Labour’s failure to deliver social justice ‘Breaking the Circle’

In 1998, the Labour Government created a commission to look at ‘social justice’.

The 1998 Commission on Social Justice came up with four principles of social justice, the commission created a mission statement that stated:

We believe our four principles of social justice, based on a basic belief in the intrinsic worth of every human being, echo the deeply held views of many people in this country (Home Office, 1998).

The four principles the commission adopted were:

1. The Foundation of a free society is the equal worth of all citizens, expressed most basically in political and civil liberties, equal rights before the law

2. Everyone is entitled to meet basic needs for income, shelter and other necessities… the ability to meet basic needs is the foundation of a substantive commitment to equal worth of all citizens.

3. That self-respect and equal citizenship demand – opportunities and life chances: That is why we are concerned with the primary distribution of opportunity, as well as its redistribution’.

4. Achieve the first three conditions of social justice… We must recognise although not all inequalities are unjust… Unjust inequalities should be reduced and where possible eliminated.

Interpretation of social justice can be described as ‘fair protection of the public and society’, a ‘wrong been made right’ and ‘equality’ and fair treatment for all’.

When Labour came into power in 1997, the Government set about reviewing and changing legislation the previous Conservative Governments; this included the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

In 2001, then Home Secretary, Jack Straw, announced a fundamental review of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (1974) to Parliament.

It was recognised that difficulties existed with the ROA, particularly for ex-offenders trying to secure employment.  The report details a case where a man called Bob worked for an employer for over 10 years and was sacked from his job, because he did not disclose a minor conviction at the time of applying.

The review report, Breaking the Circle was published as a public consultation document in July 2002, and included recommendations for change to the ROA.  Over 5,000 copies of the report were distributed to employers, offender organisations, and criminal justice agencies, also any other interested individuals, which included ex-offenders. Over sixty organisations and individuals commented on the report and its recommendations.

The title of the review (Breaking the Circle) suggests an understanding of the problems faced by ex-offenders, particularly when an ex-offender is trying to find work. The report summary published in April 2003 set out the Government agenda, particularly reducing crime and the cost of crime to society, individuals, and businesses. The summary points out that the cost of crime in the UK, is around £60 billion a year.  The summary also recognised, the best way to reduce crime, is in consideration of the convicted repeat offender unable to participate in employment, and highlights the possible ‘exclusion’ from the community and society.

Shover (1985) highlighted the problem faced by individuals who are considered a ‘ex-offender’ in terms of  identity and the ‘problems of stigma’; Shover pointed out the theories which expound the problems faced by ‘ex-offenders’ –

[T]he identity of “ex-convict” is one that few Americans aspire to or regard as a badge of honour.  More pointedly, it is an identity that most people probably view as disreputable or inferior.  Such a “socially inferior attribute (Page, 1984: 2) or stigma is believed important because it may be socially consequential for the individual who is so encumbered (Shover, 1985, p.55).

In terms of understanding the problems faced by ‘ex-offenders’, Shover (1985) clearly states –

Supporters of labelling theory emphasize the importance of stigma as an element in the continuation of deviant activities and careers.  They point to the critical part played by social control processes, both informal and official, in the development of stigma.  Possession of a stigma is said to produce a variety of interactional problems for the person (Shover, 1985, p.55).

Shover (1985) is not writing about the Breaking the Circle review or about the consequences of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (1974).  Moreover, Shover’s insight into stigma, of ‘aging criminals’ is a good example of the way it could be argued the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is an ‘official social control process’ producing ‘interactional problems’ for those stigmatised with the identity of ‘ex-offender’ by the ROA (1974).

Shover (1985) cites Becker’s (1963) statement “that being in a deviant status such as an ex-convict becomes for the individual a “master status” that exposes [him] to the likelihood that he will be regarded as deviant or undesirable in other respects” (Becker, p.33, 1963: Shover, p.55, 1985).

The report made a number of recommendations, for this discussion, five will be examined, which are relevant to this discussion. The new recommendations will be examined whether they have improved the situation of an individual’s ability to desist from crime especially when considering ‘strain’, ‘labelling’, and ‘social control’ theories.

Maintaining Protection

Certain types of posts, professions and licensing bodies should continue to be accepted from disclosure, specifically where there is an issue of national security and where the employee would hold a position of particular trust.

Taking into account the recommendation, the only objection from comments returned came from ex-offenders who feel aggrieved that they would be excluded from the caring professions for life.  However, this area is not fully understood by ex-offenders and many employers.  The summary states:

There is only a ban on ex-offenders taking up employment in a limited range of posts. Requiring disclosure for other excepted posts allows for an informed risk assessment (Home Office, 2003)

Ensuring offenders understand how disclosure requirements apply to them

The requirement to disclose the conviction should be explained as part of the delivery of the sentence.

It was found during the review, that less than a third of all convicted offenders knew what the ROA meant or understood what the punitive implications were, not just in terms of terminating employment, but an offender could go to prison, even be recalled while out on licence (parole). Those who did know what the ROA was for, said they found out when they had decided to ‘go straight’.  However, the Council of Circuit Judges does not feel they have the time to explain the ROA when delivering sentencing.  These will be handed over to the criminal justice agents (probation officers, social / care workers, Youth Justice Board).

Ensuring that employers understand and comply with new arrangements

A voluntary code of practice should be developed for employers to govern the use of disclosure in the recruitment process.

As at present, there should be sanctions available if an applicant or existing employee loses the job, on the grounds of a previous conviction they were not required to disclose.

A voluntary code of practice for employers would be interesting to see; particularly regarding if ex-offenders are treated as equally compared with other employees. A question must be; why are ex-offenders with spent convictions not included in the Equal Opportunities legislation?

Revising the Scheme

Consideration should be given to the development of criteria to identify young offenders convicted of minor and non-persistent crime so that their records may be wiped clean for the purpose of employment at the age of 18.

This recommendation was not accepted by the majority of those who replied with comments as such the recommendation will not be adopted.

It becomes disconcerting when moves are blocked to stop the slate been wiped clean for what is stated as minor & non-persistent offences of children.

Widening the Scope

The scheme should apply to all ex-offenders who have served their sentence.

The recommendation includes those ex-offenders who have been sentenced to 2¹/₂ years, or more, the recommendation includes extending the current upper limit to 4 years.

The review and its recommendations had moved a giant leap forward in recognising the need for change within the ROA.

However, eight years after this review Labour had failed to deliver on its earlier promises.  The mantle is now taken up by the coalition government’s ‘Breaking the Cycle’ Green Paper.

The ROA is still a complex misunderstood piece of legislation (Breed, 1989), which does little for society, the vulnerable, or the ex-offender. In terms of the four principles of social justice, it could be argued that the recommendations in 2003 still keep the ex-offender who should be rehabilitated and welcomed back as an equal, does nothing to allow for any of the principles outlined by the 1998 Commission.

Labour’s failure has never been discussed in the media.  What has surprised the media in relation to reform is Ken Clarke’s gusto in terms of amending the criminal justice system in England and Wales.  I too was surprised by Ken’s statements about rehabilitation and less people in prison, including the statement about ‘prison not working’.  There are obvious sceptics due to the need to cut spending, academics will argue amongst themselves about that.  People like me will just hope for the change, the hope for social justice following Labour’s failure.

References

Breed, Bryan (1989) Off The Record: An examination of the workings of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. John Clare Books. London.

Clancy et al (2006) Getting Out and Staying Out. The Policy Press. Bristol.

Cohen, Stanley. (1979) The Punitive City: notes on the dispersal of social control, Contemporary Crisis, vol. 3 no. 4, pp. 341-363.

Cohen, Stanley. (1985) Visions of Social Control Cambridge: Polity.

Harris, Brian (1988) The Rehabilitation of Offenders: a guide to the law. Fourmat Publishing. London.

Home Office. (1974a) The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and Cautions. Reprimands and Final Warnings London: HMSO.

Home Office. (2002) Criminal Statistics: England and Wales 2001. London: HMSO.

Home Office. (2002) Breaking the Circle:  Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 Review. London: HMSO.

Home Office. (2003) Executive Summary. Breaking the Circle 2002: Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 Review. London: HMSO.

Mears R. Allan (2008) ‘Rehabilitation of offenders – does the 1974 Act help them?’ The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice Vol 55 (2): 161–170. Sage Publications.

Shover, Neal (1996) Great Pretenders: Pursuits and Careers of Persistent Offenders. Westview Press.Oxford.

Shover, Neal (1985) Aging Criminals. Sage Publications. Beverley Hills.