PRISON CRISIS? YOU CAN SPRAY THAT AGAIN

This week Justice Secretary Chris Grayling has been defending himself against further criticism that there is a prisons crisis. A little over a week ago Nick Hardwick, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, told the Independent newspaper that overcrowding and staff shortages were directly related to the growing number of suicides in prisons. The very body which represents prison governors have said that staff shortages mean that it is impossible to run a safe and decent prison regime. The Howard League for Penal Reform has calculated that prison officer numbers dropped by 30% between 2010 and 2013, while the prison population has continued to increase. Attacks in prison are increasing, assaults on prison staff are increasing, and the prison service’s riot squad was called out two hundred times last year, a sixty per cent rise on the previous year.

In terms of the rise in prison population, Grayling puts this down, in part, to what he calls ‘the Savile effect’; the courts are now imprisoning more sex offenders and particularly historic sex offenders. Andrew Neilson of the Howard League, however, claims that the real driver is that remand in custody is being overused, alongside the fact that sentencers are being influenced by, and responding to, contemporary political rhetoric from the government about being ‘tough on crime’. Grayling’s response to this most recent spate of criticism looks more and more as though it is based on sticking two fingers in his ears, humming loudly and hoping that he can keep a lid on the crisis, at least until the next election when the problem will either no longer be his, or alternatively he’ll be in another government post.

In March 1996 a young man called Simon Sunderland appeared before His Honour Judge Robert Moore at Sheffield Crown Court, and was sentenced to five years in prison. He hadn’t burgled or robbed anyone, glassed anyone in the face, or committed any sexual offence against sheep or other livestock. Although many citizens of the ‘Steel City’ applauded the sentence, even the man who hunted him down and brought him to justice said at the time “I hate to think of him rotting in prison.” The crimes for which Sunderland, who at the time went by the moniker ‘Fista’, was incarcerated related to his activities as a ‘graffiti artist’ and were all charged as criminal
damage.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not for one moment saying that what Sunderland did was not, or should not be, a criminal offence. Francis Butler, the councillor who led the hunt for ‘Fista’ over a five year period, said at the time “No one living outside of Sheffield can imagine the chaos he caused over the years. He painted on everything: walls, public buildings….street signs, even a bus that had broken down.” As fast as the council cleaned off the graffiti, ‘Fista’ would redecorate. As I indicated earlier, Mr Butler felt no sense of triumph in the sentence. He said “My own personal view is that I imagine he had already learnt his lesson by the time he came to court.” Councillor Pat Midgeley felt that the sentence sent a powerful deterrent message, saying “This sentence should stop people in their tracks. It shows what people are beginning to think about public order offences.” At this point, it should be said that ‘Fista’ did appeal his sentence, having it reduced to 21 months by the Court of Appeal. Nonetheless, it would be hard to deny that Sunderland surely must have been made to suffer for his ‘art’. No sane person wants their liberty taken away, do they?

Except that, for whatever reason, prison did not deter Sunderland. Having been released from prison, he found himself back before the courts in 2002 for similar graffiti offences involving two bridges in Barnsley (although I would have thought that any attempt to add colour to Barnsley ought to have earned him the freedom of the town in any sane society). On Friday this week, Sunderland, now 41, is due back again before the Sheffield Crown Court for sentence, having admitted numerous further offences of damaging railway property in Sheffield, Rotherham and Chesterfield in 2009 by way of graffiti ‘art’.

In an excellent and thought-provoking article in the Guardian newspaper this week, Simon Jenkins said “The British are prison addicts. We scour the country for reasons to imprison. We jail for not having a television licence, for Googling in jury rooms, for smoking cannabis, for hacking a phone…”* The point he makes, in a nutshell, is that this is not a ‘prison crisis’ but one in our courts and parliament. We live in a culture which seems to have prison as some kind of all-encompassing answer or antidote to every ‘anti-social behaviour’ hard-wired into its DNA. That is all well and good if you also have a society which is willing to spend whatever it takes to build prisons and staff them appropriately. But if you want to keep imprisoning people, or remanding them in custody, and you are not prepared to allocate sufficient resources, then you are going to be sitting on a ticking time bomb so far as the prison population is concerned. If you want to send someone to prison because they can’t seem to stop rambling ‘in the buff’, well, you have to provide the resources to keep them locked up. But of course the reality is that the government either can’t, or won’t, allocate sufficient resources to ensure both the physical space to incarcerate an ever-expanding prison population or prison staff to watch over them. The result? Grayling fiddles while Rome burns.

And in all of this, very few people ask the real question: what is prison meant to achieve? What has prison achieved for Simon Sunderland, for example?

In her 2008 memoir ‘How To Survive Puberty At 25’, Nina Bhadreshwar recalls an interview she conducted with Simon Sunderland, during which she asked him ‘What would stop you doing graffiti?’ To this, Sunderland replied ‘Having my hands chopped off.’ A five year prison sentence, albeit reduced on appeal, and further court appearances for similar matters has failed to prevent Sunderland committing further offences of criminal damage. What is the answer? Longer and longer prison sentences? Some would probably endorse the answer that Sunderland himself gave, and have his hands surgically removed, with or without anaesthetic. Or does the answer lie in the realisation that society has to be more creative, particularly in situations where nobody has been killed, nobody has been physically injured, nobody has even had their personal belongings stolen or their personal security threatened.

The stock response to Simon Sunderland’s case is to suggest that if he simply cannot stop spraying on buildings, bridges and walls, he will have to go back inside for longer and longer periods to ‘keep him out of circulation’. Is this really the best that society can do in the 21st century? One way or another, resources are going to have to be found: either to keep people like Sunderland locked away in a regime that satisfies the lust of those who think the answer to every ‘crime’ is to bang up the perpetrator for long periods of time, or to support creative and imaginative ways of responding to behaviours we deem ‘anti-social’. Sunderland is not a murderer, rapist, violent criminal, robber or house-breaker, but it is possible that in less than two days time he will be back in a prison system that is – in spite of Grayling’s denials – in a state of crisis, under-resourced and with no clue as to what it is really now trying to achieve beyond the will of political masters whose interests really are no more than being re-elected. Is this really the best we can do?

*”How can Chris Grayling deny our prisons crisis?”: Simon Jenkins, 19th August 2014 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/19/chris-grayling-prisons-crisis-inspectors-overcrowded-violent-jails

 

Mark Fletton is a former barrister. Now a writer and researcher, he lives in Exeter & is a hardened Sheffield Wednesday (amended after suitable bollocking) supporter.

5 comments

  1. A brilliant article Mark,
    I think I stand alone on the Ice-Man Grayling, his armada of well wishers that sing his praises are all at sea when the shit slinging mob descend upon him. He takes the blame for the last five decades and responds by raising an eyebrow and smiles at the lefties. No one will hear him say “I have not been in charge for the last five decades”. Has he ever said that Labour are to blame for the mess? Unlike David Cameron who was taught that sentence at the age of three. He has made changes that many people seem to think are a personal attack on them alone, whereas the reality is that of a systematic change to a system that is decades old. I have not seen a minister of his calibre in decades, his body language is only readable when he raises an eyebrow, he is one smart cookie and does not suffer fools gladly. People loathe and hate him. I look at the man and I can only give him credit for the man he is..

    1. You’re looking at the psyche of the man, JP. And I have to agree with you, the man is a hulk of ice.

      I do find him fascinating in how he conducts himself and I’m not convinced his opponent, Sadik holds the qualities you mention. I have just written an article on World Medical Times and described Grayling as a tank.

      But you make great points on him. He does not care and I found a rather odd article today which translates his comments to a right load of crap.

      There is a prison crisis. We cannot deny this, but it is not a problem created by Chris Grayling, it is embedded in the fabric of the foundation.

      To which brings me to respond to Mark.

      1. You seem to have an insight that I have to agree with T, he seems to be in a league of his own and is certainly not called Howard. I think he has little time for anyone named Howard. It is not a burden on him and that is why he never tries to pass the buck and run off to the media like others do. No one can even mimic this guy not even Spitting Image could have cast this guy, folks can set the rockets off as often as they wish they will never be able to get under his skin.

  2. Mark,

    Once again, I must thank you for this brilliant piece.

    What you describe is not unusual and naturally, I have lapped up the media frenzy circulating. I respect and support The Howard League in their work. However, last night, I was amazed to see The Guardian run an impossibly silly article on *lights out* at 10.30pm for incarcerated youth offenders. It was disappointing to find Howard League amplifying this would plunge young people into darkness and increase mental health problems. I am not into locking up kids, but reality is, we have youth offenders and in some cases, custody is the only option. A lights out policy is not a bad policy to have. It was a silly introductory paragraph and suffice to say, I found myself not reading any further. The time to deal with these young offenders in custody is during the day. Exhaust them so they fall asleep at night and give them boundaries. We cannot keep using mental health as an excuse for the problems in the CJS.

    As I have stated to JP, there is a prison crisis. There is a justice crisis. In fact the whole caboodle is a crisis despite blatant propaganda from so many quarters of the good work being done.

    The crisis is not going anywhere soon. It is too embedded and structural damage has set in. Any government simply papers over the cracks. The house is soon to fall down under the extreme subsidence each government keeps papering over. Simon Sunderland cases reflects the crisis as does the Naked Rambler.

  3. This afternoon, Simon Sunderland was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment by HHJ Julian Goose QC, sitting at Sheffield Crown Court.

    These last of these latest offences were committed in 2009, some five years ago. Sunderland pleaded guilty to them. He has a history of depression and ‘mental health issues’. The sentence of 5 years imprisonment he received in 1996 (reduced to 21 months on appeal) had no ‘deterrent effect’ on him, and any ‘deterrent effect’ on others is impossible to calculate. If you want an example of a futile and unimaginative sentence, which will achieve nothing beyond costing the public purse incredible sums of money to keep him behind bars, this is it. As I said in the article, is this really the best we can do?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s