.
There is a very thoughtful article in this morning’s Independent about attitudes to crime and prisons. In particular, it highlights the case of one prisoner helped by the St Giles Trust which, like other similar agencies, offers lifelines to released prisoners.
Labour and Tory parties believe that increased crime is inevitable and are committed to building more prisons to deal with it. All parties are committed to rehabilitation schemes. However, the Lib-Dems say they they would not build more prisons but would replace short prison sentences with rigorous community sentences. They would also establish studies to discover what cuts crime and assess the best schemes for the rehabilitation of offenders.
The thrust of the article is that, while the main parties talk about rehabilitation of offenders, insufficient funds are currently given to those involved in this work. It points out that if the Trust and others like it were given more funds it would be possible to offer every offender leaving prison a new lifeline and that the potential savings for the economy are enormous. To support this, the head of the Trust has said that, ‘An independent study has shown that the prisoners we work with have a re-offending rate 40% lower than the national re-offending rate. Investment in this work carries far more value than what people get up to in the city.’
Few, I think, would argue with this.
.
There is a very thoughtful article in this morning’s Independent about attitudes to crime and prisons. In particular, it highlights the case of one prisoner helped by the St Giles Trust which, like other similar agencies, offers lifelines to released prisoners.
Labour and Tory parties believe that increased crime is inevitable and are committed to building more prisons to deal with it. All parties are committed to rehabilitation schemes. However, the Lib-Dems say they they would not build more prisons but would replace short prison sentences with rigorous community sentences. They would also establish studies to discover what cuts crime and assess the best schemes for the rehabilitation of offenders.
The thrust of the article is that, while the main parties talk about rehabilitation of offenders, insufficient funds are currently given to those involved in this work. It points out that if the Trust and others like it were given more funds it would be possible to offer every offender leaving prison a new lifeline and that the potential savings for the economy are enormous. To support this, the head of the Trust has said that, ‘An independent study has shown that the prisoners we work with have a re-offending rate 40% lower than the national re-offending rate. Investment in this work carries far more value than what people get up to in the city.’
Few, I think, would argue with this.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment