Transforming Rehabilitation

Introduction

Internationally, criminal justice has been privatised for over years now in which the private sector’s role in managing and providing criminal justice services to the public has remained highlighted[1]. Another such event of privatisation was witnessed in the media debate about the response of the Coalition government to the consultation of “Transforming Rehabilitation” in which method to subcontract work with different risk offenders was outlined.  The Reforms focused on transferring all the probation staff from public sector Probation Trusts to the newly formed organisation namely Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) that was responsible to work with medium and low-risk offenders. The reforms, which only applied to Wales and England, and allowed for voluntary and private organisations to deliver specific interventions, offender management, and supervision to offenders, were criticised with such claims that criminal justice is the responsibility of publicly funded probation trusts and government[2]. Thus, this report focuses on criticised the privatisation of criminal justice institutions under the claim that: “It is wrong in principle and wrong in practice, to place criminal justice institutions in the hands of private companies” with reference to the reforms of probation made in England and Wales i.e. “ Transforming Rehabilitation”.

Critical Analysis of Privatisation of Criminal Justice Under the Light of Transforming Rehabilitation

The agencies of contract management sponsored by the Justice Ministry under Rehabilitation reforms were responsible for overseeing different services of probation. In England, the directorate of community interventions within HM prison and probation service was responsible for managing more than 20 Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) contracts, and Wales contact management. The primary purpose of this organisation was to analyse and monitor the entire CRC contract in inspecting prisons[3]. The reforms of probation were spurred in response to the compounding issues related to the increasing demand for prison funding and space and the loss of public confidence in the quality of the correctional service provided by municipal, federal and state government. Also, recidivism or crime did not show any reduction in response to the penal programs developed to rehabilitate offenders due to which policymakers and government lost public trust. Thus, a debate emerged over the period of time over privatisation of probation and criminal justice institutions as demonstrated below in the table[4]:

Source: (Austinand Coventry, 2001)

In short, people’s beliefs about the inability of the government to address the challenges of criminal justice was spreading. However, privatisation has its own cons as depicted in the above table.

Since the rehabilitation reforms of privatisation, it has become challenging to control crimes in the country because justice for crimes is scarce, and institutions who have worked for criminal justice are mostly in the hands of private companies. Private companies work upon favouritism; that is why no justice could prevail in the country. The systems also face failure on every level because of the private operators’ inner motives to make profits rather than serving justice, to enforce vague remedies for prisons and to exercise monopoly and favouritism[5].

One more tormenting problem is that people who belong to these companies become fearless of the punishments, and they are unable to think what is right and wrong as they become used to taking wrong decisions and forgiving justice according to the value of money they get[6]. Due to this, poor and less-powered people remain silent, and the people with financially stable background take advantage of it[7].

The problem with the privatisation of the justice system is that private operations are able to take advantage of the system and mould the laws according to their benefits. The majority of the private sectors run on the benefit of monetary value, and in most cases, these systems are easy to bribe. Justice system institutes are therefore run by the government to avoid smaller and larger details of unjust and to avoid political integration and monopolies in criminal justice provision. The problems mentioned above are the root result of the transforming rehabilitation reforms and can cause the complete judiciary system to collapse as they are no other ways left to ensure justice by the regulatory bodies. The privatisation of the criminal justice and rehabilitation system for prisoners can only show positive outcomes the system is able to abide by the principles of criminal justice, and proper monitoring is done by the government agencies to regulate the provision of criminal justice under privatisation reforms. In its current phase, the justice system privatisation will also bring the risk of possible bribery and unjust conditions to rise.

Conclusion

Above mentioned are the reasons due to which the criminal justice institutions should not be given in the hands of the private companies. “The system becomes more interested in Dollars than rehabilitating the individual”. In today’s world, still, some people are trying hard to stop corruption and solving such criminal matters full of loyalty and without any favours. The fight against the corrupted people and integrity has to be part of the society. Without the voice of the common man or public support, it would be impossible to eliminate the injustice, whether it is in the crime or any other sector[8]. The message has to be conveyed that if anyone commits a crime has to get the punishment. It is concluded that criminal justice institutions should be handed over to the government rather than the private companies as it would help to eliminate the crimes legally without any favouritism[9].

[1]Waring, J. and Bishop, S., 2011. Healthcare Identities at the Crossroads of Service Modernisation: The Transfer of NHS Clinicians to the Independent Sector? Sociology of Health and Illness, 33, pp.661–76.

[2]Fineman, M.A., Mattsson, T. and Andersson, U. eds., 2016. Privatisation, Vulnerability, and Social Responsibility: A Comparative Perspective. Taylor & Francis.

[3]Feeley, M.M., 2002. Entrepreneurs of punishment: The legacy of privatisation. Punishment & Society, 4(3), pp.321-344.

[4]Austin, J. and Coventry, G., 2001. Emerging Issues on Privatized Prisons. February 2001 Monograph NCJ 181249

[5]Walker, S., Annison, J. and Beckett, S., 2019. Transforming Rehabilitation: The impact of austerity and privatisation on day-to-day cultures and working practices in ‘probation’.Probation Journal, 66(1), pp.113-130.

[6]Fineman, M.A., Mattsson, T. and Andersson, U. eds., 2016. Privatisation, Vulnerability, and Social Responsibility: A Comparative Perspective. Taylor & Francis.

[7]Feeley, M.M., 2002. Entrepreneurs of punishment: The legacy of privatisation. Punishment & Society, 4(3), pp.321-344.

[8]Fitzgibbon, W. and Lea, J., 2018. Privatisation and coercion: The question of legitimacy. Theoretical Criminology, 22(4), pp.545-562.

[9]Walker, S., Annison, J. and Beckett, S., 2019. Transforming Rehabilitation: The impact of austerity and privatisation on day-to-day cultures and working practices in ‘probation’.Probation Journal, 66(1), pp.113-130.