Crime and security bill

Two things today related to the crime and security bill currently going through Parliament.

On Monday this week clause 41 of the crime and security bill sailed through the house of commons virtually unopposed. Just over a week since the bi-partisan justice select committee had stated plainly:

“Prison is a relatively ineffective way of reducing crime for other than serious offenders who need to be physically contained for the protection of the public. For others, prison is a very expensive way of dispensing justice and seeking reform.”

Also the committee called upon the government, ‘to make more radical decisions, and investments, putting the system on a sustainable footing over the longer term by shifting resources away from incarceration towards rehabilitation and prehabilitation’.

It is odd that MPs of all parties can group together and call for a reduction in the prison population one week and then the next week vote for a measure that will result in an extra two years in custody for people currently in prison.

Just to be clear, this new law is not a ban on mobile phones for prisoners. The government already has this; it is done through prison internal rules, the prison service orders. There is also already a ban on prison officers bringing mobile phones into prisons. This new law is redundant; prison officers already have the power to confiscate mobile phones and prevent their use. If the government wants to see improvement in this area they should invest in it properly not legislate to persecute society’s most vulnerable while deepening the crisis of the prison population.

The crime and security bill will also increase police powers to retain DNA and fingerprint evidence. The Howard League opposes these measures in the bill, particularly as they will allow the police to hold the DNA evidence of a child for prolonged periods.

Earlier this week, the home affairs select committee heard interesting evidence from two witnesses on this matter. One who recounted supporting an environmental protestor cordoned off by the police by throwing him a bottle of water. The bottle landed on the ground and the police arrested the young man for littering. They retained his DNA for close to a year.

The second witness recounted how his 70 year old mother, with arthritis in her hands, had her data taken upon the murder of his uncle. Despite the fact that the old lady was physically incapable of holding the murder weapon the police had taken the time to add her to their list of the suspected criminal underworld.