Misunderstanding of Racially Motivated Offenders Policy
| Author | Jonathan Ledger |
| Published date | 01 December 1999 |
| Date | 01 December 1999 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/026455059904600429 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
288
LETTERS
Misunderstanding
of
Racially
Motivated
Offenders
Policy
Dear
Editor,
I
have
enjoyed
the
recent
articles
on
work
with
racially
motivated
offenders
written
by
Richard
Edwards
(’Working
With
Racially
Motivated
Offenders’,
Yol.
46(1),
March
1999),
and
Liz
Dixon
and
Toyin
Okitikpi
(’Working
With
Racially
Motivated
Offenders:
Practice
Issues’,
Yol.
46(3),
September
1999)
and
very
much
welcome
their
contribution
to
good
practice.
Having
been
closely
involved
with
the
development
of
the
NAPO
policy
paper
on
probation
work
with
racist
offenders
and
those
whose
offences
are
motivated
by
racism,
however,
I
want
to
clarify
what
I
see
as
a
misunderstanding
of
the
policy
in
both
articles.
This
has
led,
inadvertently,
to
a
misrepresentation
of
its
purpose
and
intent.
The
origin
of
the
policy
was
in
a
1993
AGM
motion
highlighting
the
increasing
&dquo;incidence
of
racially
motivated
attacks&dquo;
and
seeking
specific
professional
guidance
and
the
development
of
safety
procedures.
The
latter
point
was
prompted
by
specific
examples
of
threats
being
made
to
black
and
white
staff
by
racist
offenders
defining
themselves
as
’politically
motivated’.
It
is
because
of
this
point
that
the
policy
addresses
the
issue
of
political
motivation,
refusing
that
definition
precisely
in
order
to
ensure
that
work
is
(usually)
undertaken
in
such
cases.
Of
course,
racist
offending
can
be
defined
as
’political’
but
it
is
politics
based
on
criminal
principles
and,
as
such,
falls
outside
NAPO’s
definition
of
politically
motivated
offending.
Primarily,
the
policy
provides
detailed
guidance
on
work
with
racist
offenders,
giving
definitions
of
the
range
of
racist
offending
(including
covert
behaviour),
good
practice
advice,
and
defining
principles
for
a
practitioner’s
approach
to
this
work.
This
latter
point
includes
reference
to
us
not
working
with
members
of
racist
organisations
and
it
is
this
phrase
which,
I
believe,
has
had
too
great
an
emphasis
placed
on
it,
skewing
the
primary
purpose
of
the
policy.
It
is
included
in
order
to
address
the
concerns
of
members
who
have
been
threatened
or
assaulted
by
racist
clients.
It
is
intended
to
apply
to
the
tiny
(but
potentially
highly
significant)
minority
of
offenders
who
constitute
a
direct
threat
to
staff,
to
empower
colleagues
feeling
pressured
to
work
with
a
person
assessed
as
an
unacceptable
risk.
In
practice,
this
is
unlikely
to
occur
very
often
and
I
have
only
received
enquiries
from
members
on
this
point
on
one
or
two
occasions
since
1995.
But
it
does
provide
necessary
protection
and
it
is
encouraging
to
observe
that
some
services
are
endorsing
this
issue
in
policies
for
work
with
dangerous
offenders.
Of
course,
time
passes
and
no
policy
is
beyond
review.
Presently,
NAPO’s
Professional
Committee
is
planning
to
reissue
the
policy
with
an
appendix
recommending
programmes
and
resources
which
promote
good
practice
with
racist
offenders,
Kay,
Gast et
al’s
(1999)
’From
Murmur
to
Murder’
being
one
example.
However,
I
remain
convinced
that
NAPO’s
policy
achieves
its
primary
purpose
of
encouraging
challenging
and
confrontative
work
with
racist
offenders
whilst
providing,
when
necessary,
support
for
staff
whose
health
and
safety
is
in
jeopardy.
Jonathan
Ledger
Vice
Chair,
NAPO
Reference
Kay,
J.,
Gast,
L.
et
al
(1999)
From
Murmur
to
Murder:
Working
with
Racially
Motivated
Offenders.
A
Resource
Pack for
Probation
Officers
and
Others.
West
Midlands
Probation
Training
Consortium
in
collaboration
with
Midlands
Region
Association
of
Chief
Officers
of
Probation.
To continue reading
Request your trial