Post 14 - Devious In & Devious Out - How Does Society Measure the Real Cost?

What a year this has been, so much has occurred in such a short time.  Twelve months since I launched my website (see post 2) at the Law Society for England & Wales with two prominent figures in their respective area of the law as speakers I felt that day would turn out to be a turning point for all those people who are incarcerated and therefore disenfranchised and vulnerable to those who wield power and control over them in their daily existence within UK institutions.  

Peter Cadman and Flo Krause two people I am proud to know personally and call my friends, (who humbled me with the fact that they were prepared to stand on a podium and endorse my vision) gave wonderful and passionate speeches. They talked of the need for 'Transparency' by those agencies tasked with managing UK institutions where human beings are incarcerated, 'Acessibility' to those insitutions via public comment and media, 'Accountability' of those who hold power and influence over the lives of those incarcerated and that such power and influence is wielded with 'Humility'. Peter pointed out it is cheaper to pay for private education at Eton College for a year than send someone to prison, a bizarre and disturbing fact about where our priorities lie as a society. 

Many significant personalities related to the lives of those incarcerated have encountered major life changes, Michael Gove has rightly been sacked as in my view he was simply a devious opportunist and not favoured by the 22 committee who I as with many others believe are the real power within UK conservative politics. A barrister of great integrity Flo Krause 'hung up her wig' and ended her career and her life passion in Law, as has Juliet Lyons who resigned from the Prison Reform Trust. Also Erwin James someone I have known personally for many decades and someone I consider a friend has published his wonderfully brave and moving book "Redeemable - A Memoir of Darkness and Hope" all about his life journey from a horrendous start in life to the integrated, happy and respected man I lunched with in London recently who in addition to his many achievements and being an author of several books and Guardian newspaper columnist he is also now the editor in chief of Inside Time.

What of us? Well one of our staff attempted to blackmail our company director with deleting the website content unless he paid him a significant amount of money, as he thought he was the only one with access to the content management system (clearly the sharpest tool in the box) so no surprise the guy was sacked, thereafter we discovered he actually had not done the amount of work he had been billing or claiming for anyway, we chose not to prosecute him as he was on a probation licence and his girlfriend had recently had a newborn baby.  We were subjected to a campaign of abusive and threatening text messages and involved the police who identified the parties involved and subsequently interviewed one of them and are monitoring events (this saga resulted in the installation of 24hr cctv). We have had meetings and discussions with serveral parties who are commentators or interested parties to Criminal Justice Reform who wanted to involve themselves with us in joint ventures utilising us and we have met many people this past year.  Many of those were well intentioned characters such as Alex Cavendish who is amongst many things a very bright man.

Another, a prominent academic in his field (who yes actually lectures at a university) invited me to a meeting at his campus, and as the day progressed he degenerated into a paranoid, aggressive, dysfunctional excessive drinker (who I hope has sought help) confronting people in the street for looking at him! There was the one who it transpired was a solicitor of meagre integrity and moral values who appears to collude with his client in covering up their crimes. Another was introduced to me as a recently released fraudster (nothing against that if reformed, but I fear he may not be) who was still peddling the same fictitious life history/story that was part of his presentation to victims of his crimes! Needless to say left him swiftly in the dust as little he said was actually true, and now he is gradually grooming identified parties within the Association of Prison Lawyers, barrister bloggers and others he has since identified that he feels may contribute something to his prison refom plans (that others will fund I am sure as he won't/can't as potless), apparently now he is a reformer (as oppose to reformed). He actually stated he was charging people to give them advice regarding what to expect if they were sentenced to a term of imprisonment (charlatan) talk about exploitation! Sadly there are many who see prisons and the plight of people incarcerated as an opportunity to make money by fleecing grants and donors or to create an existence which feeds their pathological need to be perceived as an authority or a prominent personality within the field. Blatantly achieved by grooming and ingratiating themselves with those they perceive as the current acceptable critics who have the ears of the decision makers, or in fact anyone they think may be of use to their devious strategy. 

It would be an interesting study to correlate and monitor how many 'prison commentators/reformers' were inside for fraud, an offence which has NO offending behaviour programmes to address the devious thinking involved in calculated crimes such as aquisitive fraud yet they are among the highest repeat offenders, whereas those sentenced to life and are on licence for their natural lives post release are the lowest.  It is also often the case in prison that it is the fraudsters who have worked their way into 'key' positions within establishments, usually by grooming and desensitising staff, it is also interesting to see that behaviour continue post release as they are invariably not on licence for long, and where they are on it at all they are quickly perceived by a probation officer under pressure of work as a low priority.  Yet in reality how much do they cost overall, what is the true cost if they are now outside involved in the Prison Industrial Complex which is awash with money (13bn is the cost of the CJS alone at the last count)?

There were some old school rules inside whilst doing your bird which applied in almost all cases. Rules such as a northener in a southern jail AVOID, a southerner in a northern jail AVOID, someone who has been in lots of jails in a short period AVOID, drug user/dealer AVOID, those who gossip AVOID, those who seek influencial positions in the nick AVOID, Sexual groomers AVOID, there are many more but those listed were the mainstay of a peaceful life inside for most people. Either way I have a serious illness to deal with and as such am no longer able to continue in the vein that I once could (not for the time being anyway) and so I will observe from afar the machinations, floundering and manouverings of those devious characters and see if in fact I am sadly once again proved right in my judgment of their motives. I hope not...

Post 12 - 'Risk' Reduction or Not?

The word 'risk' has now become such a regular feature in everything we read, hear and see on the various forms of media which now influence almost every area of modern life. Constantly phrases are used such as "We have to weigh up the risks"..."What are the risks involved?"..."How risky is it?"..."What's our exposure?"..."Can we stand the heat?"..."What are the consequences?"..."What are the outcomes?"..."Have we done a costs benefit analysis?..."What's the ROI?"...etc etc. Risk, something which is pre-eminent throughout so many areas of life today the world over.  Depending where you were fortunate enough (or not as the case may be) to be born or to live, the generic everyday risks you face on a daily basis are or course different. In Europe even a school trip = risk assessment, the relevant HSE are now integrated into every area of European life and we are safeguarded by this statutory factor to the extent that now we probably never give it a second thought.  But 'risk' comes in many forms and not all are tangible or overt, visible therefore manageable, some risks are subtle and engage with us without us even being aware of it as 'risk' takes on many guises which on the surface appear socially acceptable and in fact expected and normal.

It seems so many people and organisations have a view, they readily voice their views and in some cases they are strong influencers of others and their perception and understanding of risks to the point that decisions are made which effect the lives of many and yet most attach the decision to the front line 'Face Person' of the decision.  However the differential in the ability to think critically before influencing is not necessarily something given much weight when these people are put in a position of influence.  So who are the true 'influencers'?  Apart from the obvious Marketing, Media, Religion, Schools and Parenting influences, there are other groups which until recently in my view have been overlooked because if you think about it, it may not be that they are in fact individuals either.

An example on the most serious scale of an individual influencer is perhaps whoever is President of the United States at any given time?  Perhaps even a Prime Minister voted in with a landslide, loved by everyone at the time, who all prospered under his government, but then a decision is made which later appears in hindsight to have been flawed or motivated by other factors than those promoted at the time, if the press and pressure groups are to be believed.  In my personal view only a moron could think such decisions are made alone or with a personal motive in mind, surely they are made on the basis of multiple full and complete risk assessments of the situation and information available and current at the time. A risk assessment is almost never carried out by the decision maker, almost never carried out by the 'Face Person', it is usually done by 'experts' in their respective fields, experts who when the shit hits the fan do not have to stand up and explain their thinking process or their rationale for the decision, as the perception perpetuated by the mass media is of course the 'Face Person'' is the person responsible, ergo they are culpable.  In many spheres of operation such as Politics, the Military or a PLC such an outcome can be fatal as the ingredients of the outcome are obvious to the general public.

"So we'll blame you if that's OK?"

But what of situations where that is not the case, where there is such a myriad of obstacles to establishing who was behind the analysis which gave rise to the final decision, where does that responsibility lie?  What of the Life Sentenced Prisoners who are released (a Killer who is released from Prison and Kills again, or the Multiple Rapist who is released and Rapes again) surely it is inadequate to suggest these are calculated risk decisions taken by an "independent" Parole Board, which was the explanation given on every occasion when there is a failing, who were the 'influencers' and what is their culpability?  In response people suggest we need to leave the EU and abandon the ECHR as it is misused to defend the rights of prisoners and after all they have forgone their "rights" when they broke the law haven't they?  

But the examples above are not representative of people who truly encountered change within themselves, they did not integrate any learning, they did not encounter true remorse, shame or guilt for their actions previously, they simply learnt what they needed to say at any given moment, they manipulated those they had contact with on a daily basis. Inadequately trained and educated in the necessary skills to identify and recognise traits, to the extent that by the time they appeared before the Parole Board reports had been written suggesting these people had changed. In fact they were clearly extremely dangerous men, and in the case of one of those men the authorities were warned years in advance, I know this because I warned them about him and what the future would bring were he progressed, but at the time I was ignored.

The fact is the American and UK prison systems are broken, and no amount of building new prisons to house ever increasing numbers or internal reconstruction is going to change that, because reducing offending rates whatever country we are talking about, is all about people, it's about people engaging with people.  So locking people up for extended periods with others who are all 'doing time' warehoused with little or no intellectual stimulation is simply the blind leading the blind.  You can worry about drug problems in prisons, or lack of education or even the levels of violence, but unless you connect the right people with the 'right' people, you will only effect superficial change and certainly not make any impact on serious crime rates (unless of course that is your intention). No one is born bad. With the exception of the criminally insane or those who 'retire' having made their fortune with their ill gotten gains, criminals change because they want to change. They change because they choose to change, they reach a point where they register the consequences of their actions and decisions. They encounter realisation of the impact they have had on others, they feel the pain they have caused through their actions, they understand and comprehend they have brought hurt and chaos into the lives of many and as a result they are on a road to nowhere.

The Choice to Change is Open to All

They encounter genuine remorse and guilt, shame combined with resolve to never create victims again. Sometimes that realisation is brought about through introspection and self analyses, sometimes through an event, a powerful experience or the guidance and support of another with greater insight and  knowledge of the issues at hand. One thing is absolute, and it is that the decision to truly change their lives is NEVER chosen by a criminal because they have been broken or coerced through an institutional attitude or a political policy.

In my view cutting front line Probation Officer staffing levels is a mistake. Cutting Prison Officer staffing levels is a mistake. Building huge prisons to house greater numbers of criminals is a mistake. Surely it is apparent a refined recruitment process needs to be implemented, and pay a decent salary for educated staff with the right skill sets. Obviously you will not get certain invested parties saying that because if the staff inside have the skills then those parties become redundant. However surely if you are going to have hidden parties "influencing" decision makers then you have to ensure they are the right people with the right tools equipped to do so and not simply doing so because that's how we do it. The world penal community of 'experts' agree that Norway is the world leader in rehabilitation, so why are we ignoring them, are we so arrogant or corrupt that we believe only we know better in everything? Whilst in the meantime recidivism just is, and will remain a facet of broken Criminal Justice Systems the world over while their communities suffer and the invested parties become wealthier as the industry of prisons and incarceration continues to grow and expand? So really we are confronted with unknown risks daily by the mere fact that we do not invest in a proven theory, we prefer to keep gambling and experimenting because we know better?

That is corruption in it's purest form.

Post 6 - To Live An Honest Life You Have To Be Dishonest

It has been said recently that people living in the community with convictions in the main are Liars...that most families of people living in the community with convictions, or serving custodial sentences are Liars...and most children going to school whilst a parent is 'inside' tell lies...we know many people with Mental Health conditions are Liars to avoid the stigma, but do they really have a choice if they want a chance at a full and rewarding life where they are "accepted" and allowed to flourish and develop their full potential on all fronts?

I recently had a twitter exchange with a prominent Academic In a UK university who was a complete stranger to me, he had tweeted regarding some research he was initiating and had recently received funding to conduct some research into the effects of long term imprisonment (if I have understood him correctly).  I had occasion to comment on a tweet regarding his research and as a result we arranged via DM to speak on the phone.

I am grateful and humbled that he gave me the opportunity to talk with him and express my feelings/observations/experiences regarding people living life on life licence post release.  For me personally it was an interesting exercise and an easy conversation to engage in as not only have I lived my own experience, but for many years I was directly involved in a personal and professional capacity as founder and CEO of one of the first (if not the first) exclusively Prison Law Consultancies in the UK (another story for another blog), which according to one prominent Judge was spectacularly successful.  Quite literally we worked with firms of Solicitors and hundreds of people who have received Life Sentences (still serving inside and the community having been released) and many more who had received fixed term sentences for various offences, so I do feel there may have been something to offer regarding the research in question.

Following that telephone conversation I was left alone in my kitchen together with my thoughts which have led to this blog post, which is essentially about Lies, Liars and the capacity of the powers that be to comprehend that by definition anyone who is subject to what I call societal stigmatisation must also live a lie and/or propagate lies in order to maintain their existence.  In my view experience and evidence shows there are very few people who are burdened with a stigma who have the luxury of being able to build and develop their life to its full potential within the paradox of the fear, embarrassment, humiliation, shame, or the guilt that comes hand in hand with public exposure in the UK of ones existence in those circumstances.  This is particularly evident if they are within a group which is stigmatised either openly (such as Ex Offenders, Trans genders or Transsexuals) or covertly (eg those Disabled or sufferers of Mental Health conditions) within our society.  It was not too long ago that being openly Gay in this country was illegal and it still is in 76 countries and yet the UK and the United States still recognise those countries, trade with them and conduct our affairs with them, so by definition and by omission is our country a paper tiger and are we not all liars?

The Parole Board and the National Probation Service, demand openness from offenders if they are to earn release on a parole or Life sentence, yet they release them into a life of lies.  If they are to source employment then they have to disclose their convictions in certain circumstances, and then are rarely employed when prior knowledge exists on the part of the employer unless their is some form of relief or benefit.  The fact is currently, society is not disposed to absorb the truth regarding offenders, release and rehabilitation, it also appears the media alongside the government have no interest in educating them.

It is true statistically speaking that it is an extremely high probability that an ex-offender (perhaps a violent one) lives in every single street within the UK - the numbers are that high.  9.2 million people in the UK have criminal convictions, and the number increases daily.  Not all released prisoners are fortunate enough to be released to work for a charity, or an organisation they have managed to develop links with whilst inside, in fact they are very few.  Most go out and are unemployed, released with £47.00 discharge grant and a train warrant regardless of how long they have served.  There are of course some exceptions who are clearly resourceful and talented individuals who go out and through their own efforts go on to start up and build highly successful commercial businesses such as The Prisons Handbook/Converse and Veritas-Vincit UK to name but two and in their own way discreetly 'give back', but they are rare and they are the exception.

However in the community following a long stay in prison or a Mental Health unit you can hardly lean on the garden fence and explain to the neighbours where you have appeared from.  It is a delicate operation to decide who you can allow into your inner circle, who you can entrust with your history as it does not just impact on the individual, but also their family, their victims family, friends, colleagues of family...some are of the view the fact that those more prominent are somehow seen as successful examples of reintegration is in itself worrying.  It is not hard to reintegrate when all around you know who you are, what you are, where you have been, what you have done regardless of how long ago, there is certainly very little of a 'stress test' in such circumstances.  Perhaps you have no choice but to lie unless you have no family and nothing to lose?

So the Academic and his research into the 'effects' of long term imprisonment?

Well clearly there are other 'learned' behaviours aside from sitting in restaurants with your back to the wall or where you can see the entrance, or noticing the CCTV wherever you go but especially in banks, shops etc, or walking along looking at the ground (as eye contact inside is confrontational in several circumstances), or eating your food faster than most (as food inside is often warm/cold depending on where you were in the queue), or being overly aware of your personal data and the DPA 1998 when asked for personal details in shops etc.  There is a form of protectionist paranoia upon release as you are subconsciously of the view there is a sign on your forehead where it is written "Ex-Con avoid at all costs - Detritus".

Who has responsibility to change this perception?  Does anyone with the exception of invested parties want to change that perception?  Is there a gain or benefits in attempting to change perceptions?  Who quantifies those gains/benefits and decides the cost benefit to us?  Is it moral or immoral not to attempt to change that perception?

Lets face it there appears to be very few people in power with the influence to change things that seem to care about the death rates in our institutions so why should they care about developing a Criminal Justice System that results in high percentages of rehabilitation and successful reintegration for those marginalised by their own actions many years before?  There is much rhetoric currently around these issues, many meetings take place, many people bank salaries on the back of this broken system...so in reality how many want to effect real change? Who is going to step out into the spotlight and take all the flack they will surely encounter from the media, from their voters and from their peers if they champion real change and real reform and not just tinker with the system?  Likely - No one?

So here's the cycle (example not applicable to all of course).

Arrested (in the norm most Lie to one extent or another), The Police build a case (in the norm dress the cake, embellish/Lie as they are unaware of plea), Sentenced and imprisoned arrive prison reception (Lie to get a single cell or quiet wing or medication to sell), Sentence Planning (staff Lie exaggerate/embellish behaviour to meet criteria for OB work = £.  Con Lies as avoidance strategy), Parole Board review (Probation Lie/embellish risk to meet criteria for hostels or community based OB = £.  Prisoner Lies about levels of confidence regarding support he/she will need, anxiety regarding release), Released - Lie to everyone initially as standard tool for successful reintegration into the given community until considered assessment regarding disclosure takes place.

So who creates the liar?  Is it the system, or the need to be an honest member of society, or is it an entrenched criminal value?

Or are we just cynical, you tell us?  Do you really want change and a more open and tolerant society?  If so do something about it, contact your local MP, ask them when they last visited a prison in their constituency, become a peer mentor or a prison visitor as a volunteer, take an interest in community based Mental Health initiatives, get involved with homelessness, get involved in your local communities and literally effect change and make it a better place for everyone, including those who have stepped outside the law - help them find their way back.

Join us, take a look at our website and see what can be done.

Post 5 - Dum Down Offending Behaviour and What Do You Expect?

We had occasion to have discussions with some guys who were recently released from prison, they had served relatively different terms inside ranging from 18 months to in excess of 19 years, they were in for  a variety of offences ranging from Murder to Fraud, we engaged with them over various topics and had many lengthy and insightful discussions.  One of the things that quickly became apparent was the varying degrees of insight into themselves and their offending behaviour and the simple questions like why they had committed the offences they had and why they were not going to do it again.  On the surface simple questions and ones you would think were asked prior to release of certain types of prisoner, and ones which you would think were asked by prison governors or the Parole Board when they conduct their reviews of the suitability of release for those they are tasked with decision making regarding release or progression.

As the Parole Board state within their literature "We carry out risk assessments on prisoners in England and Wales according to provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and the Crime Sentences Act 1997  "Our main responsibility is to protect the public, and we manage the early release of prisoners serving fixed-length sentences of 4 years or more and the release of prisoners who are serving Life Sentences or Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection and the re-release of prisoners who had been given life or indeterminate sentences were released and were then re-imprisoned"

  

However apparently not so simple.

Example;  One person is of the view he is a better class of 'killer' ergo 'above' others in the criminal 'pecking order' as he killed a male, not a woman, nor a child.  The fact that his victim was a boy just out of his teens seemed to escape him (cognitive distortion) and the fact that almost all those who die at the hands of a criminal leave behind victims also seemed to escape him in the emotional sense.  Yes, a discussion on an intellectual level related to victim awareness can be had with most people who are released from prison, but how many feel genuine remorse, guilt and shame, for their actions is another debate.  One it appears some are ill equipped to undertake.

American prisoner stratification is somewhat different to that of prisons here in the UK, and an article by 'Jim Smith' in 1995 The Pecking Order is also shown to be pertinent today as much as it was 20 years ago as demonstrated by the clear views of our example given above.

Another Example is the fraudster who "only defrauded charities" where "there are no victims"... Hello?  Yes another cognitive distortion.  A complete failure to comprehend that monies taken from them deprives potential beneficiaries of charitable works/handouts.  This person spends 3 weeks in a B Category local prison followed by 19 months in an open prison where of course life is easier, so no experience of a real prison environment ergo no deterrent some might say?

So the question needs to be asked.  Who is responsible for "Dumming Down" Offending Behaviour programmes?

The Ministry of Justice in 2014 reported their offending behaviour portfolio and explain that although most programmes are monitored and or implemented by Forensic Psychologists in the main they are facilitated by uniformed prison officers, where the entry criteria is minimal (see Requirements) and where they clearly state "Personal qualities and life experience are more important than academic qualifications."  In 2003 OBPU were involved in studies which clearly showed interventions were the way to go, facilitated by psychologists.  Yet within a decade cost came into play, psychologists were moved back from front line interventions and replaced by prison officers!

How can it be that programmes so important to the process of reducing crime (victims) can be facilitated on a daily basis by in the main unqualified prison officers?  Yes they may have supervision, even possibly with a psychologist, but surely it is obvious yet needs to be said, the training that comes with years of study and then practical application on site under supervision of a senior practitioner cannot be replicated by a formally uneducated person regardless of how pleasant their manner within the group or culture.  Probation Officers who are formally educated cannot assist as they are inundated with report writing and bureaucracy...so whats to be done?

The challenges which in our view require qualified facilitators and professional oversight are;

Religious Radicalisation, Sexual Offending, Decision Making, Parenting, Problem Solving, Life Skills (cooking, money management, personal hygiene, housekeeping, ironing etc), Basic Education (numeracy & Literacy), Emotional Management, Relationship Skills, Use of Weapons and Violence...just to name a few.

Just another set of obstacles and challenges for Mr. Gove and possibly ones he needs to address quickly before we have complete chaos and implosion of an already fragile infrastructure judging by the levels of re-offending within prisons (because an assualt inside is still a crime, as is a theft or a deception), occurring even before people are released.  Around half of all crime is committed by people who have already been through the criminal justice system.

The cost to the taxpayer of re-offending is estimated to be £9.5 to £13 billion per year according to a government policy paper in May 2015 ... "Re-offending has been too high for too long, despite significant government spending on offender management in the last decade. There has been little change in reconviction rates and almost half of those released from prison go on to re-offend within 12 months.  So clearly the need to reduce re-offending to reduce both the number of victims and the costs to the taxpayer is evident and in order to achieve this, we need a tough but intelligent criminal justice system that punishes people properly when they break the law, but also supports them so they don’t commit crime in the future."

So do we need to increase the numbers of psychologists and probation staff significantly and redefine the role to include more face time facilitating interviews with prisoners and facilitating interventions and programmes?  Short term seems expensive, however long term gains make this the CHEAP option as real insight is developed by prisoners and thereby real reductions in recidivism may be a real outcome.  We make no claims to be experts or even to make a reasonable case, we were simply dumbfounded at the cognitive distortions clearly still apparent in those we encountered during our discussions and do not claim they are in any way representative of the majority.

However the reductions in staff are real and present, the choice now is do we hire more uniforms or do we make a real investment in reducing crime and recidivism in our society?

As Michael Gove said in his speech there is "treasure in the heart of man" Click here

So go to our website and take a look.