Taking a chance

Jon Venables was given a second chance and is now back in prison. But making judgements about rehabilitating offenders - and public support for it - can be problematic, says Jon Silverman.

If anything positive has come out of the frenzy of comment about the recall to custody of Jon Venables, it is a sudden focus on the issue of rehabilitating offenders.

This may bring a pinched smile to the faces of some of those who toiled in the Home Office in the early years of this century to move rehabilitation higher up the criminal justice agenda. But the battle was lost amidst growing concern about violent offenders released from prison to kill and rape again.

Those who argued that public protection should always be paramount and rehabilitation a secondary concern will feel vindicated by the latest development, but should they be?

Venables was released from custody in 2001 and given a new identity

Like every key aspect of the debate about crime, the reoffending statistics for juvenile crime are an unreliable guide. Using figures published by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) in 2008, the Conservatives asserted that the number of persistent juvenile offenders in England and Wales (that is, those aged 10 to 17, sentenced for a recordable offence three times in three years) has doubled since 1997, further evidence, the party said, of David Cameron's "broken Britain".

But in 2009, the MoJ itself declared that juvenile reoffending fell by 23% between 2000 and 2007. Leaving aside a change in the method of calculating the rates, the plain fact is that generalities are of use only to political partisans. Those looking for light rather than heat need to interrogate the data more closely.

Rehabilitation is rather like slowing a car. Braking time has to be taken into account. In other words, if the frequency of offending slows and the seriousness of the crimes committed reduces, a case can be made that rehabilitation is working.

Strict boundaries

Comparing samples of 10 to 17 year olds from 2000 and 2007, researchers found that the frequency rate of reoffending fell from 151 offences per 100 people to 116. And offences classified as "serious" - murder, grievous bodily harm and some sexual offences - fell from 0.91 to 0.73.

With the Venables case in mind, though, it should be pointed out that in the 2007 sample, the number of those convicted of murder, serious assault and sex attacks was so small - 385 - that any robust interpretation can be ruled out. The likeliest conclusion is that the overall severity rate has remained fairly stable over the last decade.

But re-offending itself is a problematic term. The measurements are based on reconviction figures, which means being caught and prosecuted. Only a fraction of crimes end in a prosecution.

It can cost £500 a day to keep a youngster in a secure unit

Moreover, to make judgements about rehabilitation, it is necessary to take other factors into account - such as length of sentence. Those serving a term of 12 months or more stand a better chance of being weaned away from further crime than those on short sentences, because they have time to go on offending behaviour and other programmes.

But even more significant are "external" factors which contribute so much to reoffending. Addressing these may be the key to helping individuals - even those convicted of the most serious offences - "grow out of" crime.

A turbulent or abusive family background, mental health issues, school exclusion, drugs and alcohol dependency - these are the dragons which have to be slain, or at least tamed. Many of the most successful projects commissioned by the Youth Justice Board focus on one, or more than one, of these problems.

The Resettlement and Aftercare Provision (RAP), which is implemented by Youth Offending Teams, attempts to provide a prop for offenders even before they enter custody, and it continues after release. Family Intervention Programmes, which identify children at risk of offending and offer sustained support, are also a growing part of the crime prevention agenda.

Tools

But for those convicted of the most serious crimes even before they enter their teens, like Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, or the two brothers who tortured two boys at Edlington in South Yorkshire, the tools of rehabilitation are usually intensive psychotherapy, education - often six hours a day - and the establishing of strict boundaries.

They are placed in a secure children's home until the age of 15 - there are 18 of these local authority units in England and Wales - and moved to a secure training centre between the ages of 15 and 17. If Thompson and Venables had not been released in 2001, they would have gone to a young offender institution.

In 2008, the Ministry of Justice launched an online programme in which members of the public can decide what they think is the most suitable sentence for "virtual" offenders. In a survey of 3,000 respondents, 82% said they thought rehabilitation was as important, or more important, than punishment as a criterion for sentencing.

But when a Jon Venables is in the news and memories of his crime are revived as the subject of phone-in debates and pub chatter, coolness and reason fly out of the window. It was ever thus.

Jon Silverman is a professor in Media and Criminal Justice at the University of Bedfordshire.

---

Below is a selection of your comments.

The Met Police have an initiative to link up community based officers with those released from custody who previously weren't caught (and helped) by the Probation Service because their sentence was less than 12 months, to help them not reoffend, and to help break the common cycle of getting into more and more serious offences over time. From informal hearsay, it seems to be working well. I'm uncertain whether it's a trial or being implemented all over London. The point is, it is inadequate people who lack life skills commit crime, it seems rather short-sighted not to put effort into helping them make changes sooner rather than later in their lives. Some people can't be helped, but it's no reason not to try.
Logs, London

What a balanced view of the rehabilitation scenario. Regarding the specific case of Venables I find listening to Denise Fergus, mother of James Bulger disturbing. People who remain victims of the past and endeavour to enlist the support of like minded people also seek to undo any rehabilitation efforts which tax payers have provided. I don't want my money to be wasted by "blowing" any cover that was provided for Venables and in that I seek justice too. The death of any child, murder or otherwise is horrendous and I feel for any mother who buries their own child. However for the sanity of the mother and her husband/partner/children it is necessary to move on because bitterness/being stuck in the victim mode is corrosive for everyone. It's "instant news" but that's all. Rehabilitation is a long process. For the offenders it is obligatory. For the offended against it is a mental necessity
Ruth Shaw, Chester

I feel that for children like Jon Venables who have literally grown up in an institution with no contact with the outside world and a very warped start in life, being released must be terrifying and confusing. All their key adolescent events will have happened in a world with very different rules. It doesn't surprise me at all that he would be back in prison. That doesn't mean rehabilitation isn't worthwhile or even possible.
Becky, London

No I don't think we should shut rehab of offenders down altogether. Just because Jon Venables seems to have broken the rules it don't mean all will. The other lad doesn't seem to have gone back to his old ways so on the face of that it seems to have worked for him. But what I do think is a bad idea to keep giving chances because that sends the message out that it's ok to go back on your agreement because you'll be given another chance - again and again. It waters down the rehab process. At the end of the day we all have to take ownership for what we do.
Daisy, Reading, Berkshire, England

"Only a fraction of crimes end in a prosecution." This is a very woolly comment from a professor, what fraction does he mean? One tenth, one hundreth, one thousandth? Give us a clue sir, because it casts doubt on the veracity of the whole article.
Keith Hill, Bradford, UK

Rehabilitation takes time. Was Venables given the right amount of time in side and outside an institution? It takes money. How much will a future government spend on rehabilitation? It takes up manpower. Are there sufficient people ready and trained to take on long-term former releases? Above all it means a system which has such a strong moral sense it can bring to bear on the offender and thus bring them back into Society as a full citizen.
Richard Meredith, UK

I am sorry but it makes me sick to the stomach children like Venables and Thompson being able to do anything like that, what they done is inhumane. It is hard to deal with that an adult could have done it, let alone two very sick kids. They should have been trialled like adults as that's the crime they have committed. They haven't just stole some sweets from a shop. They stole a life. I can not stop crying at what they done every time I read it god knows what the parents are going through. My heart goes out to them. Why should they be given special treatment for what they have done? Punishment should be to fit the crime.
Rhona, Newcastle Upon Tyne