Rehabilitation of Offenders (Amendment) Bill

Lord Dholakia’s, Private Members’ Bill has now had its third reading in the House of Lords.  Final Bill ([18/07/2011] submitted to the House of Commons awaiting for its consideration. You can read the full Bill here – Rehabilitation of Offenders (Amendment) Bill (HL Bill 89).

The Bill basically extends the classification of a ‘spent conviction’ to ‘ex-offenders’ who have received a ‘sentence’ for two and a half years, 30 months or more for criminal offence[s].  You can read in more detail the actual short amendment to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 – Sections 5(1) to Section 5(2) above.  The Bill goes much further in relation to wider rehabilitation periods & ‘buffer’ periods.  This means all sentences will be subject to change if the Bill is enacted or amended. Read the proposed 5(2) Table for changes of ‘rehabilitation periods’ for all types of ‘sentences’.

The Bill has now reached media keyboards via the Ministry of Justice ongoing ‘Breaking the Cycle’ programme and found voice through Ken Clarke earlier last week with the headline ‘wipe the slate clean‘, this translated means only this – more ‘ex-offenders’, rehabilitated individuals will be considered to have ‘spent’ convictions.

What does ‘spent’ really mean?

If you have a spent conviction, please do not think that you do not have to ‘disclose’ or have your identity checked in relation to past criminal offences.  All your police & courts records are kept and can be acquired, more often required.  If a body is considered an ‘exception’ to the Act this means – you need to declare your ‘spent’ conviction[s].  This does not immediately mean one is excluded, it is simply a matter of ‘risk’ to be assessed.

So if you have a ‘spent’ conviction, it means you have a conviction you do not have to declare to anyone who is ‘not excepted’ from the Act.  Other than that, you are considered ‘rehabilitated’ in the eyes of the law!  The media attention following Ken’s ‘wipe the slate clean’ message seems to have been mainly positive, some journalist were charged with spreading fear of change and ‘moral panics’ like Jack Doyle.

The idea of wanting others to become ‘rehabilitated’ surely ends with a pathway & a destination. Excluding the inspiration & aspiration of a destination to citizenship / equality,  ultimately  all possibility of rehabilitation is destroyed! Reducing re-offending, can only happen if an individual desist from crime – the path of desistance can only be followed if a legislative pathway is directed – The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 .