How Fair Is the Criticism of the Casey Report - Essay Example

Name Instructor How fair is this criticism of the Casey Report ? Institution 14 October 2009 ‘How fair is this criticism of the Casey Report on engaging Communities in Fighting Crime?’ Louise Casey, the former head of Respect Unit was tasked to conduct a research within the public of striking a way of engaging communities in fighting crime by Gordon Brown last year, 2008. The eight month exercise was part of the Prime Minister’s renewed promise of reforms within the criminal justice system and after her submission of the report in June 2008 set the stage for these reforms. Her proposals however, have sparked wide criticisms in the corrective measures suggested to discourage crime involvement and increase public trust in the UK’s Criminal Justice System. It is accredited to extant Greek philosophy that warns: if you do not want criticism do not make your opinions public. The kind of critique and reception (mostly harsh) that the Casey report has received is a case in corroboration given the relative popularity she enjoyed in her former job as head of Respect Unit. Some criticism has been fronted against the report in view of it being primarily prepared to earn her her new job which is downright objectionable ( Joyce 2006). Other criticisms (which are justifiable) have been leveled against the report’s proposals because of its inherent flaws in its presuppositions. Therefore, analysis of criticisms leveled against the Casey report will be discussed herein based on the intrinsic apparent err in stipulations suggested rather than Casey as a person, a view considered elite. First of all, it is agreeable in all resects that the Casey Report has findings that are not only crucial but also true in highlighting flaws that plague the Criminal and Justice system of Britain. “For instance, the report says that a mere 33% of the public are confident that the Criminal Justice system meets the needs of victims” (Maguire, Morgan & Reiner 2007, p. 56). It also says that over 48% of the citizenry would trust national statistics on crime given by independent watchdogs rather than the government. It further adds that well over 90% of the public agree that community punishments for crime should involve some form of payback to the community. Given the wide interest by the public to get involved in community crime prevention (75%), it goes without saying that the proposals that are in tandem with public interest are those that aim at involving them more in the system. The Casey report’s proposals are quite in line with this stand. The report suggests that there should be an awareness of what specific crimes consist in their sentence. The public was found to be indifferent of what happens to those who commit crimes after sentencing (90%) and therefore publication of information on convicted criminals was suggested as a way to sensitize the public in this area. This would, in the spirit of community involvement in the Criminal Justice System, enlighten the public of measures taken while convicts serve their sentence to rehabilitate them to be more useful to the society when they come back. Such a front by the government will in turn encourage public confidence to see the system as being mindful of convicts’ welfare rather than just sadistically locking them up. The report suggests that the government should ensure standardised approaches to Neighbourhood Policing are adopted by all forces to improve public awareness, familiarity and confidence in the justice system. The close community-police relationship when is full blown will drastically curtail crime by free sharing of information from the public who have high chances of detecting crime since they live and relate with these offenders on a daily basis. Good Criminal and Justice System flourishes on information gathered about crime and the best source is the public who when their trust is earned play an important role in effective crime management (Davies, Croall & Tyrer2005. It was also found that over 58% of the public take poor parenting as a great contributor to crime in Britain. In this response, the Casey report suggested that the government should continue its intervention efforts in alleviating poor parenting which risks lapsing the social responsibility conduct and behaviour of their children. This is to be done, continues the report, by publicizing to the entire society which action is to be taken with parents and children in the event of misconduct, persistent taunting, committing crime and skiving school. “These arrangements should trigger a formal response coordinated by the local authority that gets help to the family” (Joyce 2006, p.23). Measures like these no doubt help mend the dilapidating child behaviour that leads to crime and reoffending rates, that according to the Guardian is a staggering 80% among young offenders. As illustrated with the above selected proposals suggested by the Casey report, it is clear that the report has handy suggestions that can be used to reinstate public confidence in the Criminal Justice System at the same time bringing substantial reforms that will ensure effectiveness. Therefore blanket criticisms that tend to fault the entire report and advocate for its dismissal is by no means highly objectionable. Criticisms also that fault the report based on the constitution of the Casey’s committee that came up with it is sheer display of professional mediocrity. However, criticism is justified on ground of inconsistency with basic human rights and common sense (Gibson & Cavadino 2008). In this regard, the report has suggestions that in themselves lack the whim to attract professional backing. The apparent silence of the report on young offenders (only giving directions on correctional measures for petty disobedience to parents and school absconding) fails to keep into account the huge economic strain and effect young offenders have on the criminal Justice system and government spending. Eric Allison, a criminal justice columnist, estimates the annual cost per person kept in a young offender institution to be 100, 000 pounds and annual cost per child in secure training homes and training centre to be around 215 000 pounds and 200 000 pounds respectively. Given the increasing numbers of young offenders nationally, the report failed in addressing this serious concern in the Criminal Justice System (Padfield 2008). Factors that contribute to youth reoffending are as complex as they are numerous thus satisfactorily tackling them is a hard nut to crack. The main factor here may be failure of the penal code that constitutes jails being ill quipped to deal with increase of mentally ill prisoners, jail overcrowding and lack of drug treatment facilities. This notwithstanding, tackling the crucial issue of youth offending will save the society from paying heavily financially and in human suffering for ages to come. It is therefore imperative to tackle this issue with this age bracket to realize a more manageable, effective and civilized Criminal Justice System. Making it a requirement that all people serving community punishment should wear visible tabards labeled ‘ Offender’ and displaying their pictures in public places as a way of shaming them intended to discourage them (and others) from further involvement in crime defeats all logic. Criticism to this proposal by Casey is justified since vengeance and public shaming of the offenders can never be a basis of an efficient Criminal Justice System. A community sentence is given to those whose offense is not considered overtly harmful and thus do pose minimal risk of causing further harm to the public. For such, this sentence should be less desocialising than a custodian sentence and should be rehabilitative in nature (Frank 2009). Another front of err in the report as delineated by Ian Loader is in the suggestion that appears to equate victim and offender in some equal-sum platform where the offender is treated as considerately by the community policing pact as is the victim. Here oversight is observed in the report’s complete embrace of public opinion oblivious of the fact that it (public opinion) is more often than not usually ill-informed and therefore basing suggestive reforms on it appears piffling. Protections a liberal Criminal Justice System provides cannot be scoffed by the crippling view that government has completely lost its legitimate role in raising quality of public debate and correcting crime myths leading to proposals in support of overhaul reforms that favour a community based approach to Criminal Justice System. If for no other reason, then at least the preoccupation of public opinion with crime and eagerness for harsher ostentatious punishment should curtail such efforts. The approach fronted in the report to imply that crime is too important a policy to be left to elected politicians cannot evade criticism given the alternative suggested. On the contrary, government should treat and front a penal policy that is insulated from populist reasoning and electoral pressure and put it in experts’ hands since an effective penal policy cannot win war against media and ill-formed public opinion (Flemming 2007). It is therefore clear that the criticisms leveled against Louise Casey’s report finds acceptance on specific proposals almost as much as it receives repudiation in other cases. However, from the discussion above, it is concluded that criticism against this report has been a bit harsh than necessary by considering the report in part rather than holistically and therefore being quite unfair. Reference Davies, M, Croall, H & Tyrer, J 2005, Criminal Justice: An Introduction to the Criminal Justice System in England & Wales (3rd edition), Longman, Harlow. Flemming, D 2007, Criminal Justice System, Routledge, London. Frank, R 2009, Materials on the Criminal Justice Process, Emond Montgomery. Gibson, B & Cavadino, P 2008, The Criminal Justice System: An Introduction (3rd Ed. ), Waterside Press, Hook. Joyce, P 2006, ‘Criminal Justice: An Introduction to Crime and the Criminal Justice System’, Willan Newburn, Cullompton. Maguire, M., Morgan, R & Reiner, R 2007, The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (4th ed. ), Oxford University Press, Oxford. Padfield, N 2008, Text and Materials on the Criminal Justice Process (4th ed. ), Oxford, Oxford University Press. Read More