The irony of the UK’s new two-tier system of justice and possible impacts on disadvantaged groups
There is a common saying that Black people tend to be less visible or represented in the higher echelons of the education system, large corporate industries, or positions of power, but disproportionately over-represented in prisons and mental health institutions. A great controversy is brewing in the UK over the government’s plan to introduce what is thought to be a new system for judges to consider when deciding prison sentences based on pre-sentence reports. The ruling, scheduled to come into effect in April of this year, means judges could take into consideration the personal background circumstances before passing sentence. In theory this might sound reasonable, but critics claim this will further exacerbate the two-tiered system of justice that already exists in the UK by targeting certain disadvantaged groups.
The Sentencing Council, which proposed these changes, provided a list of the various categories and circumstances of people who could benefit from the pre-sentence reports. Some of the groups include young adults aged 18-25, females, people from ethnic minorities and or faith groups, people who disclose they are transgender, or have addiction issues, or if the offender could be a victim of any form of physical or psychological abuse, coercion or grooming. The Law Society’s Gazette Website claims that because the UK’s prisons are so full the government was forced to introduce early release schemes, and the fact that there are simply insufficient resources to help provide the support and training for prisoners, judges need to consider the background of offenders. It should also be borne in mind that these are guidelines and do not demand judges to take a particular course of action. What they do is ensure that when judges sentence people, they have enough information about the person to make a reasoned and justifiable decision. Pre-sentence reports do not bind judges but help to ensure they have full information about the person’s background and circumstances before sentencing them. Furthermore, these measures have already been in existence in some courts but would now be more widespread.
The main opposition to the views stated above is that this new system makes the legal system appear too soft on crime. For example, former Justice Secretary Alex Chalk believes these new legislations would create a two-tiered system where subjective judgements such as a person’s upbringing, education and negative experiences of authority determine the severity of their sentences. The overriding complaint against these changes is that the personal background of convicted people should not be given such emphasis in court cases. A strange irony can be discerned in that these new changes might even appear to help some Black people, as, according to the Daily Express newspaper, they would ensure that ethnic minority and transgender criminals, plus all women and young adults and addicts, might possibly avoid prison sentences. Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick has vowed to legally challenge the guidelines, claiming it enshrines ‘anti-Wite’ and ‘anti-Christian’ biases in the criminal justice system.
There are, of course, a couple of other key questions that are not very clear in this debate. Is the reason for these changes to help disadvantaged groups or reduce the ever-increasing number of people swelling the prisons beyond bursting point? Furthermore, by possibly reducing the length of time certain groups of people might be sentenced, will substantial increases in resources be made available for training, educating and supporting them in prisons and when they are released? It seems these measures could help alienate the very Black and other disadvantage groups it might be seeking to help, by such targeting. One criticism often levelled against the legal system is its tough stance against convicted criminals. Black and other disadvantaged groups were historically described as often receiving a raw deal. Now that these changes are being proposed, it appears the system has gone too far the other way. Therefore, an already perceived existing two-tiered system seems to have divided the country. These proposals, targeted at disadvantaged groups, ironically seem to have further entrenched the idea that the justice system is not the same for everyone.
Dr Tony Talburt is a Senior Lecturer at Birmingham City University in the UK.
