Human Rights in the Risk Society
| Date | 01 September 2000 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455050004700318 |
| Published date | 01 September 2000 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
218
as
having
contributed
to
a
prisoner’s
suicide.
.
Article
6,
The
right
to
a
fair
trial -
The
power
of
prison
governors
(who
are
clearly
not
independent)
to
impose
up
to
42
extra
days
on
a
prisoner’s
sentence
as
a
result
of
breaches
of
prison
discipline
could
be
questioned.
.
Article
8,
The
right
to
private
and
family
life,
home
and
correspondence -
The
prohibition
of
conjugal
visits
and
the
common
practice
of
holding
prisoners
so
far
from
their
homes
that
family
visits
are
often
impossible,
could
be
challenged.
.
Protocol
1
Article
3,
Free
elections -
The
disqualification
from
voting
rights
of
sentenced
prisoners
could
be
ended.
The
report
urges
the
Government
to
introduce
a
new
Prisons
Act
recognising
both
the
changes
which
have
occurred
since
the
Prisons
Act
1952,
and
the
obligations
which
the
Human
Rights
Act
places
upon
the
Prison
Service.
It
also
emphasises
the
role
which
Boards
of
Visitors
can
play
in
helping
prisoners
to
bring
prosecutions,
thereby
enforcing
higher
standards.
Finally,
it
is
also
worth
highlighting
the
finding
that:
&dquo;Of
all
criminal
justice
agencies,
arguably
only
the
Probation
Service
has
been
less
proactive
than
the
Prison
Service.&dquo;
A
Hard
Act
to
Follow?
Prisons
and
the
Human
Rights
Act,
2000,
by
Joe
Levenson.
Available
from
the
Prison
Reform
Trust,
15
Northburgh
Street,
London
EC1V
OJR,
£5.50.
Human
Rights
in
the
Risk
Society
In
the
third
Bill
McWilliams
Memorial
Lecture,
Barbara
Hudson
maintained
the
high
standard
of
previous
presentations,
with
a
clear,
critical
examination
of
the
&dquo;over-dominance
of
risk&dquo;
in
current
penal
discourse.
She
set
out
the
twin
principles
of her
position
as:
a)
Risk
management
is
a
legitimate
and
important
endeavour,
but
it
must
be
framed
in
respect
for
justice.
b)
If
state
power
is
increased
in
the
pursuit
of
risk
management,
then
commitment
to
justice
must
correspondingly
increase.
She
argued
that
the
stress
on
risk
during
the
1990s
had
led
to
an
erosion
of
the
’proportionality’
principle
established
by
the
Criminal
Justice
Act
1991,
resulting
in
a
number
of
problematic
scenarios.
For
example:
.
The
language
of
justice
is
&dquo;almost
entirely
absent&dquo;
from
consideration
of
sex
offenders.
When
can
someone
be
said
to
have
’paid
the
price’?
.
There
is
a
loss
of
distinction
between
offenders
and
suspects.
She
suggests
that
the
Probation
Service
should
follow
the
Royal
College
of
Psychiatry
in
condemning
the
legislation
which
will
allow
for
the
detention
of
so-called
’dangerous
severely
personality
disordered
offenders’,
without
a
criminal
conviction.
.
Sentencing
according
to
risk
rather
than
seriousness
of
the
offence
will
perpetuate
discrimination.
For
example,
black
offenders
are
over-represented
in
criminal
justice
settings
for
a
variety
of
reasons
which
do
not
necessarily
add
up
to
individual
culpability.
However,
these
reasons
become
irrelevant
if
the
main
criteria
for
sentencing
is
a
risk
assessment
based
on
bare
statistical
data.
Professor
Hudson
concluded
by
urging
the
Probation
Service
and
other
agencies
to
embrace
a
’positive
rights
agenda’
and
view
human
rights
as
an
’anchoring
principle’
for
criminal
justice.
This
would
be
a
good
way
to
maintain
the
balance
between
the
potentially
oppressive
agenda
of
crime
control
and
the
requirements
of
justice
represented
by
due
process
(28.6.00).
Human
Rights,
Public
Safety
and
the
Probation
Service:
Defending
Justice
in
the
Risk
Society,
Professor
Barbara
Hudson,
Institute
of
Criminology,
Cambridge
University.
To continue reading
Request your trial