Before I was sentenced to prison I imagined it as a place of discipline, where we who had broken society’s rules would be taught to be better men. I could not have been more wrong. One of the most toxic, and least-understood problems with the British prison system is the moral code it teaches. Terrible, antisocial behaviour is often rewarded. From my time in Wandsworth I think of the man who beat his elderly cellmate so badly that the man was hospitalised while his attacker was rewarded with a single cell, and the most desirable job in the gardens. Another man trashed his cell and was placated with an Xbox. It’s a pleasant surprise to me that the government is trying to fix this perverse incentives structure — there are reports today that it wants to introduce a ‘Texas-style points system’.
Part of the reason that Britain’s prisons don’t work is because of understaffing. Inexperienced, stretched officers will often do anything for a quiet life. They also don’t have any real means of incentivising good behaviour. Prisons do operate the Incentives scheme, under which inmates can be categorised as ‘Basic’, ‘Standard’ or ‘Enhanced’. The idea is that prison staff think a prisoner has behaved particularly well or badly, they add a commendation or warning to their file, and repeated good or bad behaviour will move someone up or down the tiers. The problem is that the incentives offered for good behaviour are pretty limited and don’t make much difference to a prisoner’s life inside. On Basic you aren’t allowed a TV, and are only allowed limited visits. On Standard, the TV is returned to your cell, more visits are allowed and you can spend a little more of your own money. At the heady heights of Enhanced you’re allowed to wear your own clothes, rather than grey prison tracksuits, as well as have a few more visits and spend a few pounds more a week.
The most important aspects of this system, to prisoners, are visits and how much you can spend. I believe that even linking these to behaviour is a mistake. The Ministry of Justice’s own research says that prisoners who receive family visits are 39 per cent less likely to reoffend. I suspect that those prisoners who behave worst inside are often also most likely to cause trouble and reoffend once released. ‘Punishing’ them for bad behaviour by making it harder for them to see their families, and more likely that they will reoffend. This is an entirely counterproductive approach that is sadly typical of our prison system. Similarly, spending restrictions significantly curtail what prisoners can spend on their telephone account, and with prison calls often costing upwards of 10p per minute, a prisoner only able to spend £10 per week on everything may struggle to even speak to their family.
Contrary to popular belief, British prisons do not offer ‘time off for good behaviour’, and an inmate has to do something pretty egregious to receive extra days on their sentence. Even the man who hospitalised his cellmate was never charged, nor did he serve a single extra day in jail as a result. So every prisoner knows when they will be released, and knows that their behaviour inside makes no difference to that date. Inmates, like everyone, respond to incentives, and in our prisons there are no real incentives to behave well.
In this context the news that ministers are studying the example of the Texan prison system is to be welcomed. I understand from government sources that the Lord Chancellor and Prisons Minister are interested in exploring lessons from abroad as part of the forthcoming sentencing review, and that Texas is seen as particularly interesting. Of course, the independent sentencing review, expected to announce its chair and panel in October, will make its own recommendations, but that international examples are even being considered is excellent news. Not every prison system in the world is as dysfunctional as ours, and Texas offers a positive example of what can be achieved.
Between 2007 and 2023, Texas has reduced its prison population from 152,661 to 129,653, with this reduction driven by the ‘Good Conduct Time’ scheme under which prisoners accrue ‘good time’ which can allow them to be eligible for parole much earlier. This ‘good time’ is awarded based on both good behaviour and participation in purposeful activity. Of course Texas also doesn’t offer automatic release at the end of a sentence. Release always requires the approval of a parole board, and so both the carrot and the stick are far more significant in the Texan system.
If such a system were implemented in the UK, I see some potential risks. Given the typical prison approach to courses and education, it’s possible that this becomes a bureaucratic box-ticking exercise, where prisoners accumulate attendance at courses. These courses can often be of unknown effectiveness and on some occasions have proven to be counterproductive, actually increasing reoffending. Similarly without confident officers and prison governors who set consistent, healthy standards of behaviour, ‘good behaviour’ will be hard to assess. I also wonder what appetite there might be for scrapping automatic release, after the IPP scandal.
An effective ‘time off for good behaviour’ scheme would be imbued with moral purpose. It should seek to identify and reward prisoners who consistently act as positive, caring members of their prison community, who strive to better themselves through education or training and who consistently demonstrate the desire to change.
Still, the mere fact that the sentencing review will consider these ideas is cheering. We have spent decades sentencing and jailing people in ways which do not work, which increase crime and which perpetuate misery. It’s time to try something new.
Comments