As further details of the second London Bridge terror attack in less than 3 years continue to emerge, in addition to the tragic loss of life and injuries, we now come to understand that the perpetrator was an already convicted terrorist. He, who doesn’t need to be afforded the respect or notoriety of being named, was lawfully shot and killed by police. Jeremy Corbyn has learned what to say on that particular topic in his interview with Sophie Ridge of Sky News today since he was unequivocal about shoot to kill policy, unlike in the past.
Add in the heroic quick thinking actions of bystanders armed only with a fire extinguisher and a Narwhal tusk and there is a sense of pride and gratitude that these people were prepared to take such a risk. Let’s just pause though, yes-a-Narwhal-tusk!
Have you seen the footage of those moments on the bridge? If so, did you feel it too? That split second momentary mixture of relief, shock, and a tiny euphoric pulsed elation at his being neutralised; satisfaction that he got his just desserts. In that split second it is almost like the enormity of the fact that a person is losing their life gets lost for a split second. The fleeting feelings delivered by raw instinct then give way to a more reflective sense of sadness and tragedy that something like this has happened again on our streets. This directs us toward trying to gain a sense of perspective about what may have gone wrong in our systems.
Given the controversy of some of its recent release decisions the Parole Board has been quick to deny any involvement in this particular case. The perpetrator was originally sentenced under laws allowing indeterminate sentences for public protection which were subsequently ruled by the Court of Appeal as being unlawful and so that sentence was commuted to a 16 year prison term. Unfortunately, the changes were ill thought through it would seem and instead of providing for a specific regimen applicable to terror related convictions and offenders, which ought to require careful consideration of the success or otherwise of rehabilitation, the perpetrator was simply released on licence with a GPS tag.
Jack Merritt, who tragically lost his life in the attack, was dedicated to the betterment of the lives of those serving prison terms and did excellent work in the aid of rehabilitation and education of prisoners with the Learning Together programme. His father tweeted in the aftermath, though then deleted, a message in support of his late son’s work and the good that it has done. He warned that Jack’s memory should be respected by not politically weaponising the attack or destroying the good of rehabilitation. We are in the middle of an election campaign after all.
The issue here is, however, inherently political as one of resource provision and allocation, essentially it’s about money. The Conservatives have spent the best part of a decade depleting public services in the name of austerity. It is often the behind the headlines cuts that have bitten deepest into the crucial functioning of the systems. The criminal justice system has borne a large brunt of these across its workings (see ‘The Secret Barrister’ as an excellent reference on this). From the 20,000 police officers cut (now pledged to be replaced), Court staff cuts and facilities closures, reductions in prison capacity and prison officers, and the failed privatisation of the probation service, criminal justice is creaking at its seams and on the brink.
Rehabilitation of offenders can be transformative if it is done correctly but this is only ever meaningfully possible when it is properly resourced. The solution now should be two pronged:
1. Ending automatic licence release for some categories of offences, including terrorism, and lengthening some sentences and or timed served; and
2. Investing properly into prisons, especially rehabilitation and reintegration programmes for offenders.
If you only do one or the other of the above then you will, in the case of the former, reinforce the terrorist offenders’ perceived futility of the future, pre-brainwashed into them, which presents itself to offenders as a dead end so that they won’t have the incentive or motivation to engage in meaningful reform. In the case of the latter, rehabilitation while keeping automatic early release or shorter sentences fails to account for the length of time required for these programmes to take effect. That said, they will also never be 100% effective and so that is also why release may never be an option in a small number of cases.
This needs intelligent tough compassion towards offenders but it remains to be seen whether the governing party of any hue can deliver a well thought out approach. All too often a knee jerk rush to reactionary responses is the end result. They would do well do see Jack Merritt as an inspiration for their policies.