Newspapers and the criminal justice system…
How do you fancy writing a blog for the SPARC website? Aye, no problem says I, I like writing, I have things to say, and it is for such a worthwhile organisation. Of course, the only problem that was present when I agreed but subsequently forgot about, was the actual writing bit. Anything between 500 and 1500 words he said, on any topic that you fancy he said, you could even go on one of your famous rants if you wish! That last one was a direct appeal in a psychological sense to the illusionary sense of the self that we all possess. If my rants were in fact that famous then there would be no need to commit them to the digital pages of a blog other than to widen access to them, and that in my mind is no bad thing.
So, what has annoyed me about the criminal justice system this week thus far (bear in mind this is being written very early on a Tuesday morning, and the working week has hardly had a chance to get it’s coat off an hung up!). Well, it is the age-old conflict of the media and the criminal justice system, specifically how some of our print media report on cases.
The story that sparked this off was headlined: –
“Thug dodges jail after man left with horror head injury in attack outside Scots pub”
For the record, the person carried out this attack is not known to me. We are not related, we have never interacted with each other, and I would struggle to pick him out of a line up. And neither am I trying to minimise the impact that this attack had on his victim. As someone who has also experienced violence at the hands of others, it is far from a pleasant encounter.
For context, the person who was assaulted was standing watching a fracas involving 25 people fighting on a street in Bonnyrigg. The accused punched the victim once on the back of the head knocking him to the ground and into unconsciousness. When he came around, the victim needed four staples in a head wound. I sincerely hope that he has support and help in dealing with this traumatic event.
However, what I often wonder is what the journalist or sub editor was basing their headline upon. There is nothing in the article or the report from court that suggests this individual is a thug. It is a term used to label someone – and research has shown that labels generally stick and become self-fulfilling prophecies. Once the label is applied then the stigma and discrimination that goes with it is often hard to remove.
The person concerned was a first-time offender – therefore the evidence seems to suggest that he is not a thug. If he does it again and is caught and punished for it then I would think the term thug might be appropriate then. The definition of thug, according to a google search, is someone who is “a violent, aggressive person, especially one who is a criminal”. The person convicted was not a criminal in the strictest sense of the word until he was found guilty of this offence. There was no commentary on his character or propensity for violence other than his lawyer, and the Sheriff agreeing, that he was remorseful about the incident and fully understands the impact that this attack had on the victim. There are some who will argue but of course he would say that, whilst others can take it at face value and recognise someone who realises the mistake made and the error of judgement.
A more insidious notion, in my opinion, is that this person “dodged jail”. Why should we automatically think that jail should be the outcome for people appearing in court. This can create a fear within the wider population that the justice system is unfair, that it is weighted in favour of the aggressor and that justice has not been served by the lack of a jail sentence. The evidence points in the other direction – a fist time offender would not get a huge prison sentence for this type of assault and there is a presumption against short terms sentences of under 12 months. The evidence has shown that community alternatives are far better at reducing re-offending behaviours and in turn creating less victims ni the future – surely this would be better than locking someone up, for them to get no rehabilitative work done with them, and for them to be released angrier and more harmed than when they went in to prison.
This is a real problem within Scottish society. This is not the first, and certainly will not be the last, example of journalists expressing an opinion that flies in the face of the legal training and experience of those who sit on the bench. I am often amazed at how easily it is for some papers to descend into a critique of sentencing without any thought about what a prison sentence would mean for the individual concerned. It will be hard enough for this person to rebuild their life given the conviction and the label that has been attached to him. Who would want to employ someone that a paper refers to as being a thug?
And if you answer to that last question was not me, then ask yourself why not? Is it right to label someone for a momentary lapse of judgment, to keep them responsible for the worst action they may have done. This person will have to disclose his conviction to potential employers for a period of 12 months as well. If he ever applies for any job requiring a Protection of Vulnerable Groups membership, then it will always have to be disclosed. Right away the path back to a pro social life has further hurdles in place.
In terms of helping people desist from crime, we need to be more welcoming and forgiving for those who have caused harm. If not then we are all going to pay a higher price for more prison spaces, an overcrowded prisons system, and a revolving door of people who are never given a chance to make amends for previous harmful behaviour.
Anyway, enough of this rant. I can get quite angry about how the press sometimes represents people with an offending background. Recently in the Herald I was referred to as an ex-con, and my biggest fear was that someone might think that it meant ex-conservative! We all have apart to play in reducing re-offending and this will not happen if we still view prison as the first port of call for punishment or keep on discriminating and stigmatising those who have caused harm in the past, here endeth the lesson!
Jim Watson is prisoner 128045, as well as being a PhD candidate, a lecturer in Criminal Justice and Criminology, and chair of the lived experience panel attached to the prison inspectorate in Scotland. The views and opinions expressed above are entirely his own and are not a reflection on any place where he studies, works or volunteers.
