James Timpson, newly elected prisons minister says only one third of prisoners should definitely be in prison.

Yes, I know that I'm a pedant but, with reference to the thread title, I'd just like to say that James Timpson has not been elected prisons minister.

I deplore the practice of offering ministerial jobs to non-elected people and giving them silly titles so that they can be part of government from the HoL I realise they may have valuable expertise to offer but what would be wrong with offering them paid positions as government advisers?

Jacqui Smith, James Timpson, David Cameron, etc, etc; it all looks like "seeing your mates right".

To be honest the easiest solution would be to start with the female estate. And yes I am sure that is sexist.

This is Timpson’s interview with Krishnan Guru-Murthy in which he talks about his attitude to employing offenders - more hard-headed than some might think - and sentencing more broadly.

Much if it is about his business practice more generally, and I think it’s quite fascinating. The prison/offender related stuff starts at 18 minutes in, and lasts about 5 minutes.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2jRUqE4fK8

varian

It is outrageous that victims and accused have to wait so long for a case to come to trial.

I hope that the government put resources into addressing that backlog.

Yes, it's another inherited massive problem. But where the ££££ to put it right...

the Law society outlines the issues.

www.lawsociety.org.uk/contact-or-visit-us/press-office/press-releases/justice-delayed-as-thousands-of-cases-wait-more-than-two-years-to-be-heard

I’d love to say make them serve an apprenticeship so they would have a skill to get a job but there aren’t enough apprenticeships for those who haven’t offended, so that would be unfair.
This is a good point. It's a fine line between encouraging people to become good citizens and encouraging people to commit crime. Back in the 80s I had a summer job in a careers office. As it was the 80s, unemployment was high, and youth unemployment was off the scale. There was a separate track for teenagers with criminal records and challenging backgrounds. They were prioritised for 'schemes' and the few suitable jobs that came up. I can understand why it was important to get them back on track, but sometimes it seemed unfair on the ones who had similarly low qualifications and no records.

Callistemon, working with young offenders is often heart rending as you describe
Later when I was visiting fathers in prison because I was working with their children and families, it was similar. Men sentenced for serious dangerous offending would come to the interview room, clutching certificates from the education they were enjoying. The usually looked so much younger and healthier than before their sentence

A friend was Governor in a prison where inmates went out to work. She said they rarely had men abscond and that disruptive behaviour was minimal.

I don’t expect quick changes but I’m hopeful

Callistemon213

loopyloo

And how many are being held awaiting trial? Quite a lot I should think.

The amount of time some people have to wait for their trial is quite shocking.

In one instance in Telford, I believe it was seven years!

Yes, this is a disgrace, and torture for the victims who have the court case, trial and sentencing to face, and are unable to move on with their lives. Anyone on remand, awaiting trial, is there, I assume to protect their victim/the public, so by definition, the suffering of their victims is ongoing.

I remember a family member who worked in a prison telling me that a young offender was crying when he was due to be released and said that he liked it in there, got fed three meals a day, had interesting lessons that he actually enjoyed, so goodness knows what kind of home life he was going back to.
That was several years ago now so perhaps things have changed since then.

It is outrageous that victims and accused have to wait so long for a case to come to trial.

I hope that the government put resources into addressing that backlog.

I’ve heard on the radio news of rape victims waiting five years to give evidence.

The best training I was given on working with drug addicted offenders came from a man who had been a drug addicted offender. He ran the drug service in the city I worked in.

loopyloo

And how many are being held awaiting trial? Quite a lot I should think.

The amount of time some people have to wait for their trial is quite shocking.

In one instance in Telford, I believe it was seven years!

There was a man being interviewed on ITV news last night, I've forgotten his name sorry, who had been in prison himself but now advised on prison reform and helping young offenders.

He seemed intelligent and was articulate and the thought crossed my mind that this man, if born under different circumstances or given the help he needed at a young age, would never have got into trouble and ended up in prison.

As long as well funded and staffed community support is in place he probably has a good point.

I can see his point. Prisons do not offer a cure for the behaviour that put the person in there.

Maybe having to do all those jobs that so desperately need doing- fruit picking, pothole filling, hedge trimming, (community service) would serve a better purpose and provide jobs as supervisors for the prison staff who lose their jobs.

Some doing community service in our nearest town have to wear orange boiler suits/dungarees whilst they’re working on cleaning up the community, making it obvious that they are working as a punishment for crimes.

Making reparation for the impact of your crime on the victims.

I’d love to say make them serve an apprenticeship so they would have a skill to get a job but there aren’t enough apprenticeships for those who haven’t offended, so that would be unfair.

But prison?
Those heavily involved in fraud continue to conduct their activities from within prison, hurting those whom they defrauded.

Those like the rapist released early for good behaviour rape again.

Who will decide and on what basis and will there be sufficient provision made so those released don’t feel they’re on an easy wicket?
Will there be sufficient provision so that the victims don’t feel that the perpetrators are not suffering for the crime they committed?

HPQ

I completely agree.

I agree.

In my opinion, and it’s only an opinion, violent crimes should always result in a prison sentence unless there are very extenuating circumstances (killing as a result of self defence for example) I include drink driving in this.

Financial crime and fraud should result in deprivation of assets and then long long community service (or whatever it’s called now)

Ditto burglary and theft.

Addicts should be in residential rehab.

Much much more work needs doing on release from prison. Privatising probation was a disaster.

More bail hostels needed, more schemes for offenders. Much more work needs doing on reoffending.

Germanshepherdsmum

Which two thirds should not be in prison? I have great respect for James Timpson but on the face of it this sounds worrying.

Yes, and inevitably this will be quoted as an example of Labour being soft on crime. I bow to experts in this area, and there are some on GN i believe, but I have read enough to know that sentencing someone to prison for burglary, for example, then releasing them 6 months later, still functionally illiterate, still unable to earn a living, back into the environment where they offended, really isn't dealing with the problem, other than short term. I am not an apologist for criminal behaviour, but think more emphasis should be on initial prevention, followed by reducing recidivism, than on reactionary 'throw away the key' policies. This does not, of course, apply to serious crimes, or where the offender is a threat and danger, or where the punishment has to recognise public expectation.

I do not wish to go into detail on a public forum, but I do have experience, a family friend, who went 'awry' and thanks to the appropriate help, and more importantly a supportive family, was able to get his life well and truly back onto a successful (financial and personal) track.

I worked in Probation, in 1978 on a scheme aimed at establishing alternatives to custody. Sadly, our Probation Service was subject to privatisation, which failed spectacularly.

GSM he said we have 85,000 people in prison as it sounds. Only a third of them should definitely be there. The next third primarily require mental health support. The other third, largely women, prison is an absolute disaster for them

In 2021/2022, the average cost of a prison place was £46,696 a year (https/www.statistacom)

And how many are being held awaiting trial? Quite a lot I should think.

Germanshepherdsmum

Which two thirds should not be in prison? I have great respect for James Timpson but on the face of it this sounds worrying.

I agree it would be worrying GSM if it was a proposal for imminent actions, but as the O/P says,

its a direction Timpson would like to see us move towards in the long term based on other models that have worked elsewhere.

It would require a fundamental change in our system towards more ££££ supervision in the community - it's worth considering.

Priosns used to have educational and training facilities, and proper probation officers (my Dad was one back in 1960's 70's very different) but thats all disappeared under the pressures of numbers and lack of post prison intervention.

I think I agree in principle, but I don't know enough about it to say anything about figures.

I'm inclined to believe that prison should be reserved for people who are a danger to others, and maybe as a last resort for criminals who continue to reoffend after other sanctions have been tried.

Otherwise, it makes sense to look at rehabilitation, and at what drives people to crime. Prevention is obviously better than 'cure', both for the victims and the perpetrators. Community sentences which focus on giving back to society (or to the victim, if that's possible) seem a much more sensible approach.

Which two thirds should not be in prison? I have great respect for James Timpson but on the face of it this sounds worrying.

It is refreshing to have someone making decisions/giving advice who has direct experience.