The good, the bad and the...pragmatic?
Today, I attended a roundtable at the University of Middlesex, focusing on penal policy and sentencing. Amongst the speakers was Rory Stewart, London mayoral candidate and former prisons Minister.
He shared some insights into his time in charge of a troubled prison estate, and his vision for policing in London.
As an academic, I have always thought big. I’ve thought in terms of radical reform, of social justice and reconceptualizing how we see punishment and people being punished.
Stewart advocated a pragmatic approach driven by on-the-ground insights and experiences. Are the windows on the prison broken and making it easier for drones to deliver drugs? Fix the windows. Of course, this doesn’t address the underlying causes of drug addiction: this perhaps is would be the natural reaction of many academics to Stewart’s brand of “back to basics” philosophy. When quizzed, he did not argue that the big question were not important, but huis advocating for pragmatism made me reflect on my own perspectives on penal policy.
He said that of course addressing the global challenges our criminal justice system faces is important, be it poverty, drug addiction or poor mental health of people in our prisons. But thinking just about the big challenges can be overwhelming and can be used as an excuse, whether intentionally or not, to do nothing. After all, windows can be fixed, but addressing the lack of funding for drug addiction services is a much harder and more time-consuming task.
Pragmatism of this kind can be useful. It can focus political minds on fixing the immediate problems, and thus pave the way towards tackling the bigger issues. It is notable that HMP Liverpool, the extremely troubled prison that Stewart had to tackle almost immediately after his appointment as minister, has improved. Perhaps his approach is thus working.
My two points, however:
In a prison system that is as unstable and prone to bouts of crises of violence, suicides and other issues, there is a risk that we might get stuck in an endless loop of “fixing the windows”. There needs to be a point at which the challenging philosophical and ethical issues are addressed. This requires long term planning and cross-party strategy.
We need politicians that are not driven by uninformed populism. If real issues are to be addressed pragmatically, they need to be addressed even if politically unpopular. For example, speaking about decent, clean prisons without blood and vomit on the floor might not be revolutionary, but is unlikely to go down well with the tabloid press. We need honest and open conversations about the reality of punishment on the ground, lead by people who’ve trodden that ground. Policy should not be made by people who rarely step inside prisons, shadow officers and speak to men and women living behind bars. All in all, I may have been swayed towards being a bit more pragmatic when it comes to penal policy.