|
|
| How long you in for? |
| By Ann Coppola, News Reporter |
| Published: 08/13/2007 |
It might sound a little ludicrous to hear a judge sentence an offender for “one day to life.” In the United Kingdom, however, courts are handing out sentences like these by the thousands, due to a recent policy that has fundamentally changed the British justice system.The Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection (IPP) incarcerates offenders without informing them of how long they will be in prison. As of April 2007, there were 2,547 prisoners serving IPP sentences, and today the figure is estimated to be nearly 3,000. “It has become simply the biggest issue in local prisons anywhere in the country at the minute,” says Prison Reform Trust Head of Policy, Will Higham. His agency predicts that more than 12,000 people will be serving IPPs by 2012. Indeterminate sentences were introduced by Parliament in the 2003 Criminal Justice Act and were enforced beginning in 2005. Opponents say the UK was blindsided by the policy change. “There was no debate on the floor of the House of Commons in 2003, and the proposal did not reach the media in time, so it became this sudden tsunami over the prison services,” explains Higham. “No one was expecting it, no one had the resources for it, and very few even understood it.” There are 153 specific offenses that can warrant an IPP, ranging from manslaughter to sexual assault to exposure. Someone convicted of one of these offenses, and who has a previous conviction for any of the crimes on the list, can receive the sentence. The court can assume this individual is “dangerous” and should get an IPP unless the sentence would be “unreasonable.” “It was designed to be a small, technical measure to deal with some very dangerous people, but because it was phrased so broadly, it’s become a ‘two-strikes and you’re out’ bill for far more people than intended,” Higham explains. Opponents say the IPP is tantamount to a life sentence. Life sentences in Britain do not result in a lifetime of incarceration, instead they consist of three parts:
“A huge number of people have gotten IPPs on a small tariff for offenses that are not particularly serious, but according to government figures only eight people have been released from IPPs,” Higham says. “This is in spite of the fact that well over 1,000 of the IPP cases are over their tariff by now.” In order to get out of an IPP, an offender has to complete a series of behavioral and rehabilitative classes, which are assigned on a case-by-case basis. The problem is, opponents say, there aren’t enough courses available. “People are going in with no mechanism to process them,” Higham says. “Once they go inside they need to begin work on courses so they can be ready to be released very early on. Instead, people are getting stacked up inside the prisons, unable to do anything.” Ideally, an IPP offender is allowed to begin their coursework on the first day of their incarceration. “They can try to start on the first day, but the chances of getting into the course they need are minimal,” says director of the Howard League for Penal Reform, Frances Crook. “That’s why 3,000 people have these sentences, but only eight have been released in two years. Only 100 have gotten as far as the parole board.” The measure has placed an unprecedented amount of strain on a system already struggling with overcrowding. “The courts have been handing IPPs out like confetti, and prisoners are getting very frustrated,” Crook explains. “It’s a problem for the prisons, which are getting overcrowded with a very significant number of prisoners who are facing uncertain futures. They’re angry, and it’s difficult to manage and stabilize that population.” Crook says the sentences aren’t only unfair to the prisoners serving them. “Indeterminate sentences are inherently unfair,” she adds. “People should know what’s going to happen to them. The victim of the crime has a right to know what’s going to happen so that justice can be done. Not knowing if the offender will be out in six months or two years is bad for the prison, bad for the offenders, and bad for the taxpayer.” The policy has also inadvertently placed large numbers of mentally ill individuals at greater risk for receiving an IPP. “The law did not distinguish between ‘dangerousness’ in one sense and the vulnerability of mental illness in the other,” Higham says. “A huge percentage of our prison population here is people with mental illness, and incarcerating them instead of diverting them into health care can exacerbate their condition.” After just two years and so many unexpected problems with the IPP, the UK is at a crossroads for determining how to prevent a complete prison services downward spiral. “The government has allowed our new Secretary of State for Justice, Jack Straw, in his first few weeks of office to bring in an urgent review of the IPP before the end of September,” Higham says. In an official statement from the Ministry of Justice, Minister of State for Justice David Hanson says, “We have set aside an additional three million pounds [$6.1 million U.S.] to provide extra assessments and places on offending behavior programs for offenders currently serving an IPP.” Hanson, who is the equivalent of the U.S. Attorney General, says the goal of the IPP is to promote public safety. “The IPP legislation was put in place to protect the public, to ensure that dangerous, sexual and violent offenders are subject to assessment by the Parole Board and in serious cases are not released until their level of risk is assessed by the Parole Board as manageable in the community.” Still, the Ministry of Justice does not deny that there are problems with the policy. “I am of course concerned to ensure that our sentencing framework is appropriate and effective and that the sentences of the courts are carried out,” Hanson says. “I am also aware that there are concerns about the operation of the sentence in some cases – especially those with shorter tariffs.” While the government prepares its review of the IPP, opponents say they will not rest until a change is made. “The law simply hasn’t been used as envisaged, and it’s now up to government to work out what they want to do next,” Higham says. “No change is not an option.” Related Resources: Read a Prison Reform Trust report on IPPs Learn more about the UK prison system Read a BBC article on one individual’s IPP case |
advertise
|
privacy policy
|
add URL
|
about us
|
terms/disclaimer
|
contact us
|
join our team
|
help
Comments:
No comments have been posted for this article.
Login to let us know what you think