News's and politics' The Economic Voice
The
findings, compiled by the Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prison
Governors’ Association, suggest prisons have insufficient resources to
deliver IPP sentences effectively, often leading to resentment between
inmates.
Ninety-two
per cent of governors surveyed said that IPPs decreased job
satisfaction. They said the sentences undermined staff credibility,
caused inmates to be treated unfairly, and often meant officers were
unable to help prisoners progress.
Almost half of respondents
reported that institutions holding IPP prisoners saw higher levels of
indiscipline. One explained that some prisoners became anxious and
resentful because they could see “no chance of release as they
struggled to access appropriate courses”.
A large majority of
respondents – 86 per cent – reported that IPP prisoners experienced
high levels of anxiety. Several noted that IPP prisoners were at
increased risk of self-harm.
The survey results are revealed in a
Howard League research briefing paper, The never-ending story:
Indeterminate sentencing and the prison regime, which calls on the
government to bring in a system to enable post-tariff IPP prisoners to
be safely managed into the community.
The paper recommends that
all short-tariff IPP prisoners should be provided with a clear strategy
to manage their safe release into the community before the end of
2013. This could be achieved by converting all IPP sentences with short
minimum tariffs into determinate sentences.
The government
scrapped IPPs in 2012, but the abolition was not made retrospectively.
There are currently more than 5,800 people in prison serving an IPP,
including more than 3,500 ‘post-tariff’ prisoners who have passed the
date at which they became eligible for parole.
Last year, the
European Court of Human Rights found that the detention of post-tariff
IPP prisoners was ‘arbitrary and unlawful’. The court heard that the
government had failed to give prisoners access to rehabilitative courses
they were required to take before they could be released.
Andrew
Neilson, Director of Campaigns at the Howard League for Penal Reform,
said: “The government has recognised that this sentence is flawed but it
hasn’t solved the problem of dealing with the thousands of IPP
prisoners who remain stranded in the system.
“Indeed, the
situation is likely to get even worse as prison budgets shrink and
access to courses becomes more limited. Ministers cannot clap their
hands over their ears and hope that this problem disappears.
“The
courts have been quite clear that the IPP sentence is unjust, and here
senior professionals on the front line are saying that it is damaging
to their morale and the safety of prisons.”
Changes to the law in
2008 tightened the eligibility criteria for an IPP, giving judges
greater discretion as to whether to hand down the sentence.
The
survey found that short-tariff prisoners sentenced before 2008 were at
greatest risk of self-harm. Governors said these inmates had particular
difficulties with anxiety as they saw others who had been convicted of
similar crimes after 2008 serve their sentence and move on while they
remained inside.
Eoin McLennan-Murray, President of the Prison
Governors’ Association, said: “It is absolutely scandalous that
low-tariff IPP prisoners sentenced before 2008 remain incarcerated far
beyond their tariff date while offenders who were sentenced after 2008
for like-for-like offences have now served their sentences and been
released.
“This blatant injustice needs to be addressed and prison
governors are calling on the minister to deal with this toxic legacy
quickly.
“Governors and their staff should not be expected to try
and defend the indefensible; to do so will undermine the relationships
relied on to deliver safe, stable prison regimes.”
Three in four
respondents said that the extra demands which IPP prisoners placed on
prison resources meant that non-IPP prisoners’ had restricted access to
rehabilitative courses. A similar number reported that waiting lists
for courses were very long in the prison they worked in.
Many
governors felt staff were frustrated and demoralised with their work
because of IPPs. One in four linked the difficulties staff faced when
working with IPP prisoners to increased security threats and
indiscipline.
Almost all respondents – 97 per cent – agreed that
changes needed to be made to the current system to enable post-tariff
IPP prisoners to be managed and released into the community safely.
Link to article : http://www.economicvoice.com/ipp-prison-sentences-damage-staff-morale-and-threaten-security/50037628#ixzz2WellOGKY
Post-prison supervision plans ‘set people up to fail’
Read more: http://www.economicvoice.com/post-prison-supervision-plans-set-people-up-to-fail/50036887#ixzz2WemZUyK9
Government’s transfer to open prison policy: Unlawful, Apr 272013 prisonsorguk.Article link http://converseprisonnews.com/
ReplyDelete