A Practitioner’s Evaluation Of The Home Detention Curfew Scheme
| DOI | 10.1177/026455050204900211 |
| Published date | 01 June 2002 |
| Author | Neil Stone |
| Date | 01 June 2002 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
A Practitioner’s Evaluation
Of The Home Detention
Curfew Scheme
Neil Stone explores the implementation of the Home Detention
Curfew Scheme and considers the degree to which it can be
considered a success. He concludes that confusion over its
fundamental purpose is yet to be resolved and that this may hinder
any future manifestation of the scheme.
As the Halliday Report, ‘Making prison numbers or merely glitches which
Punishments Work’, closed for
can be worked through in what is, overall,
consultation on 31st October 2001,
a successful operation?
rumours regarding the future of the Home
Detention Curfew (HDC) scheme were rife.
The Evolution of HDC
So prevalent, in fact, were these rumours
HDC was “designed to ease the transition
that HM Prison Service saw fit to issue a
of prisoners from custody to the
strong rebuttal to the rumour that the
community” (Dodgson & Mortimer, 2000,
maximum period of time on curfew would
p.1). However, as Lilly & Nellis (2001)
be extended from two to four months and a
argue, it was a sudden and unexpected
‘business as usual’ response to the rumour
development with a “remarkably short
that HDC would be abolished (Home
lead-in time” (Lilly & Nellis, 2001, p.60);
Office, 2001a).
this contrasts with the protracted trials of
HDC has undoubtedly given prisoners
earlier electric monitoring schemes prior to
hope of spending a shorter time in custody
their implementation as part of a
and re-establishing some sort of normality
community sentence. This rapid
as soon as possible, but there remains a
introduction, cynics have argued, had more
wider question: where does HDC fit into
to do with reducing prison numbers than
current sentencing policy? Are some of the
any notion of planned resettlement. Nearly
operational issues outlined in this paper the
three years later, Home Office Minister
legacy of a knee-jerk response to rising
Beverley Hughes, responding to
159
Conservative attacks on HDC following
disrepute. This served to modify the
revelations that 77 offenders had
presumption in favour of release.”
absconded whilst on curfew, reiterated the
(HMIP, 2001, p.96)
government’s position: “The scheme is
If prison governors, who have the final
designed to ensure a better transition for
say on release, are being cautious, factors
short-term offenders between custody and
other than risk affect the prisoner’s chance
community” (Telegraph, 28.10.01).
of being awarded HDC – Shaw, for
Despite the scepticism, HDC was
example, has described the scheme as a
introduced on the 28th January 1999 and
“geographical lottery” (Shaw, 1999, p.10).
rapidly became one of the biggest
Prison Reform Trust research carried out
electronic monitoring programmes in the
in 1999 (ibid) identified major differences
world, with over 16,000 prisoners released
in release rates. A local prison in the West
onto the scheme within its first year of
Midlands granted release to over 50% of
operation (Dodgson, Mortimer & Sugg,
its eligible prisoners whilst a London local
2000).
managed one third. Up-to-date analysis of
the figures shows an even wider gap
Who Is Being Released?
between these two prisons. A similar
Guidelines issued by the Prison Service
disparity between overall release...
To continue reading
Request your trial