Comments on: The User Voice of the Criminal Justice System http://www.mark-johnson.org.uk/2008/05/12/marks-aldridge-foundation-report-published/ news, interviews and features on Mark Johnson, author of Wasted Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:24:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Scott Canavan http://www.mark-johnson.org.uk/2008/05/12/marks-aldridge-foundation-report-published/#comment-24 Scott Canavan Tue, 20 May 2008 10:08:04 +0000 http://www.mark-johnson.org.uk/?p=28#comment-24 Mark, Excellent report. As i have spent the last four years in prison myself it was a relief to see the work that you are doing around the criminal justice system. I have spent the last four years getting frustrated at a system that simply does not work, yet refuses to listen to reason. Your proposals 1-6 on pages 6-7 would be invaluable if they could be implimented within the system, not just to the user but to the system also. For example it is my experience that trying to access even one of the agencies in proposal 4 p.7 can be headache enough for even the most hardened application writer to step back into his comfort zone, happy in the knowledge that he'll 'get f*** all and plenty of it' and put changing on to the back burner for a while (maybe too long). yet these are services which are fundamentally vital to the security, mental wellbeing and future choices an individual makes in reaction to his environment, whereby affecting the the security, wellbeing and future of those around him. As your paper says these areas need to be accessed from the beginning of the sentence. I personally feel this would be benefitial for a number of reasons including a) targets and goals to aim at, whereby improving self-esteem, confidence, hope and the motivation to not lose what as been achieved over a period of time b)to build a rapport between service providers and users, building trust and professional relationships so that report writers have an intimate knowledge of their subjuct and c)offender behaviour programmes may be tailor made to fit individual needs and offending, rather than a one size fits all blanket series of programmes. Obviously this is just one of the many areas of reform needed, but the bums on seats/tick box system currently in practice clearly does not work and has created a 'just tell them what they want to hear' culture in responce to such programmes. A concern I do have however is, would it not be necessary for some form of political and instituional reform to happen before such proposals can be implimented and successful? It would appear that the problems of the criminal justice system are three fold - political, institutional and systemic, all of which need to be tackled seperately but simultanously. Politically, obviously this is a minefield. 'what would the public say???' 'Public perception' is an area of massive concern to the CJS and is a phrase I am increasingly hearing from the lips of Governors, POs, SOs, officers and other prisoners for grounds of refusal for ROTLs and other forms of resettlement. Institutionally, as you mentioned 'more staff are needed, but with the right traning...' . Not only could prisoners be motivated through systemic change but so could officers and other staff, so that everyone can work towards the same goals of harm reduction within the prison walls and outside, whereby reducing re-offending. I could go on and on but unfortunetly i have to get back to prison myself today, as i mentioed to you on the phone yesterday, and my train leaves shortly. congratulations again on an excellent report containing extremly insightful proposals. Scott Canavan Mark,
Excellent report. As i have spent the last four years in prison myself it was a relief to see the work that you are doing around the criminal justice system. I have spent the last four years getting frustrated at a system that simply does not work, yet refuses to listen to reason. Your proposals 1-6 on pages 6-7 would be invaluable if they could be implimented within the system, not just to the user but to the system also. For example it is my experience that trying to access even one of the agencies in proposal 4 p.7 can be headache enough for even the most hardened application writer to step back into his comfort zone, happy in the knowledge that he’ll ‘get f*** all and plenty of it’ and put changing on to the back burner for a while (maybe too long). yet these are services which are fundamentally vital to the security, mental wellbeing and future choices an individual makes in reaction to his environment, whereby affecting the the security, wellbeing and future of those around him. As your paper says these areas need to be accessed from the beginning of the sentence. I personally feel this would be benefitial for a number of reasons including a) targets and goals to aim at, whereby improving self-esteem, confidence, hope and the motivation to not lose what as been achieved over a period of time b)to build a rapport between service providers and users, building trust and professional relationships so that report writers have an intimate knowledge of their subjuct and c)offender behaviour programmes may be tailor made to fit individual needs and offending, rather than a one size fits all blanket series of programmes. Obviously this is just one of the many areas of reform needed, but the bums on seats/tick box system currently in practice clearly does not work and has created a ‘just tell them what they want to hear’ culture in responce to such programmes.
A concern I do have however is, would it not be necessary for some form of political and instituional reform to happen before such proposals can be implimented and successful? It would appear that the problems of the criminal justice system are three fold - political, institutional and systemic, all of which need to be tackled seperately but simultanously.
Politically, obviously this is a minefield. ‘what would the public say???’ ‘Public perception’ is an area of massive concern to the CJS and is a phrase I am increasingly hearing from the lips of Governors, POs, SOs, officers and other prisoners for grounds of refusal for ROTLs and other forms of resettlement. Institutionally, as you mentioned ‘more staff are needed, but with the right traning…’ . Not only could prisoners be motivated through systemic change but so could officers and other staff, so that everyone can work towards the same goals of harm reduction within the prison walls and outside, whereby reducing re-offending.
I could go on and on but unfortunetly i have to get back to prison myself today, as i mentioed to you on the phone yesterday, and my train leaves shortly.
congratulations again on an excellent report containing extremly insightful proposals.

Scott Canavan

]]>