We need a more enlightened attitude to drug sentencing
THE recently-published drug and alcohol strategy highlights a shift in emphasis towards a health solution rather than a punitive approach. Quite right, too. However, this is not new. The policy has been around for many years and has been widely adopted elsewhere. It has been recognised here, too, by health professionals.
Treatment services are long established locally and readily available. But what has been missing here is recognition of the policy by the court. Perhaps the recent case of the imprisonment of a young man of otherwise good, even exceptional, character for two-and-a-half years for possession – not supply – of a small quantity of drugs will serve as a wake-up call.
Evidence submitted to the court concerning trauma suffered while working as a nurse in a refugee camp seemed to carry little weight.
In times past, attitudes to crime and punishment were brutal and unforgiving. In the 1820s, a cousin of mine, Thomas Sackett, was sentenced to death by hanging for robbing a bank messenger on a London street. We are now horrified at such a barbaric sentence.
We recoil from the very thought of it and are appalled at our forebears’ lack of humanity. We vaguely understand that they could not think how else to deal with a problem of lawlessness, that they were flailing around for a solution, and ended up taking desperate measures. The disproportionate custodial sentence meted out for the drugs possession offence similarly has all the hallmarks of desperation. The system appears incapable of coming up with anything more constructive. We seem not to know what else to do. But there are alternatives. For example, the residential treatment centre in Jersey is highly regarded. A one to three months’ treatment programme, while not cheap, would be but a small fraction of the cost of the current prison sentence. To avoid a risk of the possible unintended consequence of encouraging deliberate offending in order to gain a place in treatment, the cost should be met by the offender, under a loan scheme if necessary, rather than by the taxpayer.
Attendance could be instead of a lengthy term of imprisonment, or in combination with a much shorter term. This solution would not fit all cases, but would at least be an available option in cases where there was a sincere desire to quit drinking and drugging, evidenced and supported by probation or psychiatric reports. With a range of sentencing and treatment options available, the court could distinguish between the actions of a moment’s stupidity, especially if under the compulsion of addiction, and the actions of hardened criminality. We pride ourselves that times have moved on, that we do things differently now.
We don’t string up pickpockets anymore. We really do need a more enlightened attitude to sentencing that reflects properly the intent of the new drug and alcohol strategy and is fit for purpose in this day and age. What of poor Thomas Sackett? While there was no right of appeal to the court, a number of concerned citizens, including his member of parliament, the mayor, four magistrates, and two aldermen of his home town in Essex petitioned the king for his royal mercy. At the second attempt, he was granted a respite, with only hours to go, and the sentence was reduced to transportation for life to the convict colony of New South Wales.
He survived the harsh conditions there for nine years but died aged 41. Thomas’s fate was still brutal, but at least the citizens’ petition was heard.
CHRIS SACKETT
Calais Road
St Martin’s