Archive | Prisoners RSS feed for this section

Women In The Criminal Justice System

25 Nov

Interested in the representation of women and men in the criminal justice system, whether as victims, offenders or practitioners? The Ministry of Justice has published the latest edition of  its biannual report on “Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System”.

The main focus is on the year 2011, but  data is also considered for the previous 5 years where possible. The Ministry publishes the report as a requirement of  Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which imposes a duty on the government of the day to publish statistical information to assess whether discrimination exists in the criminal justice system:

“The Secretary of State shall in each year publish such information as he considers expedient for the purpose… of facilitating the performance of those engaged in the administration of justice to avoid discriminating against any persons on the ground of race or sex or any other improper ground.” (Section 95)

The figures should be considered in the context of the most recent mid-year population estimates for 2011 quoted in the report, which show that of the total of 49,509,747 population of England and Wales who are aged over 10 years, women comprised 51% of the population, while men accounted for 49%.

It may not come as a surprise that the figures confirm that there are significantly fewer women than men both subject to supervision in the community and also locked up in prison. More women, too, serve shorter sentences than men.

Some of the key findings in the report are summarised below.

Women as victims of crime

There were differences evident in the level and types of victimisation between women and men. According to the 2011/12 Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) – previously known as the British Crime Survey – 3 in every 100 adults were a victim of violent crime that year. A smaller proportion of women than men interviewed reported being victims of violence (2% women and 4% men).

Women who reported being a victim of violence were most likely to be  victimised by someone with whom they were already acquainted. For men, it was more common to be on the receiving end of violence perpetrated by a stranger.

A greater percentage of women (some 7%) interviewed for the CSEW reported being victims of intimate violence (partner or family non-physical abuse, threats, force, sexual assault or stalking) than men (at 5%).

Prevalence of intimate violence in the last year among adults aged 16 to 59, 2011/12 CESW

Fewer women (201) than men (435) were murdered in 2010/11. With regard to murder, a greater percentage of female victims than male victims knew the principal suspect (78% of women victims of murder as opposed to 57%of male victims of murder).

Overall Arrests by Offence Group and Gender

Percentage of overall arrests by offence group and gender, 2006/07-2010/11 (Source: Ministry of Justice (2012), ‘Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System 2011’)

Sentencing

Theft and handling stolen goods (which includes shoplifting) was the most common indictable offence group for which both women and men were sentenced at all courts between 2007 and 2011 (this applied over half of all women sentenced (52%) but only a third of all men sentenced (33%) for indictable offences in 2011).

Overall, a higher percentage of men(10%) than women(3%) were sentenced to immediate custody in 2011. Women also were more likely than men to be fined (77% of women as opposed to 61% of men).

Men also received longer sentences. The average custodial sentence length for all indictable offences was consistently higher for men than women. This applied throughout the period 2007-2011. In 2011 in particular, the average custodial sentence length for indictable offences was 17.7 months for men  compared to 11.6 months for women.

Average Custodial Sentence Length in months by offence group (indictable offences), 2007-2011 Source: ‘Women in the Criminal Justice System 2011’

The only indictable offence group for which females consistently received a higher average custodial sentence length than males between 2007 and 2011 was criminal damage (in 2011, 25.8 months for women as opposed to 18.2 months for men).

The percentage of both women and men sentenced to an immediate custodial sentence rises with the number of previous cautions or convictions. In 2011, 39% of men and 29% of women with 15 or more cautions or convictions were sentenced to immediate imprisonment.

A greater percentage of women in custody who had received an immediate custodial sentence were serving shorter sentences (12 months or less): 21% of women as opposed to 10% of men in 2011. For women serving prison sentences of 6 months or less,  accounted for 15% as opposed to 7% for men.

Women Subject To Supervision In The Community

In 2011, there were fewer women than men under supervision in the community. A total of 19,018 women and 106,916 men were subject to supervision as a result of a community order or Suspended Sentence Order (these are the two most common types of community sentence). Women comprised 15% of those under supervision in the community as a result of community and Suspended Sentence Orders.

The average length of community and Suspended Sentence Orders was shorter for women in 2011. In addition, women who started such supervision were commonly subject to fewer requirements to comply with than their male counterparts. In terms of order length, 14% of women supervised under a community order were supervised for less than one year. For their male counterparts, the corresponding figure was 7%.

Both women and men supervised on community orders and Suspended Sentence Orders in 2011 had different age profiles. A greater percentage of women commencing community orders (55%) and Suspended Sentence Orders (58%) were aged 30+years when compared with their male counterparts (48% for both community orders and Suspended Sentence Orders).

In 2011, a greater percentage of women completed both community orders (70% for women as opposed to 65% for men). This also applied to Suspended Sentence Orders.

Women In prison

On November 23, 2012, there were 4,174 women in prison in England and Wales. The number of women prisoners increased during the decade ending in 2010 by around 27%. On 30 June 2011, women represented 5% of the total prison population of 85,374 inmates. According to the Prison Reform Trust, over half (51%) of women leaving prison are reconvicted within one year. For those serving shorter sentences (less than 12 months) this rises to 62%.

Population in prison establishments under immediate custodial sentence by gender, as at 30 June 2007–2011 Source: ‘Women in the Criminal Justice System 2011’

In 2011, there were 24,648 incidents of self-harm in prisons. The rate for female self-harm in prison continues to register more than 10 times higher than the rate for men.

In addition, women who self-harmed in 2011 did so more often than men (an average of 7.1 incidents compared to 2.8 incidents for each individual self- harming), though incidents of male self harm were more likely to result in hospitalisation.

There are 630 women prisoners in England and Wales who are foreign nationals. They represent approximately 15% of the women’s prison population. On 30 June 2011, a larger percentage of foreign national women prisoners were incarcerated for drugs offences (39%) and fraud and forgery (14%) than British national women (18% and 3% respectively).

British national women prisoners wee more often incarcerated for offences of violence against the person (29%) or robbery (10%) than foreign national women prisoners (for whom the respective figures are 13% and 3%).

Of the the total of  329 self-inflicted deaths in prison in England and Wales between 2007 and 2011, the vast majority (95%) were men and five per cent (or 15) involved women). This, however, mirrors the gender representation in the prison population.

In 2011, women prisoners were more likely to be subject to the disciplinary process than men. The rate of offences punished in prison establishments was higher for females (130 offences were punished per 100 female prisoners)than for males (with 106 offences punished per 100 male prisoners.

In conclusion, it should be noted that the government qualifies the report by noting that:

“The identification of differences should not be equated with discrimination as there are many reasons why apparent disparities may exist.”

References:

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE (2012), Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System 2011 London: Ministry of Justice.

Advertisements

Prisoners and the Right To Vote in the UK & the USA

4 Nov

“It makes me physically ill even to contemplate having to give the vote to anyone who is in prison. Frankly, when people commit a crime and go to prison, they should lose their rights, including the right to vote.” 

– David Cameron, during Prime Ministers Question Time, November 3, 2010.

David Cameron’s position on voting rights for prisoners has the merit of consistency. Asked a question in the House of Commons some two years ago about whether the incarceration of convicted prisoners should result in a loss of inmates’ rights, he responded that voting rights for prisoners made him “physically ill”.

Since then, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the UK must end its ban on votes for prisoners after the government lost its ultimate appeal.

David Cameron has now pledged once again at prime minister’s questions that his coalition government would never give the prisoners the right to vote. While government now has around three weeks to decide its response to the European court ruling, the prime minister’s insistence last month that “No one should be under any doubt – prisoners are not getting the vote under this government” leaves little doubt about the substance of that official reaction.

Justice Secretary Chris Grayling told the BBC that “It is very clear that most people in the political world in the UK don’t want to give votes to prisoners.”

However, the scale of disenfranchisement in the United States leaves the UK looking positively benevolent. America’s entrenched commitment to mass incarceration and a punitive penal system has long been acknowledged by criminologists. While the nation is home to just 1 in 20 of the world’s population, it imprisons no less than quarter of the whole world’s prison population, with a staggering total of 2.3 million of its citizens behind bars.

One element of American penality will play a key role in the forthcoming presidential election. When voters go the polls this Tuesday, an astonishing total of 5.85 million Americans will be forbidden to exercise the fundamental democratic right to vote. They have been stripped of that right because of what it officially labelled “felon disenfranchisement” – that is, those laws which restricting voting rights for anyone convicted of a criminal offence labelled as a “felony”.

Barack Obama or Mitt Romney? 5.85 million people have no say in the
Presidential Election, due to felony disenfranchisement
(creative commons licence)

A range of state laws bar both felons and in some cases ex-felons from the right to vote. Approximately three quarters of those who are disenfranchised are no longer even behind bars, but are subject to probation supervision or on parole.

Surprisingly for a UK observer, most disenfranchised American citizens are not actually in prison. Almost half of the total number of those barred from voting have already served their full sentence, and are no longer subject to the supervision of the correctional services.

According to the Sentencing Project, ex-offenders in the eleven US states which disenfranchise people after they have served their sentences comprise almost 45 percent of the total of the population denied the right to vote. According to research by the Sentencing Project, an American criminal justice campaigning group which promoting reforms in sentencing policy:

“The number of people disenfranchised due to a felony conviction has escalated dramatically in recent decades as the population under criminal justice supervision has increased. There were an estimated 1.17 million people disenfranchised in 1976, 3.34 million in 1996, and over 5.85 million in 2010.”

In short, 1 of every 40 adults of the USA’s total population of voting age is denied the right to vote due to a current (or previous) conviction for a felony. By my calculations, if the UK was to disenfranchise offenders at a similar rate, we would deny the right to vote around 1.15 million UK offenders and ex-offenders.

The dynamic of race plays a significant role felony disenfranchisement. The harsh reality that US imprisonment rates are disproportionately higher for African American men may hardly come as a shock, considering that America was embroiled in a civil war over the continuation of  slavery until just two lifetimes ago.

African American males are imprisoned at a rate of six times that of their white counterparts. More than two million black citizens are subject to the control of the correctional system, whether in custody, on probation, or on parole. This systematic network of what has been labelled as “racialized social control” (Alexander 2011:20) also encompasses voting rights.

It is astonishing to learn that now less that 1 in every 13 African Americans of voting age is disenfranchised. This is a rate over four times higher than the rate for non-African Americans.

In three states (Florida, Kentucky and Virginia), more than one in five black citizens is denied the right to vote. The disproportionate representation of African Americans within the US penal system means that felony disenfranchisement has a significant impact on the representation of African Americans in the US political system.

There is some evidence that African Americans vote predominantly for Democratic candidates. In a presidential election which promises to be as tightly fought as the current one, African American disenfranchisement may significantly impact the Democratic vote.

Abraham Lincoln’s oft-quoted description of democracy in the United States as embodying “government of the people, by the people, for the people” rings somewhat hollow to almost six million citizens denied the right to vote.

References

ALEXANDER, M. (2011) ‘The New Jim Crow’, The American Prospect, pp. 19-21, Washington: The Justice Policy Institute.

UGGEN, C., SHANNON, S. & MANZA, J. (2012), State-Level Estimates of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States, 2010. Washington DC: The Sentencing Project.

WOOD, E. (2008), Restoring the right to vote. New York: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.

Portaits of Prisoners: 1902-1904

19 Feb

These fascinating and poignant images of prisoners, with their crime chalked on the boards which they made required to hold for the photograph. All were all brought before the North Shields Police Court (in the north-east of England) between 1902 and 1904.

By the 1870s, the courts and the Home Offices regarded photographing those who came before the courts as essential. They aimed to assembled detailed records of offenders.

Both police forces and prison authorities began taking photographs of offenders in an organised and structured way. Photos were usually taken before a prisoner was tried as they could then be used to identify offenders who had committed previous crimes.

The offenders pictured were typically people living lives of pressured poverty and harshness. It is poignant to realise that when we look at these photos, we may be gazing at the only photographs ever taken of the individuals portrayed in their whole lifetimes.

The photographs are selected from an album of photographs of prisoners in the collection of Tyne & Wear Archives. The photos are used courtesy of Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums.

Alfred Thompson, arrested for larceny on 31st August 1902.

Charlotte Branney, arrested for larceny on 5th January, 1904.

James Dawson, arrested for indecent exposure on 9th June, 1902.

Jane Thompson, also known as Gordon, arrested for theft on 13th July, 1904

Mustapha Irola, arrested for false pretences on August 19th, 1904.

Mary Scott Wilson, arrested for larceny on 14th December, 1903.

Andrea Laudano, arrested for larceny on 21st July, 1904.

Alice Caush, arrested for larceny on 31st October, 1903.