4 ms·

The problem with IPP sentences is more complex than just "the government arbitrarily locking people up indefinitely". The IPP prisoners who are still behind bar

The problem with IPP sentences is more complex than just "the government arbitrarily locking people up indefinitely". The IPP prisoners who are still behind bars are there for a reason - in every case I'm aware of, because they keep committing violent offences while in prison. The psychological burden of an indefinite sentence is undoubtedly an obstacle to rehabilitation, as are the wider issues of understaffing and overcrowding in the prison estate, but let's not kid ourselves. IPP sentences were created specifically to deal with prisoners who habitually reoffend on release. These are people who were on a revolving door of offending and imprisonment before their IPP sentence, and who would almost certainly be stuck in that cycle again if their IPP sentence was quashed. IPPs are unjust and the current government will almost certainly retroactively resentence most or all IPP prisoners within this parliament, but the underlying problem is still there. We could definitely do a better job of rehabilitating this cohort, but even the best-funded and most liberal systems have had fairly meagre success in actually breaking the cycle of reoffending; the much-heralded low recidivism rates in Scandinavia are substantially a reporting artifact rather than a meaningful difference in outcomes.

tasuki 2y ago
> the much-heralded low recidivism rates in Scandinavia are substantially a reporting artifact rather than a meaningful difference in outcomes More on this?
- jdietrich 2y ago
  Headline recidivism rates aren't really comparable across jurisdictions, because there are so many variables - what kind of offences lead to imprisonment, what counts as "reoffending", how long you follow up for, how likely people are to be arrested, charged and convicted etc. One study found that recidivism rates could vary from 9% to 53% based on the same underlying data, simply by changing the definitions. The more you try to standardise the methods, the smaller the difference in apparent recidivism rates. https://sci-hub.ee/10.1177/0011128715570629 https://sci-hub.ee/10.1177/0011128715570629
  - Sammi 2y ago
    Ok so now you're saying we don't know. Before you were saying you did know. I see what you did there. Convenient.
    - BrandoElFollito 2y ago
      I do not understand your comment. OP explained his point about how the rates vary
      - Sammi 2y ago
        > the much-heralded low recidivism rates in Scandinavia are substantially a reporting artifact rather than a meaningful difference in outcomes First he says he knows recidivism in scandinavia is not low. > Headline recidivism rates aren't really comparable across jurisdictions, because there are so many variables - what kind of offences lead to imprisonment, what counts as "reoffending", how long you follow up for, how likely people are to be arrested, charged and convicted etc. One study found that recidivism rates could vary from 9% to 53% based on the same underlying data, simply by changing the definitions. The more you try to standardise the methods, the smaller the difference in apparent recidivism rates. Then when pushed his proof is that we cannot know that recidivism in scandinavia is not low. Grade A bullshitter right there.
        BrandoElFollito 2y ago
        My understanding was that he said that the headlines report numbers that are not backed off by science (your first quote) and then goes on explaining why (your second quite). He could have used "high" and "USA" instead and it would have been the same.
        Sammi 2y ago
        Had he left out "rather than a meaningful difference in outcomes" then maybe. But he didn't and made is initial argument sound stronger than it is. Classic motte-and-bailey argument.
brikym 2y ago
Assuming prison is an eat or be eaten, survival of the fittest kind of environment can you blame the prisoners for being violent?
- thoroughburro 2y ago
  That assumption is based on cinema more than reality. Prison is just a microcosm of humanity, only slightly biased. Personal experience.
  - pas 2y ago
    That does not contradict brikym's comment. Of course, a lot of people are lucky and able to navigate our everyday jungle, thrive and blablabla, but they - almost by definition - don't end up in prison, and those who do already - again, almost by definition - have problems. Underfunded mental health systems inside and outside, piling on more traumatizing experiences here or there ... sure, for some people getting a few years gives them that wake up call, but in general the problem seems to be that the whole police/prison concept is just a shitty bandaid on wounds festering from all kinds of problems (economical, political all of them usually point to psychosocial/cultural issues).
  - miek 2y ago
    It is well known that levels and frequency of violence vary greatly by facility and by area within each facility. It sounds like you had a bit of luck with your placement. Sadly, this "penalization for survival" also happens regularly in juvenile facilities and schools.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
glimmung 2y ago
> IPP sentences were created specifically to deal with prisoners who habitually reoffend on release. The whole point about this situation is that the sentences were applied to people who do NOT fit that description (not my just view, also the view of the architect of this atrocity, David Blunkett), so in the majority of cases in question your reasoning does not apply.
- jdietrich 2y ago
  HM Inspectorate of Probation's review on IPP prisoners released on license paints a very different picture - of people with complex problems, chaotic lives and a high and ongoing risk of reoffending. IPP prisoners can't be arbitrarily detained forever. There has to be a reason for the refusal of parole or for a recall to prison. There are clearly significant shortcomings in how IPP prisoners are supported, but it's also clear that a cohort of people who are living with drug addiction, severe mental illness and behavioural problems are going to struggle to stay on the straight and narrow even in ideal circumstances. https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2023/12/IPP-thematic-report-v1.1.pdf https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-cont...
  - glimmung 2y ago
    Thanks for the link - will take some time for me to digest. > people with complex problems, chaotic lives and a high and ongoing risk of reoffending. Surely that applies to almost all prisoners? I don't think that you have addressed my point though, which is that the people who have been given these sentences are not those supposedly targeted by the law. I couldn't disagree with any of the points that you make, but I think we're talking past each other. There is a threshold at which these sentences might make sense, and we risk conflating discussion about those cases with the much larger number of problematic cases where the logic is - at least quantitatively - different.
    - Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
      > Surely that applies to almost all prisoners? The slippery slope argument can be made that this power could be abused (and likely is to some degree anyway) and that justifications could be made to apply to just about anyone. But if we assume the best intentions here, then something like this does make sense. There will always be a small percentage of people in any large society who are just going to commit violent and criminal acts over and over again. I think most prisoners are in the category where they are regular people who made a bad choice due to things like environmental factors, poor judgement, and the like. And there are a few prisoners who are just wired differently - they will never not be dangerous. The trick is correctly sorting between the two.
underlipton 2y ago
It sounds like you're "just-so"ing a broken system that doesn't actually seem to be in the process of reforming (including implementing retroactive re-sentencing), and understating the role of the conditions such prisoners find themselves in in creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of re-offense. Ironically, you are kidding yourself, as to the defensibility of any part of this.
BizarroLand 2y ago
I wonder how much of that is "bad people" and how much of that is "Stanford prison experiment" Or to put it another way, how much of this indefinite prison sentence due to reoffending is caused by prison guards assuming these people are bad apples and finding every fault they can with them to extend their sentence?

tasuki 2y ago

> the much-heralded low recidivism rates in Scandinavia are substantially a reporting artifact rather than a meaningful difference in outcomes More on this?

jdietrich 2y ago
Headline recidivism rates aren't really comparable across jurisdictions, because there are so many variables - what kind of offences lead to imprisonment, what counts as "reoffending", how long you follow up for, how likely people are to be arrested, charged and convicted etc. One study found that recidivism rates could vary from 9% to 53% based on the same underlying data, simply by changing the definitions. The more you try to standardise the methods, the smaller the difference in apparent recidivism rates. https://sci-hub.ee/10.1177/0011128715570629 https://sci-hub.ee/10.1177/0011128715570629
- Sammi 2y ago
  Ok so now you're saying we don't know. Before you were saying you did know. I see what you did there. Convenient.
  - BrandoElFollito 2y ago
    I do not understand your comment. OP explained his point about how the rates vary
    - Sammi 2y ago
      > the much-heralded low recidivism rates in Scandinavia are substantially a reporting artifact rather than a meaningful difference in outcomes First he says he knows recidivism in scandinavia is not low. > Headline recidivism rates aren't really comparable across jurisdictions, because there are so many variables - what kind of offences lead to imprisonment, what counts as "reoffending", how long you follow up for, how likely people are to be arrested, charged and convicted etc. One study found that recidivism rates could vary from 9% to 53% based on the same underlying data, simply by changing the definitions. The more you try to standardise the methods, the smaller the difference in apparent recidivism rates. Then when pushed his proof is that we cannot know that recidivism in scandinavia is not low. Grade A bullshitter right there.
      - BrandoElFollito 2y ago
        My understanding was that he said that the headlines report numbers that are not backed off by science (your first quote) and then goes on explaining why (your second quite). He could have used "high" and "USA" instead and it would have been the same.
        Sammi 2y ago
        Had he left out "rather than a meaningful difference in outcomes" then maybe. But he didn't and made is initial argument sound stronger than it is. Classic motte-and-bailey argument.

brikym 2y ago

Assuming prison is an eat or be eaten, survival of the fittest kind of environment can you blame the prisoners for being violent?

thoroughburro 2y ago
That assumption is based on cinema more than reality. Prison is just a microcosm of humanity, only slightly biased. Personal experience.
- pas 2y ago
  That does not contradict brikym's comment. Of course, a lot of people are lucky and able to navigate our everyday jungle, thrive and blablabla, but they - almost by definition - don't end up in prison, and those who do already - again, almost by definition - have problems. Underfunded mental health systems inside and outside, piling on more traumatizing experiences here or there ... sure, for some people getting a few years gives them that wake up call, but in general the problem seems to be that the whole police/prison concept is just a shitty bandaid on wounds festering from all kinds of problems (economical, political all of them usually point to psychosocial/cultural issues).
- miek 2y ago
  It is well known that levels and frequency of violence vary greatly by facility and by area within each facility. It sounds like you had a bit of luck with your placement. Sadly, this "penalization for survival" also happens regularly in juvenile facilities and schools.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

glimmung 2y ago

> IPP sentences were created specifically to deal with prisoners who habitually reoffend on release. The whole point about this situation is that the sentences were applied to people who do NOT fit that description (not my just view, also the view of the architect of this atrocity, David Blunkett), so in the majority of cases in question your reasoning does not apply.

jdietrich 2y ago
HM Inspectorate of Probation's review on IPP prisoners released on license paints a very different picture - of people with complex problems, chaotic lives and a high and ongoing risk of reoffending. IPP prisoners can't be arbitrarily detained forever. There has to be a reason for the refusal of parole or for a recall to prison. There are clearly significant shortcomings in how IPP prisoners are supported, but it's also clear that a cohort of people who are living with drug addiction, severe mental illness and behavioural problems are going to struggle to stay on the straight and narrow even in ideal circumstances. https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2023/12/IPP-thematic-report-v1.1.pdf https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-cont...
- glimmung 2y ago
  Thanks for the link - will take some time for me to digest. > people with complex problems, chaotic lives and a high and ongoing risk of reoffending. Surely that applies to almost all prisoners? I don't think that you have addressed my point though, which is that the people who have been given these sentences are not those supposedly targeted by the law. I couldn't disagree with any of the points that you make, but I think we're talking past each other. There is a threshold at which these sentences might make sense, and we risk conflating discussion about those cases with the much larger number of problematic cases where the logic is - at least quantitatively - different.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
    > Surely that applies to almost all prisoners? The slippery slope argument can be made that this power could be abused (and likely is to some degree anyway) and that justifications could be made to apply to just about anyone. But if we assume the best intentions here, then something like this does make sense. There will always be a small percentage of people in any large society who are just going to commit violent and criminal acts over and over again. I think most prisoners are in the category where they are regular people who made a bad choice due to things like environmental factors, poor judgement, and the like. And there are a few prisoners who are just wired differently - they will never not be dangerous. The trick is correctly sorting between the two.

underlipton 2y ago

It sounds like you're "just-so"ing a broken system that doesn't actually seem to be in the process of reforming (including implementing retroactive re-sentencing), and understating the role of the conditions such prisoners find themselves in in creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of re-offense. Ironically, you are kidding yourself, as to the defensibility of any part of this.

BizarroLand 2y ago

I wonder how much of that is "bad people" and how much of that is "Stanford prison experiment" Or to put it another way, how much of this indefinite prison sentence due to reoffending is caused by prison guards assuming these people are bad apples and finding every fault they can with them to extend their sentence?