Perrie Lectures Competition – winning essay

The Perrie Lectures are named after the late Bill Perrie, a prison governor who reflected the concept of humanity in his dealings with his staff and those in his care. Each year an essay competition is run for serving prisoners.

The theme for this year’s lectures was ‘long-term imprisonment’, and the committee asked for essays looking at the following question: “It has been an ongoing debate whether short sentences have any merit in reducing reoffending. Do you agree that they should be scrapped, and if so, what should replace them?”

The winning entrant, Jamie Skinner at HMP Oakwood, put together a strong argument that short sentences do not support the five aims of sentencing as set out in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. His essay is published below. He will receive a cash award of £40 and a certificate. The runner-up and third-place entrant will also receive awards. 

Short custodial sentences have little to no merit in reducing re-offending; instead, they have the reverse effect and promote recidivism. Any prison sentence of two years or less should be scrapped and replaced with community orders, and/or HDC (home detention curfew) tagging. Short sentences do more harm than rehabilitation and crime reduction.

Short sentences often affect the most vulnerable people in society; affecting those with addiction and/or mental health issues. These people should be dealt with clinically rather than criminally; however the matter goes beyond the scope of this essay. 

Short sentences can cause the offender to lose their home, job and support network overnight – all foundational principles that are known and accepted to reduce re-offending. They can also tear families apart, causing psychological damage to all parties involved, not just the offender. Do you see any merit in that?

Short sentences are exploited by some offenders by using them to run a black market of drugs and contraband within the prison system. This would not be financially viable with long-term sentences. Scrapping short sentences will stop this avenue of distribution, reducing the market overnight. It would also protect vulnerable individuals whom are groomed and forced to use short sentences to smuggle drugs, etc. by eliminating the need for doing it. Drugs within prisons kerb rehabilitation and make them unsafe, inconducive of what they are designed to do.

Short sentences make up a large proportion of the prison population, adding to the dangerous levels of overcrowding within prisons, making them unsafe. This has a domino effect of consuming valuable resources that could be better aimed at those where needs are greater.

Short sentences do not provide enough time for the prison system to rehabilitate an offender and reduce reoffending. It can take up to a year for an individual to be assessed properly and a full and constructive plan to be put in place, let alone for the individual to settle in and complete these plans. Resulting in the never-ending revolving door of prison, release and repeat!

Under section 142 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, when an offender is being sentenced by a judge (in England and Wales) he/she has five statutory purposes that must be considered along with the facts of the case. They are:

Punishment: HDC tagging, and/or community orders are adequate punishment for those who would normally otherwise receive a short custodial sentence. In fact, some offenders see short sentences as a badge of honour, or a way to meet contacts in the criminal network in the community, making their risk of reoffending increase. Scrap short sentences! 

Reduction of crime including deterrence: Short sentences do not reduce crime; instead, they cause the opposite. Nor are they deterrents. Scrap short sentences!

Reform and rehabilitation: Short sentences simply do not provide enough time for this to be achieved. The offender would be more likely to be reformed in the community under probation. They will be able to create a plan, and the offender can carry this out in the community, having the time to do so. The offender would then have his/her support network there to help them; this would not be possible otherwise. Scrap short sentences!

The protection of the public: Short sentences put the public at more risk. This is because they strip the offender of their home, income and support etc. This increases their social risk, with inadequate time or resources to put this right before being released in the near future. This places them at a higher risk of reoffending than before the sentence was imposed. Many short-sentenced prisoners are low to medium risk; this can be safely managed in the community. HDC tagging and/or community orders achieve this purpose. Short sentences can increase an offender’s risk by exposing them to more hardened criminals in custody on longer sentences for more severe crimes. Scrap short sentences!

Restorative justice: This can be achieved by community orders and/or HDC tagging too. Scrap short sentences!

In regard to the judge’s requirement to take the offender’s individual ‘facts of the case’ into account during sentencing and considering the offences that warrant a short sentence are less severe than those receiving larger ones, they can arguably be satisfied by a community order and/or HDC tagging. On balance, short sentences should not be passed under law.

In conclusion, the argument that short sentences, bearing in mind only sentences of two years or less have been considered here, should be scrapped. There is a clear case to do this from practical, ethical and legal points of view. Whilst some may have an argument for short sentences (we don’t here), it cannot be argued on balance and therefore short sentences should not be repeated by the government.