Women in gaol
Please note: this post has NOTHING to do with my anarchist beliefs, and is made in the context of current societal norms.
I attended an interesting debate and discussion on Wednesday: “Women – unheard voices in the rehabilitation revolution”. I went because I’ve met Farah Damji and I’ve been impressed by her enthusiasm for reforming prison (presumably because she’s seen it up close and personal.)
So I went to the debate, chaired by Jonathan Aitken and starring a number of famous less famous experts on prison matters including Imran Khan (bête noire of the prison establishment since the Stephen Lawrence inquiry), several who worked for the criminal justice system (including the head of the Prison Governors Association and someone from the Centre for Mental Health), several of their current and former “service users”* and a vast array of charities who work around the edges of prison to make it possible for people coming out of prison to get back into society.The venue was surprisingly full, people were actually standing in the aisle.
Now, I’m sure it will come as no surprise to you to hear that I’m broadly unsympathetic to criminals of all genders, but my bullshit detectors didn’t go off very much during the debate, so for the purposes of the discussion I’ll be impartial about the sort of things that caught my ear. (I must stress the lack of bullshit: I was largely impressed by people not trying to weasel their way around stuff or promote this or that agenda.)
First and foremost, although the number of women in prison is quite small (around 4500, if I remember correctly, out of a total population of just less than 90000) women are far more likely to get a custodial sentence than men. Things that would get men a community service sentence or some other fucking pathetic slap on the wrist, would almost certainly get women jail time.
Secondly, most of the women who do wind up getting jail time have children, who are then secondary victims of their mothers’ winding up in jail.
Thirdly, there are very few women’s (and young offender’s) prisons, so women who go to jail are, on average, twice as far from their families as men.
Many other factors were mentioned, including that many women are victims of domestic violence, which leads to them committing crimes.
The consensus of opinion was that prison was excellent at the task of punishing people, but absolutely dire at rehabilitating them.
There was a case made for “pre-emptive” interventions, such as removing women from abusive relationships (which filled me with horror) and alternative approaches to rehabilitation. These rehabilitation programs are often vastly more effective at reducing recidivism than prison is and they are cheaper than prison.
The consensus of opinion was that many women could be spared from going to prison at all, or if diverted to specific rehabilitation programs, they could be rehabilitated much more effectively, reducing the risk of recidivism.
It seem like prisons have very few programs available to reduce this risk, and they are run infrequently, leading to the awkward situation where a prisoner may have to stay beyond their term in order to complete the program, or sometimes even start their program!
So, taking all those points at face value (I’m not going to argue over specific points, I simply don’t know enough), it seems pretty fair to say that women who do wind up in prison get a raw deal.
And since I believe in the rule of law being applied fairly and I believe in minimising the cost of prison to the taxpayer, I’m happy to point everyone at this e-petition and also to ask you to sign it.
*Criminals
Comedy moment of the evening was provided by a hapless BBC hackette, who, after hearing grumbles from the audience about governments pandering to the Daily Mail and tabloids, stood up to declare that the BBC had no agenda and was only interested in finding the truth. Even among a right-on group of outreach coordinators and third-sector nabobs, it was only the innate politeness of the audience that stopped a raucous outburst of laughter.
September 28, 2011 at 22:59
-
I am disappointed how few of the 47 comments addressed the article.
“First and foremost, although the number of women in prison is quite small
(around 4500, if I remember correctly, out of a total population of just less
than 90000) women are far more likely to get a custodial sentence than men.
Things that would get men a community service sentence or some other fucking
pathetic slap on the wrist, would almost certainly get women jail time.”
Really? Can anyone recommend resources to access statistics on this?
“Secondly, most of the women who do wind up getting jail time have
children, who are then secondary victims of their mothers’ winding up in
jail.”
But it hardly seems fair to get out of punishment by having a child. Also
is it good for a child to see their mum commit umpteen crimes with no
consequences?
“Thirdly, there are very few women’s (and young offender’s) prisons, so
women who go to jail are, on average, twice as far from their families as
men.”
This could be solved by building more women’s jails. They must have missed
that part from the petition.
- September 20, 2011 at 05:26
-
Btw Obo.
Signed, tweeted, facebooked.
- September 20, 2011 at
05:41
-
Blimey Matt, you’re up early – did you wet the bed?
- September 20, 2011 at
10:12
-
So are you. Can we take it that they do this in French hospitals as
well? Or are you still partying from last night. If so, let me know where
you are and I’ll arrange to be ill there.
- September 20, 2011 at
13:17
-
Bad sleep.
- September 20, 2011 at 01:59
-
how do things turn out in the USA where handcuffs and jail seem rather
common?
- September 19, 2011 at 23:04
-
Well, I signed the petition but to my surprise was only number 60 on the
list so it appears that not too many of dear Anna’s devoted readership has
taken Obnoxio’s plea to heart. May I please urge you to think again?
- September
19, 2011 at 19:49
-
Thank you for that valuable and constructive comment.
- September 19, 2011 at 19:32
-
Off-topic, but isn’t it about time we just admitted that the American
spelling of jail makes way more sense.
- September 19, 2011 at
20:54
-
Why?
(Just asking)
- September 20, 2011 at 20:09
-
I’m not aware of any other words where the G has a soft sound unless it
is followed by an E (as in gem) or an I (gist).
On the other hand, Jail follows a standard pattern, Bail, Nail, Sail,
Fail etc.
-
September 20, 2011 at 20:11
-
… or a Y (Gyrate)
-
September 19, 2011 at 21:40
-
Yeah, I always pronounce gaol as “gay-ol” rather than “jeyl”.
- September 20, 2011 at
05:11
-
It strikes me that – unusually – I don’t know which is the Yankee
Doodle spelling.
I reserve the right to be snooty about it, though.
- September 20, 2011 at
05:16
-
Jail turns out to come from the French.
Gaol it is then.
- September 20, 2011 at
05:17
-
To be fair, I suppose we got most of America from the French,
too.
Apart from the bits which came from the Dutch.
Better stop.
-
September 19, 2011 at 13:51
-
Being in an abusive relationship affects people in a number of ways. Cases
of women eventually killing their abusive partners do happen, but they are
fairly rare and I wouldn’t imagine they represent a particularly large portion
of the female prison population. In general, if someone in an abusive
relationship ends up dead, it tends to be the abusee rather than the
abuser.
However, the relationship can have effects which make a person more
susceptible to other forms of criminality. For one thing, it means that the
relationship is not about one side giving the other help and support. A woman
who already has difficulties with drug or alcohol addiction, for example, will
not get much help in getting clean from an abusive partner. Often the reverse
in fact; abusive relationships are often about control, and substance
dependence is a factor which an abuser can manipulate in order to increase
his* control.
Additionally, abusive relationships often involve the abuser systematically
undermining the self-esteem of the abused in order to foster a sense of
dependance. This then makes it easier for the abuser to coerce his partner
into criminality, and this can manifest itself in the form of shoplifting,
etc.
That being said, it’s not been my experience that women in general get a
particularly raw deal from the criminal justice, as compared to men, but
that’s purely anedoctal. It’s always problematic to say “Women are more likely
to go to prison than men for X offence” because there are all sorts of factors
which influence whether a given individual is likely to get custody for a
given offence. Isolating out all those factors so you end up with a straight
man / woman comparison is going to be pretty tricky. I would treat all
statistical claims along those lines with a measure of caution.
It is certainly true that most women are in prison for non-violent
offences. This is because women are much, much less likely to commit violent
offences than men. The question of whether those women should be in prison or
not is one which, in my view, can be just as aptly applied to a lot of
non-violent offenders in general, irrespective of sex.
*Yes, I’m aware that there are male victims of domestic abuse, but we’re
talking about women in prison here, so talking about male victims / female
perpetrators of domestic abuse would be something of a non sequiteur.
- September
19, 2011 at 17:21
-
The distaff side (I won’t say ‘the gentle sex’, for obvious reasons) are
catching up
fast on the violent side, though…
- September 19, 2011 at 12:30
-
The vast majority of women in jail are no threat to society, nor have they
committed crimes that have any violence attached. The last report I read was
on Scottish prisons and the majority were for shop lifting, drug possession
and prostitution related offenses. The were also likely to be poor and single
mothers.
It would seem they represent the weakest element of society, stuck in
abusive relationships, prostituting and stealing to feed habits and kids.
A more proactive drug programme offering assistance, accommadation,
treatment & education would equip them for a society that prays on their
situation.
Free heroin programs or sucking off bankers in the car park to buy smack. I
suspect a heroin management program would be cheaper and popular.
- September 19, 2011 at 13:51
-
Given that drug possession and prostitution are victimless crimes, they
shouldn’t carry prison sentences (or, indeed, be illegal in the first
place).
- September 19, 2011 at 16:43
-
Prostitutes should be regulated & licensed. Nobody but the hooker
should financially benefit. It is a reality that this industry exists. We
should base laws on reality not moral idealism.
There are 10 times more prostitutes operating in Westminster area than
any other area of UK. Expenses not requiring receipts?
We are Governed by hypocrites & fuckwitts who use false expenses
claims to use a prostitute that they vote to call a criminal.
Obviously with so many public school graduates in Westminster many of
the prostitutes are rentboys.
As for drugs. Prohibition has failed. Let us now have laws that cut
crime not increase it
- September 19, 2011 at 12:26
-
Ms. Raccoon, you made no mention of the school you attended when you shut
down that particular discussion. It was dishonest, whether or not you care to
admit it.
I’m quite happy to be called a waste of space. It makes me smile. I think
you are very easily annoyed. Ego and all that. Nevertheless, I wish you better
soon.
- September 19, 2011 at
13:06
- September 19, 2011 at 12:22
-
Just thought I would make a considered and constructive comment on this
subject.
Women in Gaol…..Phwoaaar!!
- September 19, 2011 at 12:28
- September 19, 2011 at 12:53
-
Well, I’ll always believed “Prisoner Cell Block H” was a documentary…
- September 19, 2011 at 12:14
-
I don’t believe that anybody attacked the schools that were doing a good
job. The IQ score is merely a guide to how the very brightest might get half a
chance. There are programmes in place to pick up the ultra intelligent. If
selected they are given special attention and tutoring. Teachers are assigned
to pick out and identify the gifted and talented but, by and large, it is a
waste of time. Also the vast majority are ignored.
-
September 19, 2011 at 16:16
-
Intelligence is nothing, without common sense.
- September
19, 2011 at 12:01
-
“Many other factors were mentioned, including that many women are
victims of domestic violence, which leads to them committing crimes.”
How? And what sort of crimes?
- September 19, 2011 at 12:18
-
I never really drilled down into it, but it seemed to be retaliating to
the domestic abuse.
I’m unclear as to why you would endure it up until the point where you
stuck a knife in someone’s chest, but I believe that it’s quite common.
- September 19, 2011 at 17:18
-
Well, quite! But I really can’t see that that’s being ‘driven to commit
crime’, as (assuming it’s in the heat of the moment) it should count as
self-defence.
I’m afraid it’s one of those cases where, if you don’t help yourself,
you really can’t expect anyone else to have to do it for you….
- September 19, 2011 at 11:51
-
My apologies to Obo for going so off-topic – the original post deserved
rather more considered and on-topic debate than it has so far recieved.
Still, that’s pub conversations, innit? Never quite sure where they’ll go
next!
-
September 19, 2011 at 11:34
-
I nearly beggared myself to send my children to Public School, so it isn’t
all about being Rich.
I also once nearly went to prison but I had PMT at the time so they let me
off.
I don’t know what one could make of that.
- September 19, 2011 at 11:27
-
No outrage at all about trying to raise standards but it’s an uphill
battle. I cannot understand the reluctance of people to admit the obvious.
That is, that some of us are advantaged. I was at the extreme receiving end of
advantage, most fall in the middle. Those I taught were at the bottom. I
tried, but the die was already cast. I could recognise a few who should be
achieving but they were beyond help. It is really quite scandalous and I
really can’t be arsed to enter into a discussion where some disingenuous
person asserts that you only have to turn up. The quality of teaching can be
quite dire (not to down play the good ones) and these young people have had a
very shaky start. To put it into a quantifiable statement I would say that an
IQ of 137 is required to break out and get help. Few qualify.
- September 19, 2011 at 11:46
-
I’m trying to point out that the best way to address the problem of
educational disparity is to raise the standards and expectations of the
poorest schools, not attack ones that are doing a good job. The good ones
are part of the solution, not part of the problem – they set the standards
for others to aim at. Dragging everything down to the lowest common
denominator won’t help the common good one bit.
Some people are academically not as gifted as others. Some people are
crap at sports, some people can’t saw straight to save their lives. That’s
just human nature. What’s stopping us from giving them an education that
tries to nurture the talents they do have, not try to make them all
university material. We seem to have grown a state educational establishment
that insists on a ‘one size fits all’ approach. It’s doomed to fail – and
the statistics prove that it’s failing.
Attacking good schools on the grounds of some twisted class envy just
seems utterly pointless to me. If they’re doing a good job, leave them
alone. Raise the standards of the worst ones, or shut them down and start
again with a new Head and outlook. Just bashing toffs won’t help the sink
estate kids one bit. Improving their bog standard comp might, though.
- September 19, 2011 at 12:04
-
“To put it into a quantifiable statement I would say that an IQ of
137 is required to break out and get help. “
What do you mean by ‘break out and get help’? What do you expect these
kids to achieve? More to the point, what is it that they aspire to
achieve?
- September 19, 2011 at 10:55
-
Yeah man. I went to a top public school and all I did was turn up. I went
to Oxford. I am not particularly clever.
I spent six months on the Teach First initiative. Believe me, you have to
be a prodigy to make it from the tough comps. Nobody does.
- September 19, 2011 at 11:07
-
That’s more a reflection of the poor quality of some state schools,
though, isn’t it? So why all the outrage when somebody comes along and tries
to improve their standards?
- September 20, 2011 at 06:46
-
Some of us do. But it’s a lot harder – you are right about that. And
*that* is what is wrong – not that some people educate their children
privately. Shut up about their “advantage” and address the scandal of crap
education visited upon less fortunate families. Otherwise you are simply an
advocate for crappiness and, as such, well worthy of Obo’s contempt.
My late wife and I went to a lousy comp. My wife taught in several more
of them before deciding that being sworn at and threatened for a living
while craven ‘leadership teams’ stood by wringing their useless hands was a
waste of her talents. In consequence, we decided not to have children unless
we could educate them outside the state system. Our greatest achievement is
that our daughters spent not one second in the hands of state ‘educators.’
I feel sick though, that kids like my wife and I once were are struggling
in crappy state schools with little chance of success. The sheer waste of
talent is a scandal and economically-insane. And it’s all due to people like
you who bitch and moan about those lucky enough to get good education,
rather than addressing the problem.
- September 19, 2011 at 10:18
-
You’re welcome, nice guy.
- September 19, 2011 at 12:16
-
And then you wonder why I find it so hard to maintain my civility.
- September 19, 2011 at 09:59
-
Thank you Obo for maintaining civility. It must be hard for you.
Women in prison for doing lesser crimes is not a good look. Also, it
demolishes the myth that women get off easy. And I suspect that you have been
anti-feminist in your previous rants. (on your own sweary blog).
Anna Raccoon seems to lend this blog out to anybody these days. I don’t
really think she has any principles, just an ego, which is so true of a lot of
you.
I once read a comment from her on a blog where they were arguing about
education and the advantage that the rich, privileged children have, which she
closed down because she said she was the product of a children’s home. She
left the impression that she was the product of a sink comprehensive, but she
made it despite the odds.
Educationally she was privileged and she must have known that when she
wrote that rebuke to a very reasonable man.
Since then, I don’t believe a word she says.
- September 19, 2011 at 10:10
-
Thank you for that valuable and constructive comment.
Cunt.
- September 19, 2011 at 10:49
-
I know this is somewhat off-topic, but what advantage do rich,
priviledged children have in education? After all, education is freely
available for all – all you have to do is turn up.
So why are they disproportionately advantaged?
- September
19, 2011 at 12:07
-
“…the advantage that the rich, privileged children have…”
I’m not from a rich family. Far from it. Yet I could read and write
before I attended school, I knew how to eat with a knife and fork,
how to behave in company, etc. I wasn’t entirely unique in this.
Why are so many these days unable to do this? Is it because we don’t have
something which we’ve lost, as we increase in material aspects?
- September 19, 2011 at
12:11
-
Ms Raccoon had precisely five years in full time education – at a damn
good school, and I have never stopped singing its praises since. If that is
privileged in comparison to the normal 11 years in school then I’m an
uneducated Dutchman.
Ms Raccoon lends this blog out to anyone at the
moment because she is in hospital and thus rather bereft of ideas regarding
politics. Nothing to do with ego whatsoever – just unwilling to waste the
readership this blog enjoys on silence – I’d prefer to let others see what
they can do with the platform.
Since you don’t believe a word she says –
why are you wasting your time on this blog?
Then again, since you are so
mouthy, why don’t you have a go at writing something whilst I am
indisposed.
Oh, you just did, and what a waste of space it was.
-
September 19, 2011 at 16:16
-
I hope you are recovering and we shall see back to rude health again
soon Anna.
Actually those eloquent people who are deputising for you at present
are doing a rather good job.
- September 19, 2011 at
16:38
{ 48 comments }