To Jail or Not to Jail that is the Question?

John Reid, the beleaguered Home Secretary, has a quandary on his hands. To jail or not to jail?

The issue has escalated from an overcrowded prison issue to the judiciary who appear to have been doing "excessive sentencing" especially concerning childrens' prisons.

There is currently a prison population of 80,000 capacity and John Reid and Lord Falconer, of the Department of Constitutional Affairs, are directing judges that only the most serious offenders should be given custodial sentences.

A Welsh judge, Judge John Rogers QC, implemented government policy by not sentencing Derek Williams for sex crimes which he admitted and said in his verdict, "as of yesterday I have to bear in mind a communication from the home secretary" and "the current sentencing climate".

Shadow home secretary David Davis said: "We now have a situation where sentences are being dictated by the prison capacity and not the severity of the crime."

Reid confirmed on Thursday that the prison service is negotiating to buy two prison ships, and is considering using a former RAF base to ease overcrowding in the short term.

What a conundrum:

However, I personally do not agree with sending non-violent criminals to prison. I have my own solution which is based on "circularity" between the Courts, Councils and the Community. The premis is to restructure society on the principle "CRIME DOES NOT PAY".

I think it is a complete waste of tax payers money to imprison someone on a non-violent crime. It costs up to £45,000 to keep someone in prison per annum. An incapacity benefit claimant will receive, inclusive of housing allowance, a minimum of £10,000. That means for every prisoner in prison for a year the tax payer is costed, in excess, £30,000.

I would like to see "benefit" not "burden" and I believe in "value added" as a policy.

With the advent of electronic tagging and satelite tracking it is possible to confine people to an area and at home rather than in prison. This alone would free up £30,000 per criminal. So even if we hypothetically took 1/2 the current prison population as non-violent criminals, the potential cost saving of electronically tagging and satelite tracking to confine a criminal to a given area is 40,000 x £30,000 = £1.2 billion.

Now what could I do with £1.2 billion to restructure society?

There are many many environmental projects which need to be done but which lack a cash injection:

Flood defences
Shovelling snow
Research on fish stocks
Protecting species and flowers on sites of special scientific interest
etc. If I thought about it I could come up with hundreds of ideas. If any of my ideas are being done, the money comes from "Council Tax" or the goverment/European funds/lottery/trusts and charity, etc. But the biggest cost in many environmental projects is the wages bill, so you rely on volunteers BUT WHAT ABOUT CRIMINALS.

If the adage "CRIME DOESN'T PAY" is to ring true then there is potentially room for progress and improvement in society. People who are criminals could be electronically tagged, satelite tracked and used on environmental projects.

Some criminals re-offend: this problem could be addressed by making tasks harder or dirtier:

dry stane dyking
refuse collection/street sweeping
forestry
cleaning canals
sewage treatment and cleaning sewers
gutting fish on a fishing trawler
doing the lambing season
expeditions to the north and south pole, etc

By "doing" something for nothing, criminals would become a "benefit" not a "burden".

"VALUE ADDED" £30,000 per criminal could mean saving a particular species of plant, planting forests to address climate change, cleaner streets, better walls aiding tourism in rural areas, making it safer for people to get about during winter during heavy snow falls.

Benefit v burden again: the criminal gets something TO DO, doing something gives them something to add onto their CV and aids employability. The criminal pays back society and communities not the prison or government - a fine is not the answer.

Youths and children who are bored or frustrated with society and have gone off the rails are helped to get back into society, learn skills, earn respect for their environment and something other than themselves and are given dignity and self-esteem by their own actions.

Criminals stay with their families thus the family unit is not stigmatised/victimised by imprisonment - kids see their criminal mum/dad on a daily basis lessening the impact of criminality.

£1.2 billion saved could be worth a fortune.

HOW by simply getting a local Council to set up an email link between itself and the Courts and the Community. The Council would need to co-ordinate projects and a judge would have an option to be placed to a criminal on sentencing of projects available in its area. The criminal could choose his/her project. The Community could inform what projects need doing or what they would like to happen with their Council tax, simply by asking the community once a year of any issues on a form supplied with their Council tax notification or by providing an email address.

Electronic tagging by satelite tracking could monitor by showing that a person attends the project, stays in its confinement area, and if he/she doesn't, could be picked up by the Police and brought back before the sentencing judge. The technology is now possible and for not a very high cost.

These are just my thoughts, which could be used and refined quite easily if people really did want "PROGRESS AND IMPROVEMENT" and "PROGRESS/IMPROVEMENT MANAGEMENT" for the "COMMON GOOD".

Now is as opportune a time as any - do we really want "prison ships"?

Circularity