Posted: September 10th, 2022

How does categorisation influence the design and delivery of prison

How does categorisation influence the design and delivery of prison and probation services in England and Wales?

no more or less 2000 word , the count of words exactly 2000 word without the sources.

Order seven of the Prison Rules 1999 (UK), describes categorisation as a procedural cause by which a convicted person’s security category is determined. The process influences the type of prison which such persons may be held, however it is important to note that categorisation is as different process from allocation. Order seven of the Prison Rules 1999 further states that convicted persons shall be defined by the directions of the state which consider and regard prisoner’s age, gender and temperament with the view of achieving utmost order of the law and facilitate rehabilitation and training. The clause on the other hand defines allocation as decisions influencing the specific or particular institution a prisoner will be held.
Whilst objectives of categorisation are in line with risk management within the prison estate, there exists objectives of categorisation that may significantly affect the prisoner. Charles,Rid and Davis explain that such decisions are not necessarily limited to their current state of deprivation of liberty but also to qualification for future release on licence (Charles,Ris and Davis 2016). The core objectives of categorization are, the risk when it comes to the probability of prisoners escaping custody and the threat that a prisoner poses or is likely to cause to the society. Further , to what extent are people working in prisons safe in the prison estate and safe from offenders.
Some of the key principles that are provided in the Prison Rule 1999 include; that all convicted persons must be subjected to the highest security category. That subject to that provision, prison estate and administration cannot change this depending on the available spaces. Gavin states that the process of categorisation ought to be fair and consistent as per the objectives-any form of discrimination should be tolerated (Gavin 2019). That the offenders also must be given clear explanation on why they were designated a specific category, this is to avoid any form of violation by the prisoners regarding the rules and bring openness in the process.
Prison and Probation in England and Wales.
The Prison Act (1952) UK provides that prisoners should divided to specific categories relating to age,security and gender- this applies to England and wales.This act considers male adult prisoners as the ones above 18 years of age, and soon as they are convicted,categorisation will be based on various essential factors including; The length of the sentencing and nature of offence committed this helps in categorisation of such offenders. Howard states that this is also directed on the probability or likelihood of the offender escaping from custody and as a result the threat they pose to the public if they escaped( Howard 2018). This factors are essential as per the article in determining the nature of categorisation.
The high security category commonly referred to as (A) category consists of offenders that the justice system considers as highly dangerous. This offenders pose a great threat to the pubic and also other prisoners if they are let free or they escape from custody, in that the offenses they committed were regarded as highly tortuous hence they are put in a restricted environment. This offenses include manslaughter, (attempted) murder,rape and robbery just to mention a few. In England and Wales this prisoners are subjected to closed prisons and attract maximum security.
The next category, (B) consists of those prisoners that may not require maximum security however they pose a great threat to the public in case of an escape. The Act does not specify the nature of offence however this duty is a discretionary one left to the court to determine. Category ( C) consists of prisoners that are unlikely to escape custody but the act provides that they should not be trusted. The offenders that can reasonably be trusted not to escape and in most cases are given an open prison are category (D) offenders. This prisoners are subject to release on temporary licence to do community work once they have outstandingly passed their full licence eligibility dates-this is usually way through of the sentence as provided by Prison Rules 9 of England.
Ackner LJ in his landmark decision in the case Middleweek v Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police (1990) ,highlighted a unique category of offenders called ‘E-men’ this were offenders who attempted escape from prison. Stating that they were extremely dangerous and required handcuffs outside the prison cells and also they ought to wear distinctive clothing. Section 33 of the Prison Act 1999 provides for categorisation of women prisoners which is relatively like the Male adult prisons.
Over the recent years Wales and England have recorded a minimal number of young offenders – below the age of eighteen years. This is a commendable and significant record in both countries thanks to initiatives like Youth Offender Institutions. Merhav, Lwaental and Peled illustrate that categorisation of young offenders is subject to factors like nature of offence committed by the accused ,age ,vulnerability as well as their needs(Merhav, Lwaental and Peled 2018). There are Secure Training Centers (STCs) in both countries which are governed by private persons upon approval by the government of the two countries, this centers are education-based centers for detained minors between the age of 12-17.
Local authorities in Wales and England govern the Secure Children’s Home (SCHs) and are supported by volunteer, this centers support and rehabilitate offenders between the age of 10-17. They focus on behavioral needs of vulnerable detainees , physical,mental needs of this minors as well. The Children Act of 1989 also advocates on the same this is because of the high level of vulnerability to abuse from the society or other people who adversely treat them regarding their history. Padfield states that this measures do not aim at punishment ,they rather supplement behavioral change and development among minors( Padfield 2018).
In both countries there are Youth Offenders Institutions (YOIs) which rehabilitate male offenders between the age of 15-17 who have been convicted and they are more prison based than education and health. This institutions are run and governed by the prison service in conjunction with private companies. This institutions do not accommodate girls stating there level of vulnerability is high at this level.Robinson states that the aim of this institution is to change behaviour however they are strict in administration of the same and development as well( Robinson 2016).
A new institution-Her Majesty’s Young Offender Institution (YOIs) was integrated in both countries for categorisation of minor/young offenders both male and female between the age of 18-21 years. This institution is prison based and attracts offenders who are serving short terms, preferably below 12 months., due to the low number of stuff compared to STCs and SCHs this kind depends on qualitative development by means rehabilitation. They equally run like adult prisons. The above mentioned points explain the categorisation of Prisons and probation centers in both Countries.

Impact of Categorisation
Basing our discussion on design and delivery of services in the two jurisdictions, the impact of categorisation is evident where it aids in allocation of units within the prison estate, in that after assessment of risk at categorisation its easy to determine which unit fits each prisoner suitably. During allocation as well, the principles of categorisation are required as well this includes non discrimination so as to archive due process set. Trundle, Craig and Stringer explain that the prisoners will be held in a restrictive places that are safe and protected as per their offence to prevent any form of abuse that is commonly witnessed in prisons(Trundle, Craig and Stringer 2017).
Categorisation protects prisoners from risk and the society at large hence prisoners with mental conditions should be handled taking into consideration the risk they pose to other persons. Such persons ought to be under medical care in places that are restricted and under control of prison wardens so as to hold them custody as they receive treatment and control, regarding the offence they committed. Generally categorisation helps to manage risks that come a long with prison and probation services. The risk a pretrial prisoner posses is high, so such prisoners should be held in high security parts of the prison for efficiency.
Accounting for prisoners is also another significant impact of categorisation. For prison and safety of both staff and prisoners, its important to uphold the system and procedures for accounting. This procedures sets out how,where and when to count prisoners since its important for management. The system also sets out when there should be a restriction of movement for prisoners and also counting procedures during emergency. Accounting also extends to prison items presenting a risk. For instance tools and equipment belonging to the prison, the security system must have an updated count of equipment and the prisoners allowed to use them, since this tools maybe used as accessories to escape from custody.
The Prison Management Rules provide for regulations for movement within the prison and the same is managed if effective categorisation is put in place. The movement depends on layout of the prisons and the level of competency and skills by the staff, this ensures that prisoners are put under maximum control. This is also of importance since prisoners are easily and clearly managed and controlled from a central point. The staff supervising movements ought to be in constant radio communication and also emphasize to prisoners on the routes they should follow when moving around, this is to ensure they operate within areas that are easily observed by the CCTV. According to More and Hamilton the movement of high-risk prisoners should be efficiently controlled since their movement is restricted for security purposes they ought to be moved separately from the normal prisoners( More and Hamilton 2016).
Efficient categorisation is an advantage in procedural searching process which is considered as an important and mandatory process in prison.Rule 54 of the Prison Act 1999 provides for regulations in both England and wales, the act provides a search shall be carried on the prisoners, staff, visitors and their possession as well as places that prisoners live,work and congregate. The aim of this such as illustrated by the Prison Act is to prevent any form of escape possible and to hide contraband. This process is carried out by trained stuff and it should be free from any form of discrimination and respect to human dignity. According to Davies and O’meara search a process should be based on a realistic appreciation of what is necessary and possible but not on an aspirational aim( Davies and O’meara 2018).
The process of search requires prisoners to be present when their items are being inspected to prevent any form of accusations based on discrimination. There is a limitation to this and its when there exists a possible threat of stuff. Finally the act provides that the stuff shall exercise special and reasonable sensitivity when searching women prisons. This should not entail striping women unnecessarily for the aim of search but exhibiting common decency when it comes to that. The act provides that only reasonable force shall be applied to female offenders who resist the process of search and use of reasonable force is subject to approval by senior prison officers
The aspect of communication also is important as provided by rule 106 of the Prison Act. It states prisoners maintain within certain limits, their human rights and freedoms- this in essence includes the right to be associated with the society and their family.Some prisoners are restricted from constant communication with their family, however the ones that are allowed are strictly observed. The process of communication must be carried out in due process to prevent crime,trafficking of unauthorised items and also to protect the public from malicious acts and also prevent escapes. Finally interference with prison communications may take place, this may be as a result of proportionate response to threat posed to the public and also this must be carried out in line with national legislation of the two countries and specifically the National Security Act- Wales and England.

Conclusion
The paper through the above examination states the impact of categorisation in prisons and probation services. That in order to attain the much needed sanity, due process of categorisation must be put in place. The paper also appreciates the fact that probation services in matters of Young offenders has advanced and as a result helped in cutting down the number of young offenders being detained in both England and wales. It is evident from the above discussion that categorisation has an impact on design and delivery of prison and probation services depending on how efficiently the same is applied.

References
Charles, A., Rid, A., Davies, H. and Draper, H., 2016. Prisoners as research participants: current practice and attitudes in the UK. Journal of medical ethics, 42(4), pp.246-252.
Gavin, P., 2019. ‘Prison is the worst place a Traveller could be’: the experiences of Irish Travellers in prison in England and Wales. Irish Probation Journal, 16, pp.135-152.
Howard, P., 2018. Offender Group Reconviction Scale. Handbook of Recidivism Risk/Needs Assessment Tools, p.231.
Limitation Act (1980) UK
Middleweek v Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police (1990)
Merhav, I., Lawental, M. and Peled-Avram, M., 2018. Vicarious Traumatisation: Working with Clients of Probation Services. The British Journal of Social Work, 48(8), pp.2215-2234.
Padfield, N., 2018. Monitoring prisons in England and Wales: who ensures the fair treatment of prisoners?. Crime, Law and Social Change, 70(1), pp.57-76.
Prison Act 1999( UK) 234
Robinson, G., 2016. Patrolling the borders of risk: The new bifurcation of probation services in England & Wales. Changing Contours of Criminal Justice, p.42.
The Children Act of 1989
Trundle, G., Craig, L.A. and Stringer, I., 2017. Differentiating between pathological demand avoidance and antisocial personality disorder: a case study. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities and Offending Behaviour.
Moore, R. and Hamilton, P., 2016. ‘Silo Mentalities’ and Their Impact on Service Delivery in Prison‐Community Transitions: A Case Study of Resettlement Provision at a Male Open Prison. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 55(1-2), pp.111-130.
Davies, J. and O’Meara, A., 2018. Routine practice in staffed community accommodation (approved premises) in England and Wales: Quantitative benchmarking from the first year of a longitudinal study. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 28(3), pp.227-238.

Order | Check Discount

Tags: How does categorisation influence the design and delivery of prison