Oh, what tangled webs they weave...

I found Newsnicht unusally satisfying last night. It was something of a relief to see that finally, finally, the truth has caught up with the Labour Party in Scotland and bitten them on the bum. 

I've seen it often enough - scaremongering over bus passes when we actually expanded the scheme, saying Glasgow is 'ripped off' when we have the Commonwealth Games, M74, Southern General, the new rail line linking the East End to Edinburgh and new housing  for social rent popping up all over the city (and much more besides!).

The Megrahi affair was particularly distasteful, attempting to make party political gain on the back of Scotland's justice system and the families of the Lockerbie dead. 

All the time, when they had been notching up the fury against Kenny MacAskill for taking the legally and morally correct decision to release Al Megrahi, their counterparts in London had been bending over backwards for some time to help Libya secure his release by any other means. 

Other bloggers out there have made particularly good points on the matter, so I feel it best just to point you in their direction: Joan, Moridura, Pop, and Peat Worrier. This video of the hapless Richard Baker on Newsnicht is a must-watch.

"That leaves you with only three positions; either you knew and have been completely hypocritical, you didn't know and were completely sidelined by London in this or you knew and thought that the Prime Minister, the foreign secretary, the entire Government were unprincipled in the decision they were making and you would stand against them. Which is it?"

Reconviction rates

I use Google Reader to manage news and blog feeds, and noticed today a lot of news on re-offending figures from the 2005-2007 cohort of offenders. Kenny MacAskill is quite clear that short term sentences are ineffective, and I would tend to agree.

The figures show that of those who have served a sentence of six months or less, 70% are likely to be re-convicted of another crime within two years. Somewhat shockingly, this cycle applies disproportionately young people.

Labour and the Tories are very keen on locking people up, but it seems to me that six months will achieve very little by way of rehabilitation. I have heard that many schemes in prison to help give offenders a better chance in life are oversubscribed, and by the time comes for release, the offender will not have had a chance to access them. It's expensive to keep people locked up for six months, and gives little meaningful benefit to the community.

Locking people up for six months gives communities a bit of respite, but as my constituents have told me, when someone comes back after serving a short 3-6 month sentence it's like a slap in the face. They will come back to the same place and often start to wreak havoc all over again. If there is no change in behaviour or attitude, what has been achieved?

Judges must have the right to decide on appropriate sentences, but they should really take the community impact into account as well. The police tell me that they often recommend longer sentences for offenders, because they know the impact short sentences have on communities.

Interestingly, For those sentenced to a Community Service Order, the reconviction rate fell from 47 per cent for the 1996-97 cohort to 42 per cent for the 2005-06 cohort. I don't believe that this is appropriate for every offender, but at least this means that there can be some benefit, and a sense of 'working off' the sentence. This should be balanced of course with public safety concerns and be closely supervised. If it allows for a better route back into employment or training, picking up some practical skills on the way and getting into a routine, than this surely must be more effective.

It's clear that prison has become a revolving door for many offenders, and that does society no justice at all.

Kenny was right

I've been following the Lockerbie coverage, and have had discussions with a few people over the past weeks, political and non-political about Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds. The consensus is that a) he was right to do so and b) it was an incredibly difficult decision given the intense pressure and scrutiny placed on him.

Like Anne, I wasn't sure what members of my own family would think. This wasn't because of their political views, but because they're a different generation. They had seen war, they had seen terrorism, they knew of capital punishment. They welcomed the decision and accepted that compassion was important and the dignity of a dying man could over-ride a sense of vengeance.

I was disappointed but not surprised by the way the opposition MSPs (Malcolm Chisholm aside) conducted themselves. They asked the same tired questions again and again, all eager to get a piece of the action. As Ian Gray himself admitted on Newsnight last night, they came out of the session with no further information than when it began. What purpose did that serve? Calling on the Justice Secretary to change his mind was hardly likely to be successful either. It was a bit of show; Ian Gray, Tavish Scott and Annabel Goldie trying to show that they had opinions and would have acted differently, when in reality, it was impossible to have done so. I have spoken to some Labour people, and they do support the position Kenny took; their party loyalty of course prevents them from saying so.

I hope that now everyone can move on - I hear that there's likely to be another debate in Parliament next week, and I hope that those involved yesterday will think hard about what they wish to achieve. The decison is made; Megrahi will die, and it's time for the opposition in Scotland to put away childish things.