The Howard League for Penal Reform has today released a
landmark pamphlet What if imprisonment were abolished for property offences? by
one of Britain’s leading criminal lawyers, Professor Andrew Ashworth, the
Vinerian Professor of English Law at Oxford University, calling for the
abolition of imprisonment for pure property offences. He argues that prison, as
our most severe punishment, should only be used for the most serious crimes:
those of a violent, threatening or sexual nature. Consequently, much as he
believes prison should still be considered in cases of robbery, blackmail and
burglary, its use is disproportionate for crimes that don't involve violence,
threats or sexual assault. Such offences include theft, handling of stolen
goods, criminal damage and fraud.
Prof Ashworth believes that the priority in dealing with
pure property crimes should be to ensure victims are adequately compensated for
their losses, perpetrators make amends for the harm they cause and society
shows our condemnation of the crime. Rather than incarcerating those who commit
these offences, Prof Ashworth believes fines and community sentences will be
more effective and proportionate responses that do not require a total loss of
liberty.
He suggests that many victims would be better off from this
approach, as they are less likely to receive compensation for their loss of
property from someone behind bars with little or no income.
Prof Ashworth entertains the idea of exceptions to his
position, but thought a prison sentence only truly worth considering where a
victim had been targeted because of their vulnerability. Cases involving thefts
in breach of trust, such as when a postman steals from the mail, are also
discussed. Prof Ashworth rejects the idea that, in such a situation, dismissal
from employment, civil action to recover the stolen property and a community
sentence would either be less of a deterrent than custody or be any less of a
sign of society’s condemnation of the crime.
Similarly, he rejects the idea that people who continually
commit property offences should eventually be imprisoned, given that the
offence remains non-violent, non-threatening and non-sexual and that there is
no evidence to suggest prison would be a more effective punishment for such a
person. Prof Ashworth points to crimes such as begging and soliciting for
prostitution, for which, since 1982, prison can never be used, irrespective of
how many times the offences have been committed.
The effect such a policy would have on prisons would be
profound. 20,000 people go to prison each year for theft or handling stolen
goods (more than for any other crime), 5,000 for fraud and 1,000 for criminal
damage. Giving people who commit these crimes financial penalties to compensate
victims and community sentences rather than custody would reduce the sentenced
male prison population by 8 per cent (5,000 men) and sentenced female prison
population by 21 per cent (700 women), saving approximately £230 million each
year.
Professor Andrew Ashworth, the Vinerian Professor of English
Law at Oxford University, said:
“We should be reserving our most severe form of punishment
for our most serious types of offending. Should someone be sent to prison and
deprived of their liberty for an offence that involves no violence, no threats
and no sexual assault? Instead, the priority should be to deal with such
offences in the community, giving precedence to compensation or reparation for
the victim and, where the offence is sufficiently serious, imposing a community
sentence.”
Frances Crook, Chief Executive of the Howard League for
Penal Reform, said:
“When it comes to crimes like theft and fraud, victims are
losing out from a justice system that too often prioritises putting the
perpetrator behind bars rather than returning people’s stolen property and
providing much needed compensation. This can be achieved through fines and
compensation orders, as well as community sentences, which produce a much lower
rate of reoffending than prison at a fraction of the cost. At a time when all areas
of public finance are stretched, threatening schools, hospitals and the police,
it’s time for our politicians to make some tough decisions on exactly who
should be sent to prison.”
Notes to editors
The Howard League for Penal Reform is the oldest penal
reform charity in the UK. It is a national charity working for less crime,
safer communities and fewer people in prison.
Professor Andrew Ashworth has been the Vinerian Professor of
English Law at All Souls College, Oxford since 1997. He was editor of Criminal
Law Review from 1975 to 1999 and a member of the Sentencing Advisory Panel (a
predecessor to the Sentencing Council) from 1999 to 2010, serving as chair from
2007 to 2010. His books include Principles of Criminal Law (1991, 6th edition
2009), Sentencing and Criminal Justice (1992, 5th edition 2010), The Criminal
Process (1994, 4th edition 2010) and Human Rights, Serious Crime and Criminal
Procedure (2002).
Hard copies of What if imprisonment were abolished for
property offences? are available on request. PDF copies can be downloaded from
the online publication section.
Professor Andrew Ashworth and spokespeople from the Howard
League for Penal Reform are available for interview 13-14 August. To arrange an
interview, please contact the Press Office at the Howard League for Penal
Reform. Contact details are at the foot of this press release.
The Howard League for Penal Reform will be distributing the
pamphlet to every magistrates’ court in England and Wales, with a view to
sparking a debate on these crucial sentencing issues.
Comentário meu: Professor e advogado britânicos defendem a abolição da
prisão por crimes contra a propriedade. Segundo a notícia, o argumento é de que
a prisão só deve ser utilizada para os crimes graves: de natureza violenta,
ameaçadora ou sexual. Assim, caberia
prisão para os crimes de roubo e extorsão, porém a utilização dela para delitos
patrimoniais que não envolvem violência,
como furto, dano, fraudes, receptação, apropriação indébita etc não deveriam ser punidos com aplicação de privação de liberdade. Segundo eles, não há proporcionalidade entre esses crimes e a prisão. A sugestão dos integrantes da Liga de Reforma Penal é a de que a pena imposta para esses crimes envolva a reparação do dano- compensação das vítimas - assim como uma conciliação do infrator para com a sociedade, através de um pedido de desculpas, e da imposição de multas impostas pela própria comunidade do infrator. A notícia lembrou-me os círculos de paz, a ideia da justiça restaurativa apresentados por Kay Pranis, recentemente na UCPel.
Leia sobre o tema: http://profeanaclaudialucas.blogspot.com.br/2013/06/evento-justica-restaurativa-02-de-julho.html
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário