By Andrew Henley, PhD student and Graduate Teaching Assistant in Criminology
In the 1994 film The Shawshank Redemption an exchange between ‘Red’ played by Morgan Freeman and a member the panel at his umpteenth parole hearing perhaps sums up the
political construction of ‘rehabilitation’ in criminal justice:
1967 Parole Hearings Man: Ellis Boyd Redding, your files say you've served 40
years of a life sentence. Do you feel you've been rehabilitated?
Red:
Rehabilitated? Well, now let me see. You know, I don't have any idea what that
means.
1967 Parole Hearings Man: Well, it
means that you're ready to rejoin society...
Red: I know what you
think it means, sonny. To me it's just a made up word. A politician's word, so
young fellas like yourself can wear a suit and a tie, and have a job.
Recent
developments at the Ministry of Justice really do seem to reveal that the
meaning of ‘rehabilitation’ has become somewhat muddled and may indeed, as
‘Red’ puts it, have become nothing more than a ‘politician’s word’.
Justice
Secretary Chris Grayling has recently announced that anybody released from prison will be subject to a minimum period of
supervision of at least twelve months. This
minimum supervision period will apply to anyone serving a sentence of up to two
years imprisonment. Previously only
those sentenced to more than a year in prison would have been subject to supervision
by the probation service but the introduction of these supervision periods
forms part of the Ministry of Justice’s 'Offender Rehabilitation Bill'.
This paves the way for a ‘rehabilitation revolution’ in which a range of
private, charity and voluntary sector providers will take over responsibility
for helping people to ‘go straight’.
Under the proposals in the bill:
256AA (4) “The supervision
period” is the period which—
(a) begins on the expiry of the
sentence, and
(b) ends on the expiry of the
period of 12 months beginning immediately after the offender has served the
requisite custodial period (as defined in section 244(3)) [of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 -
basically release from prison at the halfway point of a determinate sentence].
(5) The purpose of the
supervision period is the rehabilitation of the offender.
So –
according to the MOJ - 'offenders' will supposedly be 'rehabilitated' during
this 12 month period. But, and here’s
the rub, one wonders exactly that will mean for a person who has been subjected
to this supervision but who still has to disclose the fact that they have a
criminal record once they have left the clutches of the criminal justice system. Under the provisions of the Rehabilitation of
Offenders Act 1974 (section 1):
after the end of the
rehabilitation period...that individual shall for the purposes of this Act be
treated as a rehabilitated person…and [their] conviction shall for those
purposes be treated as spent.
The ROA 1974 was intended to protect
people with previous convictions from discrimination after a period of time free
from any further offending. It aims to
protect former lawbreakers from having to disclose their old convictions when
applying for employment (although many occupations are exempt), insurance and
other financial services. The
‘rehabilitation periods’ were amended for the first time by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 and come in the form of a 'buffer period' which follows the sentence expiry date. These amendments, due for implementation in
November this year, will mean that many reformed people with old convictions should
no longer have to disclose their criminal past in most circumstances. The good work of UNLOCK, Lord Dholakia and others in campaigning on this issue is to be commended.
But my
question is this: what is the government's position on the legal and civic
status of a person after the new 'supervision period' ends (remember ‘the purpose of the supervision period is the
rehabilitation of the offender’) and before they are considered a
'rehabilitated person' under the revised provisions of the ROA 1974? Examine the table below (in particular the
last column):
 |
| Sources: Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974; Criminal Justice Act 2003; Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012; Offender Rehabilitation Bill 2013 |
I have
calculated that the absolute minimum gap between a person finishing their
'supervision period' and being considered legally 'rehabilitated' is at least
12.5 months up to maximum of four years (48 months) with regards to someone
sentenced to two years imprisonment. If, as the government are claiming,
people will be 'rehabilitated' during the new 'supervision period' - what exactly
is the purpose of this gap? It seems to
me to represent a period of ‘civic purgatory’ in which the criminal justice
system may have dispensed with a person, but they are not regarded as a full
citizen despite having served the sentence handed down by the judiciary.
This leaves them open to potential
discrimination when searching for employment – know to be one of the most important
factors in successful desistance from crime.
We
should also remember that despite the amendments to the ROA 1974, no-one
sentenced to more than four years imprisonment can ever be legally considered a
‘rehabilitated person’ under the Act, regardless of their good deeds or
conduct. So if the government is serious
about its ‘rehabilitation revolution’, it may have to have a serious re-think
about what rehabilitation actually means for those who are subjected to
it. As Professor Pat Carlen remarked last year, a key question concerning 'rehabilitation' remains - 'who exactly is being rehabilitated to what?'
