Pubdate: Tue, 02 Jul 2002
Source: Independent  (UK)
Copyright: 2002 Independent Newspapers (UK) Ltd.
Contact:  http://www.independent.co.uk/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/209
Author: Deborah Orr

GOING STRAIGHT ISN'T AS EASY AS IT SOUNDS

The rehabilitation that happens in prison is more crucial than a handout at 
the end of the sentence

This idea that all prisoners should sign a "Going Straight Pledge" simply 
cannot be what it appears to be. Part of a leaked report from the Social 
Exclusion Unit, the proposal is that all prisoners starting their sentences 
should sign a document promising to be good from now on, and in return 
receive extra help in achieving that foisted-upon-them goal.

But this laughable suggestion cannot seriously be a considered response to 
the substantial problem of convict recidivism. It must surely be some kind 
of decoy a " a ludicrous pretend-plan engineered to direct the eye away 
from some genuinely controversial proposal that this government-appointed 
think-tank is hoping against hope to slide quietly past us.

I will admit that the plot would appear to be fiendishly clever. After all, 
the directive is, in the particular sort of unbelievability it stinks of, 
all too believable. Isn't everybody used, after all, to trendy-vicar-style 
initiatives from New Labour, which treat the whole world as if it was some 
sort of recalcitrant nursery class?

Isn't everybody familiar with hopelessly naive, making-a-new-contract-type 
non-solutions, which don't cost much, don't do much, but offer only the 
doubtful solace that the problem has been acknowledged and Something a " 
virtually nothing but still Something a " is being done?

Yes, everybody is used now to such tomfoolery. But even so, this latest 
gimmick seems too much of an out-of-touch-liberal-ite cliche to be true. 
Let's leave aside the fact that almost by definition criminals aren't above 
breaking the occasional promise. Let's assume that at the core of this idea 
lies the belief a " true for most of us a " that the written word has a 
special power and authority.

But even at that level, it's ridiculous. Since 90 per cent of ex-offenders 
are so badly educated that they're unemployable, it's fairly safe to assume 
that for many potential pledge-takers, the written word has no magical 
resonance whatsoever. On the contrary, the written word is a basic symbol 
of all that the neer-do-well has been socially excluded from. The enforced 
signing of treaties with normality is more likely to entrench an outlaw 
mentality than dislodge it.

Beyond that non-starter, there seem to be no possible grounds for even 
imagining why such an initiative could be mistaken for a useful tool at all.

The "Going Straight Pledge" is beyond satire. The Government, therefore, 
must be deliberately satirising itself. And essentially, though 
unintentionally, it is.

Central to the New Labour philosophy is the idea that nobody can expect to 
get "something for nothing". Since other proposals from the Social 
Exclusion think tank involve giving exactly that, the "Going Straight 
Pledge" is a way of kidding on that prisoners are giving something a " not 
just their word and their bond, but also token reparation to their victims 
from their prison wages and charges for individual help from prison staff 
from the same source a " in return for exciting new gifts.

These gifts include raising the time prisoners can expect to have their 
rent or mortgage paid from 13 weeks to six months, and increasing the grant 
they receive on release from AUKP40 to AUKP100.

How typical it is of the current political mindset that instead of arguing 
a prima facie case for such interventions, reformers instead want some sort 
of quid pro quo, even if it is a meaningless and risible one that they've 
had to manufacture, and that makes them look stupid and gullibly trusting.

Except that it is even worse than that. The naivete of the "Going Straight 
Pledge" is such that it calls the other liberal ideas included in the 
package into question too. What is being suggested, surely, is that since 
the convict has promised to go straight, then it's worthwhile to raise his 
release grant by 150 per cent and ensure that he's got a home to go to. But 
actually, since it's clear to everybody that the "promise" is nothing but a 
new piece of red tape joining the sign-on-the-line bureaucracy of 
incarceration, dressed up by dreamy fools as some sort of contract of 
trust, the logical conclusion is that all the rest is pointless do-gooding 
by credulous hand-wringers with more misplaced compassion than sense as well.

And yet, that is going much too far. It is asking quite a lot of the 
determined-to-go-straight ex-offender, expecting them to step out of jail 
into homelessness a " as 40 per cent of them do a " with AUKP40 in their 
pocket to last them the two weeks until they can obtain some money via 
benefits a " as 90 per cent of them do. While retributionists will declare 
that they brought all this on themselves, such attitudes do not help to 
solve the problem whereby more than six out of every 10 people are caught 
again, up to their old tricks, within two years of leaving jail.

The Social Exclusion Unit estimates that ex-prisoners are responsible for 
almost a fifth of crime at a cost of AUKP10.8bn a year to victims and to 
the taxpayer.

The idea that there is a simple way of turning such a statistic round is 
seductive; but it surely can't be the case that an extra AUKP60 at the 
prison gate is going to make a great difference.

The rehabilitation that occurs in prison is far more crucial than the size 
of the handout at the end of the sentence, and while this country has long 
been inculcated with the fantasy that prisoners have an easy time, the fact 
is that the budget for prison education a " even though poor education and 
skills are key characteristics of recidivist criminals a " was last year a 
supremely modest AUKP57.6m.

And as further illustration of strange prison priorities, bear in mind that 
prisoners are paid more wages for undertaking unskilled work in prison than 
they are for taking part in education. And even though the education budget 
will be increased next year to AUKP69.7m, this still looks tiny when 
compared with the AUKP10.8bn that unrehabilitated recidivists are costing 
each year
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth