The Howard Journal V o l 3 / No 3. A u t 92 ISSN 0265-5527

Preparing Life Sentence Prisoners for Release

BARRY MITCHELL Senior Lecturer, Department of Legal Studies, Coventry Polytechnic

Abstract: This article is based on a research study cam'ed out for the Home O f j c e and is concerned with the custodial part of a lqe sentence of lge imprisonment, or its equivalent. It assumes that a signiJicant proportion of lifers will be released on licence. This s t u 4 seeks to assess the existing procedures and arrangementsfor preparing lifers for release. How e f f t i v e l y are the needs of lifers identijied and addressed so as to maximise their chances of successful release? How well,./or example, do prison sta f f and probation oflcers work together? Should the current arrangements of release be developed or reformed to cope with increased numbers of prisoners?

According to the Prison Statistics (Home Ofice 1989) there are about 2,700 people serving sentences of life imprisonment or similar indefinite terms' in England and Wales. When the Homicide Act 1957 (which suspended the death penalty) was passed, there were about 140; by the mid-1970s the number had riser1 to about 1,200, and a decade later the '2,000 barrier' was breached. At the same time, Lifers are being detained in prison for longer periods. In the rarly 1970s they served eight to nine years on average before release on licence; by the mid-to-late 1980s, the figure was nearer eleven-and-a-half years. By 1989, the average of those released was twelve years. In this sense, therefore, we seem increasingly reluctant to release them - though the reader must decide whether that is per se good or bad.

Simplistic Indicators of Success

The Home Officr Statistical Bulletin 27/90 shows that between 1972 and 1988, 1 , l 13 lifers were first releiised, with a peak of 107 in 1982, since when the figures have fluctuated from a mere 48 in 1986 to 70 in 1988. At the end of 1988, 246 of the 1.1 1 3 (22.1%) had been reconvicted of indictable offences (including 48 I'or 'grave' offrnces).' One-hundred-and- eighty-eight (16.9%) had been recalled and/or given a further life sentence - of whom 172 had been recalled. Twclve had received a further life sentence, and four had bven recalled and givrn a further life sentence."

Lifers are released on licence requiring them to fulfil certain supervision

224

conditions, the standard examples of which are to report regularly to the supervising probation officer, to live and work at places approved by the supervising officer and to notify the supervising officer of any changes thereto, and not to travel outside Great Britain without the supervising officer’s prior permission. Supervision typically lasts for at least four years, after which the conditions are lifted. Such cases are generally seen as ‘successes’, but supervision beyond five years does not necessarily indicate a failure. I t may be appropriate simply to maintain a sense of stability and thus the continued success of release. Coker and Martin (1985) followed the release of 239 lifers (64 released between 1960 and 1964, and 175 released between 1970 and 1974), 63 of whom were still being supervised more than five years after their first release. Factors associated with lengthy supervision (that is, beyond five years) included not only previous convictions and behaviour after release, but also the nature of the offence that led to the life sentence. Those who committed a crime of violence (usually fatal) in the course of another offence (for example, robbery or burglary) were most likely to avoid lengthy supervision (75%) because the offence was seen as ‘accidental’ or ‘situational’, rather than premeditated for gain. In contrast, sexual offenders were most likely to be supervised beyond the five-year mark (50%).

Clearly, though, the lack of reconviction or recall, and the lifting of supervision conditions within five years are not the only indicators of successful release. We need to look at the sentence in its entirety and the impact it has had on the lifer. Coker and Martin (1985) commented:

. . . their greatest losses were more social, of youth and energy and ‘time’ which might have been enjoyed in lireedom. (p. 108)4

Most lifers settled into broadly the same social and economic environment from which they had been taken when sentenced - this was certainly true of their employment and accommodation. Seventy per cent had their own home by the time their supervision ended, though those aged 50 or more were less successful in this respect. Most lifers (70%) returned to the same type of accommodation (that is, their own home, or lodgings) as that from which they had been removed. About a fifth stayed at their first accommodation on release, whilst nearly three in five moved at least three times. Those who moved at least six times were more likely to be supervised for longer periods. As to employment, Coker and Martin (1985) found that slightly less were unemployed on release (16%) than at the date of sentence (18Y0).~ Indeed, ‘. . . the general pattern of employment was virtually unchanged’ (p. 119). It should be remembered, however, that during the period to which Coker and Martin’s study relates the national situation on employment was much better than i t is now.

Martin and Webster (1971) suggested that close emotional relationships can have a beneficial effect on the chances of a former prisoner’s successful resettlement in the community. Lifers, though, might be seen in a rather

225

different light; 92% of those in Coker and Martin's (1985) study had convictions for homicide,6 and 70% were of a domestic or sexual nature. At the date of sentence, 49% were married, but by the end of the research the figure was 63% .7 Sixty-three per cent of those who had killed a spouse or cohabitee had remarried or were cohabiting within five years of release. Those who had killed 'other women' showed an even higher rate (8 1 YO), and similar figures were recorded for those who had killed other men or children. Single men, though, wcre much less likely to marry or cohabit on release, regardless of whom they had killed.'

Current Release Procedures and Arrangements As well as looking at what happms after release, it is necessary to consider the way in which the current operation of indeterminate sentences prepares prisoners for release. Between 1985 and 1987, I undertook a general survey of the impact of the Prison Department's policy, the 'revised strategy', for managing life sentence prisoners (hereafter 'Mitchell 1990a'), and in the light of that I was asked to look in particular a t the existing arrangements and procedures for releasing lifers. In this latest study, carried out from June 1990 to March 1991, I visited two Category C prisons, four open prisons and seven hostels,9 where I talked to prisoners and staff and in-house probation o thers about their experiences and suggested reforms. I also had discussions with members of external (or 'home-based') probation services in Derbyshire, Hampshire, Notting- hamshire and Inner London, and talked to various interest groups such as the Prison Reform Trust, APEX, and the New Bridge. This paper contains a descriptive account of the comments made to me; it was impossible to examine each issue in depth, to assess the evidence that supports or refutes the opinions expressed.

Following sentence, male lifers will usually be sent to a main centre prison as the first principal stage of their detention. I t is intended that during their imprisonment they will be transferred to prisons of gradually decreasing security and control," and will spend a period in a hostel on the Pre-Releasc Employment Scheme (PRES) " immediately prior to release on licence. Female lifers" are normally first allocated to H wing of Durham Prison or Bullwood Hall (or to Holloway if they require special medical help), and will then be transferred to another closed institution such as Styal or Cookham Wood. But there are no Category C prisons for women," and so they have to be moved directly from a closed to an open prison such as Askham Grange, where there is a small hostel within the grounds of the prison in which they will usually spend their final months before release.

Whether and when a lifer will be released is determined by three main criteria, two of which - retribution and deterrence - form the basis on which the tariff is set. The tariff date represents the earliest possible point of release, and it is currently fixcd by the Home Secretary acting on the advice of the Lord Chief Justice and preferably the trial judge. Lifers should be indirectly informed of this date within only a few months of

226

being sentenced.14 The third criterion is that of risk to the public, and it is this which preoccupies prison staff and probation officers.

Traditionally, it has been largely taken for granted that only when lifers reach semi-open and open conditions will they have sufficient freedom to make decisions for themselves about what they do etc. so that any useful assessment can be made about how they are likely to behave on release. My earlier research, however, indicated than fewer than three in five lifers spent time in both these types of prisons, and that the average aggregate time spent in them was just over three years one month. The Prison Department now claims that more semi-open prisons accommodate lifers and that lifers are spending a greater proportion of their detention in Category C and D prisons. This was supported by my latest survey in that a few lifers are now being transferred directly from a main centre to ‘top end’ Category C establishment (that is, one which operates a less liberal regime), thus moving more quickly to less obviously secure conditions. The expectation is that they will then be moved to more liberal semi-opcn conditions, and thence to a Category D prison.

It has long been assumed that transfer from one establishment to another provides an indication to the prisoner, and to staff, of how he is thought to be progressing. It was interesting, therefore, to discover that those who now find themselves in a Category C prison at a comparatively early stage are said not to have been misled into thinking that their release will come sooner than originally anticipated. Clear and careful explana- tion about transfer decisions can prevent lifers from ‘being given the wrong signals’ and thus building false hopes.

At the same time, it remains a feature of the system that transfer from a closed to a semi-open prison invariably brings about a loss of ‘perks and privileges’; for example being able to wear your own shoes, or keep a budgerigar in your own room. A number of staff shared prisoners’ criticism of this, in that it tends to nullify the sense of progress and constructive attitude that would otherwise accompany a move closer to release. It has been suggested that the situation has improved since the fieldwork for this study was completed.

Traditionally, a lifer in semi-open conditions was not normally permitted to spend time outside the prison unless, for example, he already had a provisional release date (hereafter a ‘prd’)15, and was shortly to be transferred to open conditions. The situation now is that a lifer who is within a year of the next LRC review and who has come to terms with the offence and his offending behaviour, may (with Home Office approval) undertake various activities, including going beyond the prison walls. It is widely accepted that one of the principal purposes of accommodating lifers in the more liberal environment of semi-open conditions is to provide an opportunity for assessing the risk that they would pose to the public. Risk assessment cannot be carried out in a wholly scientific or quantitative manner, and various members of prison staff and probation officers are called upon to express their opinions on the subject. But it was very surprising to discover that some prisons, certainly in the Category C and D range, do not have their own in-house psychologist andlor

227

psychiatrist, that is, someone who is perhaps best qualified to make some sort of objective evaluation.16

It seems that most lifers spend about two to three years in open conditions before being moved to a hostel on the PRES. Whilst some will already have been given a prd, most lifers can expect to arrive at a Category D prison without one. It is only after reaching this stage that a lifer can expect to spend much time beyond the prison boundaries and thus begin to remind himself of what life is like in the world outside. He will usually be allowed out for gradually more time - for example, spending a day shopping in a nearby town, or on educational parole, and then a few days on a short home leave, andlor as part of work experience. Once he has received a prd, he may reach the point at which he spends every weekday working outside the prison.

The conditions in open prisons and the precise nature of the regimes that are operated in them vary. The details of the acclimatisation programmes that are designed to help prepare lifers for release also vary from one open prison to another. Variation occurs in the range of facilities (classes and courses) available to lifers, and to some extent in the flexibility with which staff interpret prison regulations. The latter can be very important since the needs of lifers differ enormously and sometimes an imaginative interpretation of regulations is necessary to meet the requirements of particular cases.

One of the most infamous features of life in open prisons is the tension which permeates the whole of the establishment and which is caused by the inordinate lengths of time that prisoners have to wait before receiving the replies to their parole applications. Over the years there has been much criticism of the destructive and aggravating effects of this (see, for example, Mitchell 1990a, 1990b). In the mid-to-late 1980s, i t seemed that some progress was being made; the waiting time was not much more than about six months. Since then, it was suggested that the situation has deteriorated and the average time was nearer twelve months. It is only right to point out that the Home Ofice now claims to have reduced the waiting time, and aims to achieve an average waiting time of no more than six months.

When the Home Secretary decides to sanction release, the lifer is either told of a specific date on which he will, provisionally, be released on licence, or he is told that he will be released only when he has served a finite period on the PRES. It appears that an increasing proportion of lifers are now required to spend nine months in a hostel, whereas most of their predecessors stayed there for six months. Some prison staff made the alarming suggestion that at least partly as the result of the delays in dealing with parole applications. some male lifers were effectively being detained beyond the tariff date, though there was no apparent justification for this on the ground of risk to the p~b1 ic . l~ It is frequently the case that detailed arrangements cannot be made until the lifer has a prd. If, for example, a lifer is told he can be released once he has served a given period on the PRES, everyone is usually keen that he be released as soon as possible. But there may be no vacancy at that time in the hostel that is

228

appropriate to his plans. Thus, he must either wait until such a vacancy arises, or change his plans and accept a vacancy elsewhere. In the event of the latter, fresh release plans have to be agreed, and a new supervising officer has to be allocated who requires time to become sufficiently well- acquainted with the case. Whichever option is taken, there is a distinct possibility that the lifer may be detained beyond his prd through no fault of his own. There was no evidence of such difficulties in the female system.

It is only fair to acknowledge that delays in release can also be caused by other factors. For quite understandable reasons, last-minute changes are sometimes made to release plans. This is most likely when a lifer is on the hostel stage, though his plan is that he is to settle in another part of the country. However, whilst on the PRES, he begins to develop some sort of a social life, and his employer offers to keep him on after his release date. Not surprisingly, the lifer decides to remain in that area, but another supervisory officer has to be found who (again) needs time to get to know the case. New accommodation arrangements have to be made and, for example, further adjustments may be necessary involving family and/or friends in other parts of the country.

The intention is that hostellers should acquire a job for which they will be paid a proper wage or salary, though many ofthejobs they obtain are ofa menial nature and are poorly paid. Once they have found work, they are allowed to go out in the evenings and at weekends, provided they return by set times. In essence, the PRES seeks to maximise the freedom and normality of their life whilst keeping them under the control of the prison system. This assists hostellers to continue to readjust to a normal lifestyle, perhaps to re-establish some semblance of a social life, and hopefully to save some money,'9 and simultaneously it facilitates further evaluation of risk to the public. Some staff regarded the securing of a job very much as the lifer's responsibility, whilst others took a more proactive role if the lifer seemed to be having little success in this respect. Most hostel wardens required lifers to hand over their wage packets at the end of each week, deducted a set amount for board and lodging, and handed back an allowance as 'spending money', to cover the cost of travelling to and from work, buying lunch etc. Any money left over was then saved by the warden on the lifer's behalf.

Some hostels were staffed solely by uniform prison officers; others called upon the services of auxiliary officers. Many lifers felt that staff are now less available to assist them, at least in Category C and D establishments and on the PRES. Lifers are strongly urged to plan thorough1 for release, and they may expect to be helped in this by their case officer." Naturally, they need to be able to discuss all sorts of issues which, if left unresolved, may adversely affect their progress towards release. Yet there was a good deal of agreement that, whilst staff were on duty, the particular officer sought by a lifer was unavailable to offer any help. In some hostels, there is a warden on duty only for part of the day - usually during normal office hours - and sometimes there is no-one on duty at weekends. I also found evidence of inconsistency amongst wardens as to the extent of their role. They all accepted that they should liaise with probation officers, both in

229

the prison and externally, but opinions differed as to who bore responsibility for, for example, assisting with accommodation and/or employment arrangements. This is discussed more fully later in the article.

Release Preparations and Risk Assessment During detention lifers may take various educational and/or vocational training courses, either to enhance their resettlement prospects, through tuition in basic education or social or employment skills, or simply to help pass the time. The range and nature of these courses varies from prison to prison, so that a desired course is sometimes unavailable at a particular institution or the lifer is dissuaded from starting a course because he is shortly to be 'transferred to a prison where he could not continue it. Whilst there was much appreciation of the potential benefits of these activities, lifers and staff criticised the standard of some vocational courses - the level of skills acquired is too low so that ex-prisoners are (further) prejudiced when competing for jobs. Moreover, as has previously been commented (Mitchell 1990a, 1990b), there is sometimes a need for better timing of courses; lifers occasionally complete a course that is relevant to their subsequent employment some years before they are released so that the benefit of it is reduced. The obvious solution in such cases is for a refresher course to be undertaken.

At the Category D stage, lifers are strongly encouraged to attend classes in social skills, making job applications etc, according to their perceived individual needs. There was general agreement that many lifers need more assistance of this sort, which suggests that either their personal preparations had not been commenced soon enough or that insufficient facilities were available. The situation for female lifers is similar - for example, there are three-week prerelease courses at Drake Hall (and at Holloway). Naturally, there is a considerable variation in the skills requirements of lifers, but staff commonly instanced a lack of self- confidence as an important deficiency. Understandably, lifers usually try to appear to be self-reliant, but this is probably a facet of the macho image that many prisoners seek to present.

There was also widespread appreciation of the value of time spent outside the confines of the prison, both for educational/training/employ- ment purposes and for re-establishing domestic and social aspects of their lives. Problems have arisen where a lifer in an open prison received a prd that did not really leave him sufficient time to spend outside before being released. This was most likely if the lifer had been detained for a particularly long period, much of which had been in closed conditions, and he lacked some personal/social skills.2' This again shows the need for careful planning.

Providing lifers with the chance to work outside prison is arguably a more realistic form of testing than that which is used in semi-open and open prisons through the integration of lifers with fixed-term prisoners. Not surprisingly, many of them are unhappy at having to live and work

230

alongside young, often ‘hotheaded’ determinate-sentence prisoners who may be serving short sentences and whose antics could cause highly adverse effects. If they breach prison regulations, fixed-termers can only lose remission or parole, whereas lifers are likely to have their progress towards release postponed by a matter of years (at the very least). The easiest way to avoid such problems is to simply walk away, but this option is severely reduced by integration.22

It is appropriate here to consider more carefully the issue of integration. The Prison Department favours it, for as Home Office Circular Instruction 2/89 states:

Lifers should be treated as a group whose special needs, because of the indeterminate sentence and the psychological and practical problems created by that, should be recognised within the prisons, though not necessarily by physical separation or privileges. (para. 9(i))

Kingston prison at Portsmouth, however, is a lifer-only prison and has been used to accommodate so-called ‘domestic’ offenders (as opposed to professional criminals) in the middle part of their detention. There is a good deal of evidence of the benefits, especially of prisoners’ ability to start thinking about their future after release, to be gained from such institutions (Mitchell 1990a).23 Separation in semi-open and open conditions is rejected partly on the basis that lifers should be discouraged from seeing themselves as privileged, for they will eventually have to mix with all sorts ofpeople. It is also rejected so that integration can be used to test lifers, although it has earlier been acknowledged that they criticise the artificiality of this form of testing. Whatever the merits of the debate, it may be argued that the Home Office must decide whether to retain Kingston in its present role and, if so, it should expand the provision of lifer-only accommodation, or to fully implement its policy of integration. If the value of Kingston in its present form is accepted, there may well be a case for other similar institutions elsewhere in the country.

In addition, some staff suggested that lifers occasionally become the victims of political in-fighting between departments within a prison. Any department - say, education or the gym - can get over-anxious to promote its own activities and the benefits it can offer, to such a degree that i t takes up a disproportionate amount of the lifers’ time so that other needs are left unmet.

The general assumption that assessing the risk that a lifer poses to the public can only seriously be tackled after he has reached semi-open conditions has already been referred to. There is, however, a growing body of evidence to refute this. A number of probation officers, working in prisons and externally, strongly argued that right from the outset (that is, even before trial) much can and should be achieved to understand the offence and identify the factors that led to its commission. This task frequently proves very lengthy, and the importance of addressing it sooner rather than later is illustrated by the fact that not uncommonly i t is discovered that a lifer still has serious problems even after he has received a prd. Furthermore, psychologists at Wakefield prison (a main centre) are

23 1

carrying out work - still very much in its embryonic stages - on offence- related behaviour and risk assessment. Put simply, they are seeking to identify characteristics of the offender that were particularly relevant to the crime and relating them to his behaviour in prison.

A limited amount of objective data on risk may be available, but subjectivity will inevitably play a part in predicting how a prisoner is likely to behave if and when released. All those familiar with a case - governor grades, uniform staff, probation officers, psychologists and psychiatrists etc - will be invited to express their opinions on the subject at the various formal reviews. Yet the vast majority have no training o r expertise in analysing and evaluating human behaviour to draw upon.‘4 Common sense and experience ol’working with prisoners are not enough. The problem is compounded by the fact that many of these individuals have rather limited knowledge of the prisoners whose futures they are helping to shape. Govcrnor grades and in-house probation officers, for example, are likely to see prisonrrs only very occasionally. Uniform staff are likely to have far more regular contact with prisoners, but sadly much of the value of that contact is untapped, for the potential mass of information about prisoners that it provides remains dormant because the officers lack the skills to make use of it.

Avenues of Release

At present there are only three open prisons25 for men that have much experience of dealing with lifers (at Leyhill, Ford and Sudbury), and three for women (at Askham Grange, Drake Hall and East Sutton Park), and if the trend to move them down through the security categorisation as quickly as possible continues, there is likely to be a demand for more Category D accommodation. Although other such establishments are beginning to take lifers, it will take many years for them to build up the necessary knowledge and experirnce to cope with significant numbers, and it is only sensible to consider alternative arrangements.

To some extent, lifers look upon the requirement of having to go through the PRES as ‘another hoop to jump through’. Some argue that i t is principally useful for those who ;ire not supported by family or friends,26 by giving them the chance to save a little money and to continue the routine of getting up and going out to Undeniably, the PRES provides the closest approximation to normal life, and the demand for places on it far outweighs the number of vacancies. At the completion of my research, there were just six hostels for men and one for women in England and Wales, most ofwhich have space for only about ten to twelve prisoners.

Many lifers decide to settle in the area in which they spent time on the PRES, so that over the years ‘ghettos’ of ex-hostt-llers have been formed in certain parts of the country, as in London, Bristol and Nottingham. This is generally regarded as undesirable; some probation officers expressed the fear that ex-prisoners may associate only with one another rather than socialise and develop relationships with people who are not steeped in

232

prison culture, and thereby prejudice their chances of resuming ‘non- criminal’ lifestyles. Additionally, since lifers on licence have to be supervised at least for the first few years, large numbers of them concentrated in one area places considerable strains on the local probation service. There are comparatively few female lifers and it was suggested that they tend to return to their home areas on release.

The obvious implication is that more release points need to be created, and more accommodation on the PRES should be made available, though as indicated later in this article certain features of the scheme ought to be improved. Consideration would have to be given to the costs (for example, of converting existing buildings or constructing new ones) and of the need to provide such accommodation in all regions of the country. At the same time, though, a number of staff thought that the PRES, or certain aspects of it, could be incorporated into some of the current Category D (and possibly C) prisons. Lifers in open conditions could get jobs in the locality for which they would receive a normal wage and thus be (more) financially independent and responsible for organising their own finances. Hostels could be constructed at Category D prisons to which lifers would graduate from the main prison, thereby extinguishing the need for transfer to yet another institution,28 and hopefully fostering a stronger sense of purpose and direction for those in open establishments.

The PRES is, in principle at least, widely regarded as a valuable feature of the release process; yet certain aspects of it could and arguably should be adjusted. The most fundamental of these is probably the location of hostels. At present they are usually sited immediately outside the main wall of a closed prison, although occasionally they are situated just inside.*’ Some staff suggested that proximity to the prison provides a constant reminder to hostellers that they will be put ‘back behind the wall’ as soon as their behaviour is thought to warrant it. Also, if there are any disturbances in the hostel, staff from the main prison are on hand to deal with it. However, probation officers in particular argued that the proximity of hostels to closed prisons undermines the potential utility of the PRES. The Scheme ought to be structured so as to minimise the extent to which lifers feel they are still in prison, thus providing a more accurate picture of how they are likely to behave when finally released. Crude incentives created by the immediacy of a prison wall are unnecessary; lifers know they are being trusted and that if they abuse that trust the consequences for them personally would be extremely unpleasant. Moreover, it is argued that even the existing situation does not ensure that any disturbances in hostels can be guarded against. Hostel wardens and prisoners cannot be protected from violence because staff from the main prison simply could not get there in time to prevent it.

It is also contended that life in hostels could be made more normal and, again, this ought to improve the quality of the information that is relevant to risk assessment. A number of people likened life on the PRES to that at a boarding school. Hostellers have to report back by specific times - usually 10.30 pm or 10.45 pm during the week. They have to stay in on one or two nights a week so that the hostel can be cleaned and inspected.

233

As well as relaxing these rules, there is surely a strong argument for permitting hostellers to manage their own finances, rather than be given a weekly allowance. They could be required to submit whatever they wanted to save to the warden so that a record could be kept of this, and if it was thought they were being too carefree with their money the warden could take control of it. I t might subsequently be appropriate for the hosteller to resume control of his finances. But they would a t least have the opportunity to take responsibility and show how they discharged that responsibility, for what is an important part of normal life. Another facet of the PRES is that whilst hostellers are permitted to use mopeds and motorbikes, they cannot use a car. There is no apparent reason for this!

Underlying Obstacles to Release Planning For many people - both staff and prisoners - the indeterminacy of a life sentence is a fundamental obstacle to any real planning and thus inhibits release preparations. Whilst lifers can think about the future at various stages of their sentence (Mitchell 1990a), their predicament is inescapably uncertain and many feel they diire not begin to make plans unless and until they receive a prd. Even then they are acutely aware that the date can easily be deferred, perhaps indefinitely. Yet, as many probation officers stressed, a lifer must have some plans about what he proposes to do in order to persuade the Home Secretary and his advisers to grant a prd. A further dimension to this is the apparent dominance of the tariff. Whilst officially it is possible for it lifer to be released before the tariff has expired, because of special mitigating or humanitarian reasons or because he has responded exceptionally well to prison training,3" the chances of actually doing so are extremely remote. I t was suggested to me that such exceptional action is only likely where, for example, a lifer was terminally ill and had just a few months to live. Many lifers are dissuaded from thinking about the future until thry get close to their tariff date. Their first LRC review is set at three years before the tariff, yet most expect to be rejected on their initial parole applications. The net effect of this is that the vast majority have no hope of being released before the tariff date, and even at that point the position is still very uncertain. They are very aware of the slowness with which the system operates, and they can invariably cite cases of lifers who, allegedly a t least, have been unjustifiably detained for some time beyond the tariff date. This tends to restrict their ability and/or willingness to make detailed release preparations. Offers of jobs and accommodation will not br held open indefinitely, so that only general plans can be made.

Historically, the prison and probation services might be regarded as 'unlikely bedfellows'; one emphasises the control, security and punitive aspects of imprisonment, whereas the other is associated more with rehabilitative ideals, seeking to redress problems that cause offending by help and supervision in the community. Whilst many officers from both services expressed satisfaction with the liaison between them, important reservations were also made. In some cases there was uncertainty as to

234

how they complemented each other and identified their respective functions - sometimes even on basic issues such as who was responsible for assisting lifers in securing suitable accommodation and/or employ- ment on release, and how far each party’s responsibility extended. Some probation officers felt that colleagues in the prison service failed to appreciate how much time and effort is necessary to carry out basic tasks such as inspecting proposed accommodation addresses. Some probation officers felt the need to ‘keep in with’ prison officers (a) because their support and protection might be necessary, and (b) so that uniform staff would pass on useful bits of information that they had gleaned from lifers. This was indicative of the sense of unease and mutual suspicion between the two services; a feeling that they were not always ‘pulling in the same direction’. Furthermore, some external probation officers spoke of instances when prison officers had (apparently quite deliberately) withheld information about particular lifers which had prevented them from fulfilling their professional obligations to their clients.

Predictably, therefore, probation officers sometimes demonstrated a certain discomfort at having to work alongside prison staff. External officers rather than those working in prisons tended to see themselves as having a rather peripheral role. They only saw their clients every now and again, usually after making a time-consuming and costly3’ journey. Some also seemed unsure about the extent to which they should actively participate in the process of reviewing lifers’ progress.32 Indeed, some officers who had worked in areas where there were clearer ideas about the input of the probation service, criticised their colleagues for failing to take a sufficiently proactive role, especially at formal review boards.

Following a meeting in October 1982 between the Prison Department and the Association of Chief Officers of Probation, guidelines were drawn up on the ‘throughcare and supervision of life sentence prisoners’. Unfortunately, instead of laying down detailed policy objectives, much of this document is procedural, or it is couched in very general terms which many officers are unable to translate into practice. Broad aims are stated or implied, for example, ‘assisting resettlement and monitoring response and behaviour’ and ‘the prevention of re-offending’ (para. 11) and ‘combating stagnation’ (para. 30), but there is little or no indication as to how officers should set about achieving them, apart from relying on their basic social work skills. There is acceptance of the special problems and needs of lifers, and yet there is very little guidance as to how probation officers should address them. The need for proper training is recognised, as is the need for familiarity with issues such as ‘common reactions and experiences of life sentence prisoners, the concept of dangerousness, patterns of behaviour and assessment of risk’ (para. 22). Officers are instructed to inform what was P2 Division (now part of DOC 11) ‘at once’, for example, ‘. . . where the licensee’s behaviour (or an actual incident) suggests that he may be an actual or potential risk to the public . . .’ or ‘. . . where the licensee’s mental condition is giving cause for concern’ (para. 53). But most probation officers have little or no experience of lifers to draw upon, they receive no training to assist them in addressing lifers’

235

problems, and usually have to fall back on common sense, their basic social work training and whatever their ‘gut feeling’ tells them! They have no background in analysing and evaluating human behaviour, nor any details of their relationship with prison staff and experts such as psychologists and psychiatrists.

Clear and effective communication is a necessary ingredient of a successful system which seeks to process lifers through their detention. Yet there is evidence of failure in this respect at various stages. Some lifers reach open conditions either unaware of their tariff date or confusing it with their first LRC review date.33 Staff expressed frustration by the apparent inability of colleagues i n headquarters to understand adequately the circumstances and needs of individual cases, and at the fact that those colleagues occasionally communicated directly with lifers without informing them of what had been said. Probation officers also instanced cases when lifers had been rcleased without appreciating the conditions of the licence and the requirements of supervision.

Conclusions and Implications Whilst many lifers do eventually resettle into the community, there is ample scope for reform. Currently, there is insufficient guidance for those working with lifers as to how they can best use their time. The probation service appears to see its role solely as facilitating the Prison Department’s policy, and offers only very general objectives to its members. Both probation and prison officers need proper training. I t is precisely because risk assessment cannot be measured wholly scientifically that we must make the optimum use of the information available, and reduce reliance on ‘gut feelings’. In addition to the provision of adequate staff training, this means that work on risk assessment should begin a t the earliest possible opportunity - certainly before lifers have reached semi-open conditions. I t is to be hoped that the work of the psychologists at Wakefield will be developed and expanded.

Regardless of the degree to which long-term imprisonment may itself cause problems, society clearly has an interest in promoting a system which maximises lifers’ chances of resettlement in the community. Much of the rhetoric of the ‘revised strategy’ is laudable, but the full complement of resources necessary for its implementation must be made available; in addition to what has already been suggested, this involves adequate staffing levels (of prison and probation officers), a sufficient range of courses to provide necessary skills, and a greater number of release routes. This latter requirement means an expansion of the PRES, by increasing the number of hostels, and by ‘de-prisonising’ the regimes on the scheme. Some of these reforms call for courage in so far as they require a reduction in the constraints on (and control of) lifers before their prd. But some progress seems to have already been made in this direction by, for example, the speedier movement of some lifers out of closed and into semi- open conditions. This trend is to be encouraged.

At the same time, there are various negative features of the system that

236

should be minimised. The tariff is arguably too dominant. In some cases, it seems to have led to lifers being detained to the extent that their prospects for successful release are jeopardised. Sometimes there is an optimum point at which to release lifers, but continued detention because of the tariff sometimes causes them to ‘go over the top’ (see Mitchell 1990b). Additionally, the perception that virtually no-one ever ‘beats the tariff 34 confirms lifers’ belief in the futility of advanced planning, that is, it would be pointless to make firm plans years before release because circumstances might change by the time the tariff expires. Perhaps the other major negative factors are the inevitability of re ections to initial parole applications and the delay in getting the result^.^ These frequently have the effect of postponing lifers’ thoughts about release preparations, as well as causing enormous stress to the lifers and everyone else in the prison.

si \

Notes The principal alternatives (but equivalent) to life imprisonment are an order that the offender be detained ‘during Her Majesty’s pleasure’ under s.53 Children and Young Persons Act 1933, and a sentence that the offender be detained in ‘custody for life’ under 9.8 Criminal Justice Act 1982. Twelve were convicted of another homicide, and a further two whose original life sentence was for some other offence were convicted of homicide. Life licensees originally convicted of homicide had lower two and five year reconviction rates than those convicted of other offences. HOSB 27/90 also points out that ‘the reconviction rates for life licensees . . . are much lower than the average for all those released from custody’ (para. 20). For example, for adult males released in 1984 from serving prison sentences for violence against the person, the reconviction rate was about 40%; whereas the average rate for life licensees over the period 1972 to 1986 was about 10%. Other researchers have reported more disturbing effects of lengthy detention; see for example, Stan Cohen and Laurie Taylor (1981), and Roger Sapsford (1983). Further evidence may be gleaned from Tony Parker (1990). Seven of the 38 who were unemployed on release could not work because of age and/or infirmity. The Prison Statistics show that for 1989, 88.3% of the lifer population in prison service establishments had been convicted of murder, manslaughter, other homicide or attempted homicide. This is typical of the statistics for the 1980s. There was no information on 41 lifers. But even if most of these were single men, there would still have been an increase in the percentage of married men. About a fifth of the men who were married at the date of sentence had ceased to be married during the sentence and remained single at the end of the research. The probability is that most of them were ‘getting on in years’ and/or in ill- health. The Category C prisons were Ashwell and Featherstone; the Category Ds were Askham Grange, Ford, Leyhill and Sudbury; and the hostels were at Birmingham, Bristol, Maidstone, Nottingham, Preston (now without a hostel), Wakefield and Wormwood Scrubs. Throughout this paper, the terms ‘Category C’ and ‘semi-open’ prison are intended to be regarded as synonymous, although they are (strictly speaking) closed institutions with less overt security.

23 7

lo The need for gradual reintroduction to freedom was strongly advocated by David Cooper who had been sentenced to life but was released without pardon after serving more than eleven years in prison. Further evidence appears to be provided by the release of members of the 'Guildford Four'.

I ' Those who are too old to get a job or are prevented from so doing because of ill-health will not be required to participate in the scheme.

I' Whereas male lifers are categorised A, B, C, or D, the only formal security categorisation for women is that which distinguishes Category A from the rest.

l 3 The Prison Department stresses the nature of the regime rather than the physical manifestation of security.

l4 Lifers should be informed of the date of their fist review by the local review committee (LRC) from which they can calculate their tariff date. However, I have come across cases suggesting that this information is not received or the tariff date is confused with the first LRC date.

Is As commented later in this paper, the expectation is that most lifers will not be given a prd until they are in open conditions.

l 6 The services of such professionals are only available on an emergency or 'needs must' basis. A few similar comments were made by staff in my previous research. It should be acknowledged, however, that no objective evidence of this was presented. What is reported here are the rrsponses of some staff and prisoners. It is also worth remembering that lifers have no right to be released at the tariff date. This is often very difficult because of, for example (a) having to return to the hostel by what many would regard as unduly early times in the evening; (b) the embarrassment ofliving in a prison hostel, (or possibly lying about it), and (c) having only very small amounts of money to spend. The nature of their jobs usually means that hostellers can only save fairly modest sums of money.

2o A uniform officer is usually allocated to assist a small number of prisoners. This may concern internal matters within the prison, or domestic or social problems relating to release.

21 Staff are keen not to delay release beyond the prd, but would have preferred the lifer to have spent more timr outside as part of the release preparations. '* The very nature of the sentence puts lifers in a uniquely precarious position; they have no right to be released, and the slightest concern about any aspect of their behaviour may well delay release for a considerable time, and possibly indefinitely. ,

23 Staff a t Kingston stressed the importance of a liberal, 'human' regime, as opposed to the official security categorisation of the prison.

" Even probation officers have only their general qualification in social work to rely on.

" Two other open prisons now accommodate lifers, and there is an additional Category D unit in a Category C; prison. I t was suggested to me that this is true of a t least half the lifer population.

My earlier research showed that most lifers spent their detention in between four to eight different prisons, though the average post-sentence detention period was eleven years and four months.

29 For example, a t Askham Grange and Maidstone, though at the latter there is a separate door in the outer prison wall which permits direct access to the hostel without having to go through the main part of the prison. See the judgment of Watkins LJ in R. v Secretary ofs tatefor the Home Department ex parte Handscomb and others (1988) 86 C r App R 59 at 75. The tariff is also

'' They will have begun to get used to the routine whilst at an open prison.

238

regarded as a means of maintaining public confidence in the life sentence system by ensuring that lifers serve long enough to reflect the gravity of their offences.

” Probation officers were clearly frustrated at the way in which financial constraints restricted their opportunity to discharge their professional duties. ’* Guidelines on the ‘throughcare and supervision of life sentence prisoners’ are contained in Home Office Circular Instruction 55/84, para. 24 of which states that ‘those who have special knowledge of the prisoner and a contribution to make to his assessment attend’ review boards.

33 There is still evidence of this notwithstanding the Divisional Court’s comments in the Handscomb case (see note 30).

34 I have been unable to obtain any statistics showing how many lifers have ‘beaten the tariff.

35 The recently-announced intention to give explanations to prisoners of the results of parole applications is very welcome.

References

Cohen, S. and Taylor, L. (1981) Psychological Survival: The Experience of Long-Term Imprisonment (2nd ed.), Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Coker, J. and Martin, J. (1985) Licensed To Live, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Home Office (1989) Prison Statistics, London: HMSO. Martin, J. and Webster, D. (1971) The Social Consequences of Conviction, London:

Mitchell, B. (1990a) Murder and Penal Policy, London: Macmillan. Mitchell, B. (1990b) ‘The management of life sentence prisoners in England and

Parker, T. (1990) Lifc Afler Lge, London: Secker and Warburg. Sapsford, R. (1983) LiJe Sentence PriJoners, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Date submitted: October 91 Date accepted: February 92

Heinemann.

Wales’, The Prison Journal (The Pennsylvania Prison Society), 80, 96-108.

239