Skip to main content

Why is rehabilitation treated as a punishment?

Smoking heroin

I was in court today for a duty session.  I represented a man with a long history of drug abuse and offending.  He had taken a ten-year break from crime and drugs, partly because he spent four-years in prison and partly because he met a woman, married and had kids.  A family breakdown has led him back to heroin.

In the past year he’s committed a couple of minor thefts and been found in possession of heroin, which is why I represented him today.

He agreed he needed help to kick the drugs and wanted me to apply for a pre-sentence report aimed at a community order with a drug rehabilitation requirement attached.

His instructions and the recent offending indicate an escalation in offending meaning it’s very likely that without support he will find himself back before the court having committed further offences.

Ultimately, my application for a PSR was refused on the basis that the offence was not sufficiently serious to warrant a punishment as serious as a community order.  In law, the court was quite right – the possession of a single wrap probably did not merit a community order.  In practice, they will find themselves sentencing this man again in the next few weeks when he commits further offences.

This leads me to ask the question: why do we treat rehabilitation as a punishment?

I have no idea why rehab isn’t imposed as an ancillary order rather than as a sentence.  There’s no reason why participation couldn’t still be mandatory but making the requirement ancillary to the sentence would enable the court to help more offenders get themselves clean and that means less crime for everyone else.

Comments

  1. Have you ever considered that the cost to the public purse might be involved in the decision? Until enforceable rehabilitation in a system where drug use is considered a medical problem and not a criminal offence such people will forever be in and out of the courts (and prisons).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ordinarily I'd not dispute the cost factor; however, in this case I'm convinced that politicians don't want to act for fear of seeming weak on the front page of the Sun and Daily Mail.

      I am convinced that in the long run, getting people off hard drugs (and legalising a lot of currently illegal drugs) would be cheaper than the revolving door prison system we currently operate.

      Delete
  2. If he wants drugs treatment for an addiction why doesn't he make an appointment and see his GP like everyone else with a medical complaint?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He has and is receiving methadone for his habit.

      The reality is that most addicts will not be able to access any rehab via their GPs due to a lack of resources - I've heard many stories from many sources of GPs telling patients that they cannot access rehab until they have been convicted of a criminal offence!

      Secondly, there is the problem of will-power. It's well and good to say "he should have more will-power" but the truth is most of us lack the staying power when things get tough. If I had will power I'd be a rich, muscled Adonis rather than a fat defence brief.

      Delete
  3. Unfortunately the justice system and virtually everyone involved is simply not interested in solving the problem before it becomes a major problem. They'd rather wait until everything goes haywire with the end huge cost result rather than spend a little up front to prevent the major problem from ever occurring. You only have to look at the NHS to see what decades of failure to address the issues way back when have caused.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Robert the Biker14 January 2015 at 12:10

    "A couple of minor thefts"
    I wonder if the people this waste of oxygen robbed consider them minor? I wonder if the crimes for which he has NOT been caught (and let's not be silly here, he's a prolific offender) were also 'minor' and thus not worth complaining about.
    It seems to me that you have the wrong idea of what constitutes a victim here.
    This clown is in his predicament because he is a cheap crook and a scaghead, no other reason.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First, I should make it clear that he wasn't in court that day for theft and that theft is not the same as robbery (although I realise you may have been using "robbed" in a less technical way). I don't know what the thefts were in the past but since the court dealt with them by discharge and then a very small fine I don't imagine they were very high value - I also recall that they were shopliftings but could be wrong.

      I'm not going to disagree with you about how he came to be in this predicament but there are different approaches people can take to resolving the situation. First, you can get into a cycle of locking him up, releasing him, crime, prison, release, crime, prison, etc. I'd suggest that does nobody any good because a) it guarantees more victims in the future; and b) it's quite expensive to keep somebody in prison.

      I take a more pragmatic approach, which is that we, as a society, should rehabilitated people like this man. If it makes you feel better about that approach you don't even have to be doing it for his own good - you can do it to prevent people becoming victims in the future!

      I think that's really the point, our current system does nothing to reduce re-offending. Moving to a system that actually reduces crime and thus reduces the burden on the state in terms of financing prison, policing and the courts as well as reducing the number of victims of crime has to be a good idea.

      Finally, you seem to have misunderstood what I was trying to do that day in court. I wasn't trying to get him an easier sentence I was arguing he should receive a TOUGHER sentence than the court wanted to impose! Community Orders with rehabilitation attached carry the threat of prison if he commits further offences OR fails to comply with the rehab! That's a much more serious position to be in than having to pay a small fine (which he doesn't have to pay anyway because it's deemed served by the weekend he spent in the police cells).

      Delete
  5. Robert the Biker15 January 2015 at 15:37

    OK, I got slightly the wrong end of the stick regarding the sentencing, though I did find your comment that he'd been off the smack for ten years, four of them because he was in prison, rather telling (or funny if you have a twisted sense of humour like mine)
    It seems to me that we have here a man who is moderately capable of controlling his behaviour while in a regimented lifestyle (prison and marriage) not that I think of his wife as a jailer but that women tend to keep men going along a fairly predictable route. As soon as there is a hiccup, he directly reverts to the previous life, one he had been out of for years, fueled by crime. I daresay that the misery he causes his victims, whover they are, concerns him not at all* I do not see how returning him to the regimented existance will keep him off the stuff since he does not seem to have the internal control to moderate his actions once released, ultimately it is he who must break the cycle, otherwise instituthionalising him for the protection of those of us who don't like being robbed may be the best if not perhaps the kindest course.

    * A certain bike thief was pontificating to a pal in the pub about how the people he robbed shouldn't take it personally. This was in a Bikers pub he'd wandered into by mistake. Oh dear.
    It was explained to their remains that yes, it was taken VERY personally.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…