Green party and women’s prison reform

Sounds a sensible policy, if the aim is to move towards parity across all boards as a whole.

I would agree but that’s not how it reads. My interpretation is that they think women who comit the same crime as men should get a lighter or non custodial sentence than men

I feel really sorry for those women who make it through ability only for others to assume they are there to fill a quota rather than because they are talented

You feel sorry for people that don’t exist because the quota law doesn’t exist? 🙃

I would agree but that’s not how it reads. My interpretation is that they think women who comit the same crime as men should get a lighter or non custodial sentence than men

Did you go and read the whole policy or just the bit the OP selected to quote?

I think if they had hypothetical twins with identical criminal histories and circumstances they would expect that the brother and sister got the same sentence; what they are actually highlighting is that actually as a population rather than individuals, women end up in prisons for different reasons from men.  There’s a long section on sentencing the OP didn’t quote at all, but lets assume that our hypothetical twins meet the requirements for a custodial sentence.    Now the woman would go to one of about a dozen women’s prisons, whilst the man would go to one of the other 110 others.  Statistically the man is likely to be “closer to home”, which means family ties and connections that are likely to give a better outcome on release.

Statistically the man is likely to be “closer to home”, which means family ties and connections that are likely to give a better outcome on release.

op here, I don’t feel I selectedly quoted anything, I pasted the entire section on prison reform that differed between men and women (the other parts are on reform which affects both genders), as to me it is the interesting section – a modern, fairly mainstream political party having openly gender-bias policies is surprising to me, the fact they have other policies around prison reform, which may or may not be good, is less surprising.

I included the section on smaller, geographically dispersed places as its a difference, although I feel that part is less contriversial – I’d agree that where possible women should have approximately the same distance from home as men are, however in some circumstances due to the numbers involved that’s unlikely to be possible (ie: if there’s only 1 woman who gets sent to prison in the orkneys, its not worth building a prison there).

Having sentancing that takes into account the impact on the lives, mental health, abuse and community around a person are all sensible things and, to some extent, already exist. Having a law that says “you’re a woman so you might be more likely to have been a victim so we’ll not send you to prison just in case” is bonkers.

Under their proposal a woman who mows down a group of cyclists by dangerous driving would not be sent to prison, as without their driving license they don’t pose a danger to society.

openly gender-bias policies is surprising to me

If all the studies on the subject suggested that there is a negative outcome based on gender, why wouldn’t you devise a policy to over come it?

If all the studies on the subject suggested that there is a negative outcome based on gender, why wouldn’t you devise a policy to over come it?

I don’t believe they do. There are negative outcomes based on being a primary caregiver, mental health, etc etc. There are more women (as a percentage of prisoners in situations that are aligned to those negative outcomes, but generalising an entire gender together rather than having policies around the primary caregiver, or around mental health is nonsense. It would be like a law firm saying “well more men are trained as trained as men than are as women, so we’ll just eliminate women from applying for our jobs”

I don’t believe they do.

Forgive me, but who cares? there are folk who ‘don’t believe’ the world is round*. Show me your peer reviewed studies that suggest that the other peer reviewed studies conducted by those other subject-experts** are wrong.

*Oblate sphere for all you pedants

**you are a subject matter expert in this field, right?

The Green Party also support that you can decide what gender you are. If this policy went through then 100% of crime would be committed by women.

Having a law that says “you’re a woman so you might be more likely to have been a victim so we’ll not send you to prison just in case” is bonkers.

Absolutely this.

Forgive me, but who cares? there are folk who ‘don’t believe’ the world is round*. Show me your peer reviewed studies that suggest that the other peer reviewed studies conducted by those other subject-experts** are wrong.

*Oblate sphere for all you pedants

**you are a subject matter expert in this field, right?

I’m arguing the studies don’t demonstrate that women have worse outcomes. The studies, which are conducted by subject experts, do state that women are (for example) likely to have been a victim of crime – thats fine, we should perhaps treat victims of crime differently to those who aren’t victims of crime. We shouldn’t treat a woman who has not been a victim of crime differently to a man who has not been a victim of crime.

“I’d agree that where possible women should have approximately the same distance from home as men are,”
This is a bad measure because many men are serving their sentences too far away from their family with disasterous consequences.
The guideline should be first assess if a custodial sentence is the most appropriate option then it should beat the nearest possible suitable prison

op here, I don’t feel I selectedly quoted anything, I pasted the entire section on prison reform that differed between men and women (the other parts are on reform which affects both genders), as to me it is the interesting section – a modern, fairly mainstream political party having openly gender-bias policies is surprising to me, the fact they have other policies around prison reform, which may or may not be good, is less surprising.

Well I think you should go and read the whole of the link you posted, then re-reread the section on Sentencing (especially CJ346(c)) and see if you are still sure they are proposing a different approach to sentencing women.  I think if you read it carefully you would come to the conclusion that they are saying 1. we want to avoid prison for as many people as possible; 2 we want community punishments that are accessible to everyone regardless of gender, MH issues, vulnerabilities, caring responsibilities. And the consequence of those is that far fewer women would be in prison anyway, making it possible to distribute the remainder geographically.  I agree it could be better written but then they have <1/10th of the resources of the big parties.

I included the section on smaller, geographically dispersed places as its a difference, although I feel that part is less controversial – I’d agree that where possible women should have approximately the same distance from home as men are, however in some circumstances due to the numbers involved that’s unlikely to be possible (ie: if there’s only 1 woman who gets sent to prison in the orkneys, its not worth building a prison there).

For completeness we should be clear that the Greens and Scottish Greens operate autonomously and so the lack of a prison in Orkney (either male or female) is not their concern!

Having sentancing that takes into account the impact on the lives, mental health, abuse and community around a person are all sensible things and, to some extent, already exist. Having a law that says “you’re a woman so you might be more likely to have been a victim so we’ll not send you to prison just in case” is bonkers.

Policies are not laws, and that’s not what the policy says!

Under their proposal a woman who mows down a group of cyclists by dangerous driving would not be sent to prison, as without their driving license they don’t pose a danger to society.

They have a very vague statement on driving offences which I suspect is intentionally vague to be all things to all people.  However, based on the rest of their policies I think you may be correct but they would also take the same stance about a man who did the same.  I’m not 100% convinced that is wrong headed.  There are many other things in their policies which raised an eyebrow – some of them well meaning, others just a bit detached from reality.

Their policy explicitly says: “the only women who should be in custody are those very few that commit serious and violent crimes and who present a threat to the public . . . For the vast majority of women in the criminal justice system, solutions in the community are more appropriate”

That means sentencing should be based on gender.  If it did not mean that it would use the word people instead of women.

Sentencing people based on their gender is a dreadful idea in so many ways.

Meanwhile, over on the Trump thread, there’s lot of people (me included!) who hope he’s thrown in prison and the keys are thrown away…

So, where does the STW collective stand on characters such as Trump? Whilst he’s (allegedly) transgressed many laws, none of those include him personally commiting any violent acts. What sanctions would be available to the courts, to deal with serial criminals, to deter Trump-like behaviour if a prison sentence is reserved for violent offenders?

What about bike thieves? 😉

Sentencing people based on their gender is a dreadful idea in so many ways.

You mean – like sentencing them to be detained in gender segregated prisons…?

The criminal justice system is already gendered from top to toe.

What sanctions would be available to the courts, to deal with serial criminals, to deter Trump-like behaviour if a prison sentence is reserved for violent offenders?

Some people are not very good at reading, or are good at only reading the bits they want:

“d) if the offenders past behaviour or the offence were so serious as to indicate a grave danger to society, and there was a serious risk of repetition, order restrictions or detention.”

…order detention and only when it is satisfied that the public must be protected because there is a substantial risk of a further grave crime, or that the offences have caused such public alarm that the offenders presence in the community would constitute a threat to his/her own safety.

That doesn’t only say violent offenders.  The have a section on financial crime, which has scant detail but implies there are some offences which they treat very seriously despite the low physical risk of harm.

Their policy explicitly says: “the only women who should be in custody are those very few that commit serious and violent crimes and who present a threat to the public . . . For the vast majority of women in the criminal justice system, solutions in the community are more appropriate”

That means sentencing should be based on gender.  If it did not mean that it would use the word people instead of women.

No it doesn’t.  Thats in a section on immediate prison reforms.  I believe they are saying as a result on their approaches that avoid prison for everyone only the most serious offenders would be left in prison, and therefore they can look to restructure women’s prisons!

Why do I believe they think men should also be entitled to their new sentencing approaches?  Because this is what they said:

CJ340 Wholly unacceptable levels of men, women and children are currently imprisoned at great cost to their future rehabilitation, as well as to their families, the taxpayer and society in general. The Green Party is therefore committed to significantly reducing the prison population. To that end, a range of measures will be used, including changes to sentencing policy and practice. Courts will have a duty to reduce use of custodial sentencing in favour of community sentencing. (See also ‘Immediate Prison Reforms’ section, below.)

CJ346 Sentencing practice would be constantly monitored to reveal:

a) whether it is being effective in ensuring reparation for the victim;
b) whether offenders are required to make reparation;
c) whether it is delivered in a non-discriminatory way as between different ethnic, gender and other social groups.
d) the extent to which it contributes to a reduction in crime.

All the bold bits are my emphasis.

CJ346 Sentencing practice would be constantly monitored to reveal:

…

whether it is delivered in a non-discriminatory way as between different ethnic, gender and other social groups.

Yes but if you approach your policies from a point of view that society is heavily and fundamentally biased against one particular group* then their definition of ‘non-discriminatory’ could mean giving that particular group preferential treatment in absolute terms.

Again the clear example here is the one I’ve already given: claiming they aim for ‘equality’ in the workplace, then describing a policy whereby 100% female boards are acceptable but not 100% male.

IMHO they have specifically mentioned women separately in their justice policy for a reason.

* which it may or may not be, that’s not the point here, merely that this is their view

Well you could always go and ask them.

Isn’t it all a bit academic. It’s not as if they are ever going to be a position to actually do anything. They are a bit like reform. They can say and promise the world on a stick from their perspective in the sure knowledge they will never have to even pretend to deliver it

Whilst he’s (allegedly) transgressed many laws, none of those include him personally commiting any violent acts

I think it is messy and goes into the question of what prison is for.

1. Direct protection of the public by removing the person from society.
2. Rehabilitation
3. Punishment.
4. A lesson to others to try and persuade them not to offend.

If we take two people.

1. Someone starts a fight every time they have a beer or see a cyclist daring to use a cycle lane.
2. Someone has emptied a pension fund.

The latter is likely to have wrecked far more lives than the former. However with a criminal record they are unlikely to be able to repeat the damage (unless they branch out into false identies) whereas the former is going to be a continuing risk.

2 isnt really relevant (especially for Trump!). It could be a success for either.

3 and 4 all things being equal I think the fraudster probably deserves a worse punishment. Someone wanting a fight on a saturday night is probably not going to be put off but if a actuary sees one of his mates going down for years I think a better chance of them deciding not to commit the same crime (although being an actuary they would run the stats on the chance of being caught and might go for it anyway).

It’s not as if they are ever going to be a position to actually do anything.

The Green Party are in a position to do quite a lot right now. They can take votes from other parties. So their policies, and how much appeal they have to voters, are important, especially in marginal seats.

There is also the possibility that beyond the next couple of general elections they could be included in a rainbow coalition.

The UK got close to a rainbow coalition in 2010 and Caroline Lucas would have been included. After this year’s general election it is feasible that they might have two MPs. It is impossible to predict what the situation will be after the 2029 general election in terms of support, and whether any party will win a majority.

I don’t agree dissonance rehabilitation is essntial in my opinion.. Take your pension fund swindler He comes out of jail, can’t get work because he has a record certainly not in his old trade probably not at all has debts ,which he now can’t pay… the temptation to take the easy money is strong, mean time the Saturday night fighter has also lost his job,he has to make money too, without rehabilitation he wont recognise the signs that he’s had too much or that someone is winding him up and so the same behaviour repeats next time it’ll be a tougher sentence though

I don’t agree dissonance rehabilitation is essntial in my opinion..

I agree and personally I think it should be the primary purpose of the justice system. The levels of mental illness and illiteracy amongst the prison population are startlingly high and suggest that we arent addressing the right thing.

I was just looking at the “prison sentence is reserved for violent offenders?” for which the other factors are the main consideration in my opinion.

There is also the possibility that beyond the next couple of general elections they could be included in a rainbow coalition.

I think that’s a very rose tinted view of what is likely to happen. Our electoral system is specifically designed to make that hard to happen. Assuming they come out of the next election with just the 1 mp again then I can’t see anyone requiring their support to govern let alone conceding to their policies in a meaningful way

Rose tinted? A distinct possibility. It is perfectly possible for a UK general election not to result in a majority government. There was a possibility of a rainbow coalition in 2010, which would have included Caroline Lucas, until the LibDems decided to prop up a Tory government.

There is also a possibility that the Greens will win a seat in Bristol this year, who knows what the situation will be in the 2029 general election? Depending on how the next Labour government performs I see no reason why they might not be significantly more Green MPs, especially if PR is introduced.

UK politics is no longer as predictable as it was a couple of decades ago, something which it has in common with much of the rest of the western world.

all things being equal I think the fraudster probably deserves a worse punishment.

However, with government input (albeit via the taxpayer) the victims of the fraudster could be compensated and returned without difficulty to their original position. Anyone who’s been on the receiving end of an assault is affected both mentally and physically for the rest of their lives.

Victims of pension and other financial fraud don’t just get repaid by the government.

Whilst he’s (allegedly) transgressed many laws, none of those include him personally commiting any violent acts.

He incited and conspired to insurrection, which is one of the most violent acts. To be fair, he’s not on trial for that. But to get all Godwin for a second, Hitler didn’t personally exterminate any Roma.

However, with government input (albeit via the taxpayer) the victims of the fraudster could be compensated and returned without difficulty to their original position

I think you are overly simplifying the impact and it also relies on the fraud being caught in time and compensation happening. A classic example being Maxwell where despite the taxpayer support people saw their pensions roughly halfed which obviously caused significant issues.

Lets take another “nonviolent” case, although unfortunately it may not be a crime, of the post office scandal. If you read the testimonies of not just the post masters but their families especially children as well its clear several are scarred for life.