If better alternatives to jail were there, courts would use them

IAN SIMPSON

IN THE excellent TV series, Porridge, we laughed as Fletcher and his cell-mate Godber twisted the tails of prison officers. But in the real world, an overcrowded prison is dangerous and destructive for inmates, prison officers and the general public. As was pointed out in The Scotsman last week, Scotland's jails are significantly over-full, and have been for a time. The very necessary prison-building programme may not be sufficient for the demand in ten years.

Predictably, there have been calls for changes in sentencing policy, especially in relation to short sentences and imprisonment for fine defaulters. When I was sitting as a sheriff I imposed many short sentences. Every sheriff does. They are imposed because a professional judge regards them as necessary.

Any sentence is open to appeal. Prison is the one place no-one wants to be, and I believe that for some it is an effective deterrent. Most people, however, send themselves there, either by committing a serious crime or by disregarding warnings from the bench as to what might happen the next time they commit an assault, theft, or whatever. If people are jailed for minor crimes it is because they keep on committing them and they have already been fined, put on probation or given community service for the same sort of thing. You cannot threaten penal consequences unless you are prepared to carry them through.

Community sentences are held up as the answer to over-full jails, but the public has a right to expect criminals to be effectively punished. During my last few years as a sheriff I had little real faith in the effectiveness of many community disposals.

Social inquiry reports frequently took more than a month to prepare. If someone was offending because of a drink problem, it was important that they should be given alcohol counselling early on in their probation order, before they lost the sense of relief at not going to jail. Yet often they had to wait months. If an offender breached their order, the breach was seldom reported promptly to the court. I have been told that things are no better now. At least when someone goes to jail they are punished and are seen to be punished. Public expectation is an important factor.

Supervised attendance orders were introduced to save fine defaulters from jail, but the many who refused to pay, despite being given every opportunity, breached these orders – and went to jail. Fine payment cannot be voluntary. As long as an adequate regular reduction could be made, I do not know why fines might not be deducted from benefits or wages.

We need secure accommodation that is appropriate for those who are both mentally ill and dangerous to others. Too many of them go to jail because it is the least bad option the court has.

Finally, it would be quite wrong to expect sheriffs to adjust their sentencing decisions according to the availability of jail space. If genuinely better alternatives were available they would be used.

• Ian Simpson is a retired sheriff who writes for The Scotsman legal pages on Monday.