Why early release of 188 violent criminals from Scotland's prisons is even worse than it sounds
In the 1800s, an ancestor of mine, Davie Louden, and his brother-in-law David Brown spent a fortnight in Cupar jail after they were caught poaching. While inside, they were required to earn a living by picking oakum – teasing out the fibres of old rope to make caulking for wooden boats.
In those days, the money made by each prisoner was particularly important to them as it was used to pay for their food. While his brother-in-law nearly starved, picking oakum was, according to a family account, “nae trouble tae Davie. He had hauns like shools [shovels] and fingers like picks”.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdPrison conditions and attitudes towards crime and punishment have improved considerably since those days. That said, responding to the outcry over plans for the emergency early release of inmates because of overcrowding in Scotland’s jails, Karyn McCluskey, chief executive of Community Justice Scotland, warned in May that the “sky-high prison population” had created a powder-keg environment that was leading to an increased risk of violence, drug use, suicide, and self-harm. It represented, she added, “a human rights and social justice disaster in the making”.
According to new figures from the Scottish Prison Service, of the 477 people who have since set free, 188 had been convicted of crimes of violence, although thankfully none involved sexual violence. The BBC noted that the releases of 52 inmates were blocked by prison governors because they judged there to be an "immediate risk of harm".
Entirely the wrong message
Only prisoners with 180 days or less remaining of a sentence under four years were considered for release, so it appears that, facing a serious situation, the prison service sought to make the least-worst decisions. However, there will surely be victims of crime who are feeling decidedly nervous that the person who attacked them is out, particularly if they live nearby. As will, perhaps, the governors who were required to make judgment calls about who did and did not pose a risk.


My heart sank when I read this because I already think Scottish society is far too accepting of violence. I would much rather a non-violent burglar, fraudster or even a poacher with 240 days left to serve had been freed. Releasing violent offenders early sends out entirely the wrong message, by treating them as if they were just another kind of criminal, an inmate like any other.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdIn my opinion, one of the most fundamental dividing lines is between people who are violent and those who are not. The failure of the authorities to draw this line when deciding who to release early is not just a problem for the victims or the witnesses who helped put them away, it also affects wider society’s views, which can have an incredibly powerful impact on behaviour. This decision will not cause a fundamental shift, but it adds weight to existing public attitudes built up incrementally over many years.
‘Amateur nightclub boxing’
About 20 years ago, I was on a night out in Livingston when a game of ‘street rugby’ broke out. I was tackled to the pavement and broke my collar bone. Had the game of rugby not existed, this would never have happened.
The ‘sport’ of boxing not only trains people how to fight in the ring, but in other places too. Even those who have never had formal training may think that, if punching people is a sport, then it’s not so bad to do this on an amateur basis in a nightclub, in the same way that my friends and I drunkenly thought tackling each other on paved streets was just a bit of fun.
It seems strange to me that while rugby is taking quite Draconian measures to prevent head contacts because of the dangers – including sending players off for collisions that appear accidental – the whole point of boxing is to hit other people as hard as possible, usually in the head, until they cannot take it any more. Some see boxing as a sport like any other; the difference is that while rugby can be dangerous, the point isn’t to hurt someone and the injuries that occur are usually incidental.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdBuilding a non-violent society
I invite you to consider a future in which a crystal clear line was drawn between violence and non-violence. Boxing and ridiculous ‘mixed martial arts’ fighting would be banned; a school child who attacked another would be severely punished; and only violent offenders would go to prison.
Non-violent offenders would be electronically tagged and forced to serve their sentences under house arrest. Financial offenders, from insider traders to non-violent burglars, would receive financial penalties heavy enough to ensure that crime did not pay. They would face questions such as: how did you pay for your house, how did you afford that car? Failure to come up with a satisfactory explanation would see those assets seized.
It costs about £40,000 to £50,000 a year to keep one person in prison – they could be put up in a hotel for less – so it should be reserved only for those we really need to lock up. Alternatives to prison often sound weak, but turning illegal money-making schemes into loss-making endeavours would, I suggest, be more effective than sending offenders to a ‘University of Organised Crime’.
Time for change
I believe in obeying the law. However, I can’t say I’m ashamed of my poacher ancestor. Two weeks in jail suggests it was fairly low-key offending, a poor man trying to supplement his family’s diet, rather than a Mr Big stripping whole rivers of their fish, then moving on.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdHad the family story been that Davie had used his shovel-like hands to beat the gamekeeper to a pulp and escape, I most definitely would have regarded him as a despicable person. Attitudes towards crime and punishment have changed since his day, and they should do so again.