Criminal Justice in Scotland - Essay Example

Majority of scholars in criminal justice system, during the previous decade, refused to characterise Scotland’s criminal justice as a ‘system’ because of its deficiency with regard ‘rational coordination amongst the agencies involved’ (Hutton, N. 1999). These scholars asserted that a ‘process’ instead of a ‘system’ prevails in the Scottish criminal justice (Hutton, N., 1999) amidst the rising number of offenders incarcerated in Scottish prisons. Hence, this increase in criminality in the previous decades brought about a re-evaluation of the theory utilised in Scottish penal system and a reassessment of the principles used in criminal justice regarding gender, race, discrimination and rehabilitation of offenders. This paper will analyse if Scotland’s existing criminal justice and penology theories and application of these principles in the rehabilitation of offenders are effective in their treatment of prisoners. Prevailing views in the previous decades with regard Scotland’s prison service seem to be fortified by the current data and findings about the ‘inefficacy’ of the Scottish prison system which replete the media and the web. There is an increase in imprisonment, higher that what was posted in the previous years and overcrowding in Scotland’s prison, where many has languished for more than 6 months for minor offences, has become worse and was even described as the most overcrowded in Europe It is predicted that when legislators introduce new laws, the number of prisoners will increase by 14% (CJS 2007). Authorities on this subject contend that Scotland is turning in a punitive society where an increasing number of people are incarcerated, growing from 122 individuals out of 100,000 to 141. Some also question if Scotland has become safer as it plans put more people in jail (CJS 2007) by building more prison facilities while others contend that locking offenders up will not change anything if the criminal justice system is not improved. In addition, data and information, for many, have not improved at all as the studies still showed dismal results similar to those seen during past decades. For instance, in the 1996 data on offenders who sought psychiatric assistance, less that 0.1% of convicted offenders were afforded this service and only 0.5% of the offenders were confined in psychiatric institutions. The use of the insanity bargain is a rare occurrence in Scotland. Yet, mental unfitness is evident in many offenders and the problem lies on the absence of a universal policy which necessitates the endowment of psychiatric services to mentally handicapped offenders (Hutton, N., 1999). This in contrast to the system employed in England and Wales, The Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland which employ a clinical approach to mentally unfit or dangerous offenders and leans towards treatment than punishment. Post trial detentions, for example, are provided in mental institutions for offenders even with partial responsibility for a certain offence. The same can be said on the programmes in England and Wales where prison based treatment programmes are afforded to mentally unfit offenders, sex offenders and drug abuser offenders (McGuire 1995). Drug Treatment and testing order has just become accessible in Scotland in 1999 where community sentences that necessitate treatment for drug abusers and drug taking offenders exist. However, these treatments are not prison based and individuals who perpetrate drug-related offences are required to seek treatment in the community in which they serve a custodial sentence. Experts predict that widespread implementation of the programmes in Scotland will result to the reduction of crimes related to drugs. Although comparable to the percentage and statistics of women convicted worldwide, women conviction in Scotland stood less than 14% and only 3% of those were incarcerated. However, the incarceration of female offenders suffered criticism after a series of suicides Cornton Vale women’s penal institution. Experts contend that women should be treated differently from men as women commit offences much less frequently compared to the offences done by men (McIvor, G., 1992; McIvor G. and Tulle-Winton, E., 1993; McIvor, G. and Barry, M.,1998). In addition, women rarely commit violent and serious offenses. Many women who are incarcerated, mostly as a result of a first offense, are commonly marginalised members of society whose custody and imprisonment experiences will further undermine their family relationships and community ties they are the usual ones who lose custody of the children (Graham, 1988; Rutter et al, 1979; Mortimore et al, 1988). In most cases, these women have suffered poverty and abuse or have misused drugs, tend to have lower educational attainment and emotional distress but these offences do not pose threats to public safety. Many see this as gender discrimination and thus through independent organizations concerned about criminal justice in Scotland, citizens have urged the penal authorities to reduce women’s imprisonment especially if it is a first sentence or offense. Report by human rights organisations recommend that the populations in particular institutions be limited to about a hundred and that no females below the age of 18 be held in penal institutions in the future (Scottish Executive, 2000c). Apart from these allegations, the Scottish penal system was also criticised for its racist policies. Although not very racially diverse, the ethnic minority population in Scotland was composed of 1.3% of the population which included Pakistani, Chinese and those of East Indian ethnicity. Scotland’s ethnic minority population is fewer than that of England and Wales. A couple of years ago, for instance, Scotland’s Prison Service has been declared guilty of racial discrimination by The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) (BBC News 2003). The Commission reported that in some specific penal establishments, both the prisoners and the workers in the institution were subjected to racial abuse. This investigation was the result of a racist murder which occurred at Feltham Young Offenders penal establishment in March of the year 2000. Furthermore, the investigation pinpointed more events from 1991 to 2000 in which the authorities in some prison institutions failed to document and check racial discrimination occurrences (BBC News 2003) Last year however, the Scottish Prison Service published a report in which it states that it ‘has taken a number of positive steps to promote race equality across the organisation’ (Prison Service 2006). The Prison Service cited the improvements in race relations and stated that it has introduced measures in which racial equality auditing has been incorporated in its regular review. Moreover, the Prison Service announced that it was able to train its staff successfully with regards knowledge of race equality through the dissemination of information and examples of proper behaviour and practice on race relations across the organisation by employing various internal media channels. In the national level, the Scottish Prison Service reported that it created an impact assessment scheme in evaluating racial issues. (Prison Service 2006). With regard the issue of juvenile delinquency, Scotland’s policy on prevention involved the policy brought forth by the Kilbrandon Committee, instituted in the 1960’s to assess legal stipulations in Scotland ‘relating to the issue of juvenile delinquents… and in particular, the constitution, powers and procedures for the courts dealing with such juveniles’ (Hutton, 1999). This became the philosophical foundation of the juvenile justice system in Scotland. In the previous decades however, experts were worried that this shift towards public safety would result to more punitive sentencing of juvenile offenders. What was surprising here was the setting of the age of majority in Scotland to one of the lowest in the world: 8 years old (Hutton 1999). Yet, problem with regards juvenile offenders and sentencing did not occur. In 1998 for instance, (18) the HM Chief Inspector for Prisons, commented that the scheme introduced in Rannoch Hall ‘was one of the most impressive initiatives for offenders’ seen anywhere in the world (HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 1998, 1.2). The Rannoch Hall scheme stipulates that young offenders (YO’s) under the age of 18 as are under the age of 18 are eligible for entry in the Hall. The policy as reported by the HM Chief Inspectors of Prison ‘provides an ideal opportunity for staff an YO’s to build excellent relationship’ which could influence behaviour of the offender by breaking down the barriers between the YO’s and the staff the institution for the young in conflict with the law. Lipsey contends that a better evaluation of this programme is necessary as various evidences manifest that ‘some custody based programmes can contribute to a reduction in re-offending (Lipsey, 1999b). Authorities in Scotland tends to forward the welfare model in its treatment of juvenile offenders as this attempts more to meet the needs of the juvenile in conflict with the law (Scottish Executive, 2000a). Yet, the scheme utilised by the government of Scotland is contradictory as at times it uses both welfare and justice policies. As aforementioned, the typical age of responsibility, as aforementioned is low compared to other advanced countries and territories worldwide. In Scotland the age of responsibility is set at 8 years old, which also makes the child criminally liable at that certain age. In England and Wales, a child can be criminally responsible at the age of 10, 13 in France, 14 in Germany, 16 in Spain and 18 in Belgium. This is contrary to the provisions stipulated in the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by the United Kingdom in 1991, which provides that “In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities, or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.” Moreover under the convention, a child is defined as ‘every human being below the age of 18 years.’ In practice and in legal reality, 16 year old children or below, are said to have undergone prosecution in Scotland(Hallett, C., Murray, C., Jamieson, J. and Veitch, B., 1998). Hence, serious consideration on the issue must be put forth. Dignan likewise asserts that in ‘common law jurisdictions’ there should be a proclivity to limit the use of the process of restorative justice to the minor offences incurred by the young offenders as for instance by ‘linking them to police cautioning initiatives.’ In countries such as the United States, the trend is to try juvenile offenders as adults (Cavadino and Dignan 1997). Moreover, 40 states including the District of Columbia passed legislations, which eased legal constraints in trying juveniles as adults in their respective jurisdictions (Griffin et al. 1998). If Scotland’s treatment of juvenile offenders could be deemed as more humane compared to the treatment of young offenders in the US, Scotland’s use of ‘custody’ has been attacked as ‘backward.’ In 1998 alone 11 percent of the penalties inflicted on offenders were ‘custodial’ sentences utilised even for minor offences which would not result to any kind of apparent threat to public safety. Although many of those in custody were not sentenced to imprisonment, the problem lies in the breach of community penalty of default in the payment of fines. However, imprisonment has broad implications as for instance, the isolation from the society limits a person’s abstention from re-offending after his release. Study shows that the longer period of time a person stays incarcerated, the more ‘institutionalised he becomes and thus his re-adjustment to society as soon as he is released becomes more constrained. Most of those who had undergone ‘institutionalisation’ found it more difficult to seek employment. Moreover, an offender’s ties with his family will completely be severed or destroyed. A custodial sentence therefore is a stark contrast to community programmes whose objectives are for the offenders to admit responsibility for his misconduct while cementing the support of his family. Hence, there is an urgent necessity to constrict the utilisation of imprisonment so that this method is just particularly used to rehabilitate the more severe offences. It is quite important to not that in the present decade, Scottish courts have shifted its sentencing scheme from imprisonment to community service. The utilisation of community service scheme has doubled during the last few years and probation orders has likewise increased threefold (Louks & McIvor, 2000). The changes in in the gravity of the offence is said to be the cause of this shifting trends and patterns but could also include the use of custody and the utilisation of fines. Nonetheless, the impositions of fines in sentencing of offenders has also been declining in the past few years as the number of cases that come to the courts table are now diverted to fiscal fines, fines that are fixed by the law enforcers instead (Louks & McIvor, 2000). In its treatment of adult offenders, the Scottish Prison Service has improved its policy towards adult offenders by introducing a diversion programme. Men who are convicted of physical abuse against women and are imposed imprisonment as penalty are required to attend a re-education programme, dubbed as the CHANGE programme. This is one condition in the offenders probation order. This scheme includes a weekly group sessions which lasts for 6 to 7 months. The result of this policy is beneficial as after the one year period of intervention, a much lower prevalence of abuse and violence towards female partner is reported as compared to the prevalence of violence among offenders when intervention is not effected (Dobash et al, 1996). Thus, it cannot be totally justified to contend that the prison service in Scotland is inefficient. In fact current research has shown that the number of women sent to prison has not increased in the past few years and Scotlands switch to restorative justice is producing beneficial results amidst the decreasing of crimes. Scotland is also considered one of the most progressive in Europe in its dealing with juvenile offences and children in conflict with the law. Although its crime rate is lower that that of England and Wales, Scotland should strive to improve its prison service as there exist further problems such as the frequent use of incarceration in dealing with problems related to mental health and drug addiction, but with its continued over hauling of its existing policies, Scotland may be able to achieve greater strides in criminal justice. WORKS CITED BBC News, (2003, December 16). Racism found at prison. Retrieved March 29, 2007, from BBC News Web site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/3323297.stm BBC News, (2007, February 18). Lib Dems new approach on crime . Retrieved March 28, 2007, from BBC News Web site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/6373643.stm Cavadino and Dignan (1997) (2nd ed) The Penal System Chapters 2 and 3 Crime and Criminal Justice. Criminal Justice Scotland, (2007). Scotland’s progress in tackling crime marred by huge prison expansion . Retrieved March 28, 2007, from CJ Scotland Web site: http://cjscotland.org.uk/ Dobash, R., Dobash, R., Cavanagh, K. and Lewis, R., 1996, ‘Research Evaluation of Programmes for Violent Men’, Edinburgh, Graham, 1988; Rutter et al, 1979; Mortimore et al, 1988. Graham, J., 1988, ‘Schools, Disruptive Behaviour and Delinquency’, Home Office Research Study, no. 96, London, HMSO. Graham, J., 1988, ‘Schools, Disruptive Behaviour and Delinquency’, Home Office Research Study, no. 96, London, HMSO. Griffin, P. et al. (1998). Trying Juveniles as Adults in Criminal Court: An Analysis of State Transfer Provisions, National Centre for Juvenile Justice Report, December 1998 Hallett, C., Murray, C., Jamieson, J. and Veitch, B., 1998, ‘The Evaluation of the Children’s Hearings in Scotland Volume 1: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland, 1998, ‘Report on HM Young Offenders Institution Polmont’, Edinburgh, The Scottish Office. Hutton, N. (1999) ‘Sentencing’ in Criminal Justice in Scotland. Aldershot: Ashgate, UK Lipsey, M, 1999a, ‘Can Rehabilitative Programs Reduce The Recidivism Of Juvenile Offenders?’, Virginia Journal of Social Louks, N. and McIvor, G., 2000, ‘Prisons and Community Penalties in Scotland’, Report for the Scottish Consortium M c G u i re, J. (Ed). (1995). What Works: Reducing reoffending – guidelines from research and practice. Chichester: Wiley. Maguire, J. (1995) What works: reducing reoffending : guidelines from research and practice. Chichester ; New Yor. Chapter 1 and 2 Maguire, M. et. al (2002) Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Chapter 29 McGuire, J., 1995, (ed), What Works? Reducing Reoffending, New York, Wiley. McIvor, G., 1992; McIvor G. and Tulle-Winton, E., 1993; McIvor, G. and Barry, M.,1998) Mortimore, P., Sammons, P., Stoll, L., Lewis, D. and Ecob, R., 1988, School Matters: The Junior Years, Shepton Mallett, on Children, London, Open Books. Open Books.Policy and the Law, 6. 611-41. Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., and Ouston, J., 1979, Fifteen Thousand Hours: Secondary Schools and their Effects Scottish Executive, 2000a, ‘It’s A Criminal Waste, Report of Advisory Group on Youth Crime’, Edinburgh, The Stationery Office.Deciding in Children’s Interests’, Edinburgh, The Scottish Office Central Research Unit. Scottish Executive, 2000c, ‘Costs, Sentencing Profiles and the Scottish Criminal Justice System, 1998’, Edinburgh, The Stationery Office. Scottish Executive, 2000c, ‘Costs, Sentencing Profiles and the Scottish Criminal Justice System, 1998’, Edinburgh, The Stationery Office. Scottish Prison Service, (2006).RACE EQUALITY SCHEME: ANNUAL REPORT 2006. Scottish Prison Service Annual Report. 1, 1-14. The Scottish Office Central Research Unit. Read More