Like those people who will tell others only half of the story, missing out the crucial bits, called a ‘half truth’ in contract law, I don’t think it’s possible to half-believe in rehabilitation. If I had a single penny everytime I had a penny somebody had said to me, ‘I believe in rehabilitation, but…’, I would be able to get over the fact my DLA was stopped without any warning or notice several months ago perhaps. Maybe it’s a marmite thing – you either love or hate it, but I fundamentally don’t believe you can believe in half-rehabilitation (or half-redemption), in that you cannot by definition be half-pregnant. When people are allowed a second-chance, they should be given just that, with a renewed presumption of innocence, and not suffer sophistry that denies double jeopardy.

Neuroscience and the law have recently hit the legal blogosphere and legal twittersphere, and a paper which has made a profound impact on me appeared in 2004 in the published Proceedings of the Royal Society. It’s a wonderfully concise article, with co-author Prof Josh Greene from Harvard, entitled, “For the neuroscience, law changes nothing and everything”.  In this article, Josh addresses the balance, a pre-occupation of the law, between retribution and rehabilitation, and certainly in the UK, the court of public opinion is a factor. It’s well known, for example, that 99% of the public (Sun readers, rather) believe in the death penalty; should the legislature reflect entirely the views of its public, or should it mould or inform public opinion as appropriate?   The public mood currently seems to be retributive, and one which may be influenced towards a drive towards austerity (why should we spend more on prisons?) This issue has reared its ugly head recently regarding our membership of the European Union, and indeed remaining a signatory of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Josh’s abstract reads:

The rapidly growing field of cognitive neuroscience holds the promise of explaining the operations of the mind in terms of the physical operations of the brain. Some suggest that our emerging understanding of the physical causes of human (mis)behaviour will have a transformative effect on the law. Others argue that anew neuroscience will provide only new details and that existing legal doctrine can accommodate whatever new information neuroscience will provide. We argue that neuroscience will probably have a transformative effect on the law, despite the fact that existing legal doctrine can, in principle, accommodate whatever neuroscience will tell us. New neuroscience will change the law, not by undermining its current assump- tions, but by transforming people’s moral intuitions about free will and responsibility. This change in moral outlook will result not from the discovery of crucial new facts or clever new arguments, but from a new appreciation of old arguments, bolstered by vivid new illustrations provided by cognitive neuroscience. We foresee, and recommend, a shift away from punishment aimed at retribution in favour of a more progressive, consequentialist approach to the criminal law.

I went on Wednesday to a meeting of the Fabian Society at Westminster, which was a pamphet launch by Sadiq Khan MP, the Shadow Lord Chancellor, “Punishment and reform: how our justice system can help cut crime”.

You can view the pamphlet here.

The meeting has hosted at Mary Sumner House, 24 Tufton Street, London SW1P 3RB.

Sadiq writes in the Preface,

Our prisons are full of people who are illiterate and innumerate, who suffer from multiple mental health problems and drug addiction, who were in care a schildren and excluded from school. So I am under no illusions about the scale of the rehabilitation challenge. Dealing with the underlying issues many offenders face so they can get a job, reconnect with family and find a home upon release – all essentiaal to approach.

But what about the Sun sampling of the Court of Public Opinion? As Prof Julian Roberts says in the pamphlet, polls are only part of the picture, and the explanation for this in the pamphlet is convincing.

Mary Riddell chaired the meeting.

The Barrow-Cadbury Trust funded the pamphlet, and it has had a longstanding interest in social justice. The Barrow Cadbury Trust ((on Twitter here) is an independent, charitable foundation, committed to supporting vulnerable and marginalised people in society. The Trust provides grants to grassroots voluntary and community groups working in deprived communities in the UK, with a focus on Birmingham and the Black Country.

The issue has become critically important. Sadiq argued in an influential article in the Guardian in March 2011 that a tough penal policy fails on prevention of reoffending.  There are two particularly noteworthy paragraphs in this article, and I apologise in advance for these being party-political points:

Labour made a mistake by “playing tough” on crime and allowing the prison population to soar to record levels during its time in government, instead of tackling sky-high reoffending rates, the shadow justice secretary, Sadiq Khan, is to acknowledge for the first time on Monday.

and later

Labour should have done much better in reducing reoffending rates of those coming out of prison, he believes: “I feel it was a mistake to not focus more on the issue of reducing offending. We became hesitant in talking about rehabilitation and the merits of bringing down reoffending rates.

“A focus on rehabilitation and reducing reoffending was seen as being soft on crime, when in fact it is effective in reducing crime.”

Khan also warns that Ken Clarke’s “rehabilitation revolution”, which includes greater use of the voluntary sector and payment-by-results schemes, is seriously jeopardised by 25% cuts in the justice ministry’s budget. He argues that if Clarke’s plans fail then much of the progress in criminal justice over the past 13 years will be undone and the door left opened for the Tory right.

In March 2011, the BBC website reported the following:

The parents of a teenager who was stabbed to death are part of a group calling for all crime victims to be involved in the sentencing process.

Barry and Margaret Mizen, whose son, Jimmy, 16, died in 2008, are among 30 signatories to a letter in the Times.

Criminal justice reform proposals are currently being developed by ministers.

And the government is consulting about proposals to widen the use of restorative justice to cover low-level crime to cover low-level crime and anti-social behaviour.

Indeed, at our meeting on Wednesday, Barry Mizen explained that his views have changed over time. One of his priorities was to make sure it did not break up his marriage, but also hopefully that something good would come out of the devestating event which had happened. Barry felt that it was important  for us all to have a grown up debate about the issue, but wished to see a mature attitude of society towards the situation of young people killing each other and their victims.

Mary Riddell asked Barry if he was informed about what to expect. Barry found the Police to be excellent, the lawyers for the Crown Prosecution Service were excellent, and the information came forward freely, and indeed Barry felt supportive. There were procedural issues about the release of the body however, according to Barry.

Prevention is better, from Barry’s point-of-view. Barry felt that you cannot as such force people into rehabilitation, as people have to decide individually as to whether to embrace rehabilitation. Educational opportunities are there, but Barry feels that nothing can be done unless the individual wishes to avail them. There is a perception that ever bigger sentences would act as a better deterrent. Barry feels that too many politicians are driven by the media which exert pressure – ‘talking tough’ is seen to solve the problem.

In austere times, how can you justify social justice? Despite their expense, according to Sadiq at Wednesday’s meeting, SureStart and the Youth Justice Board may have seen a reduction in crime rates, in custodial rates. Sadiq referred to this statistic (reported here).

The Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour has recently estimated that the  relevant annual costs relating to youth crime and antisocial behaviour come to just over £4 billion. According  to a recent report by the National Audit Office, offending by all young people in England and Wales is  estimated to have cost the economy between £8.5 and £11 billion in 200912.

Joined up policy might mean that local authorities see the consequences of their own policy, according to Sadiq. This leads to the urge for Sadiq and colleagues asking for views from the public at large about reform of the criminal justice system, and Sadiq encouraged people to look at a new website www.justicereview.org.uk for justice reviews – Sadiq wants a justice system fit-for-purpose.

What chance is there of three parties working together? Consensus on justice would mean that a change in government would not mean a change in policy.

Can the offender be treated as the victim? Sadiq argued yes – the social issues before a person commits the first event, what happens in the prison system, and what happens if they leave, all need to be considered. Individuals’ responsibility should be considered, but also the context in which the crime takes place. Iain Duncan-Smith claims to understand the importance of prevention, according to Sadiq, but this is not carried through, for example in abolition of nursery clubs, youth clubs, overpopulated prisons and less prison officers.

Mary Riddell asked about people who have an indeterminate system. Judges should have freedom to set indeterminate sentences according to Sadiq Khan. If there are insufficient courses or programmes, cutting the number of programmes is not a solution., according to Saqid, In summary, judges should have at their disposal indeterminate sentences. Sadiq emphasised that ultimately judges are responsible for sentences, not individual MPs.

It was an excellent meeting. Mary, Barry and Sadiq were brilliant, and we all had ample opportunity to ask questions thanks to Mary.