost saving solution; phone intervention? Oh, no! We already do that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I work in the courts and do recommend stand alone supervision on the basis you describe. Why do you assume that those of us who work in the courts don't? P.s. Please keep up your blog even if you feel you are repeating yourself. It gives the likes of me the confidence to know that I'm not alone in my thinking!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am a JP and find your blog very informative been checking last few days very quite hope u post again soon

    ReplyDelete
  4. but why propose supervision when they are just going to breach and further criminalise themselves not to mention the cost to breach, bring on warrant etc? sometimes we have to accept that there isnt an appropriate sentence. I dont know what the answer is but i dont think standalone supervision is the right one.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The answer is quite straight forward. Whenever the 'system' was faced with a problem it traditionally turned to the Probation Service. This is why we were set up and what we were trained for. Yes they may well breach, but it's simply a more humane way to deal with someone like this - and cheaper too. Oh, and it just might work!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Are you still there Jim? No posts since 11 November - hope the dead hand of NOMS hasn't reached out and got you.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Is there life Jim .... but not as we know it?

    ReplyDelete