Meeting of the Parliament 04 June 2019
Mrs Mitchell identifies a group of individuals—fortunately, it is a small group—for whom provisions are already in place: they are unlikely to be given parole and are likely to be subject to lifelong restriction provisions.
Another point that Mr Kerr will have picked up from this morning’s meeting of the Justice Committee came from Dr Sarah Armstrong, from the Scottish centre for crime and justice research, who said that Scotland’s prison population, which is the largest in Europe, is akin to those of Texas and Louisiana. We should not take Texas and Louisiana as models of a criminal justice approach at all. We should not be proud of following those examples as we try to make progress.
There is an opportunity to take a different approach. I noted that Dr Hannah Graham said that
“punitive populism is the wrong direction for Scottish justice”
and I agree with that.
I am sure that Mr Kerr will tell us that he is not politicising sentencing, but I lost track of the number of times that he said “SNP” in his speech. It is about making an evidenced case. It is such an important issue. We cannot have a situation where the significant work that already takes place in respect of risk management and the work of the Parole Board to keep the public safe is undermined by the creation of unwarranted fears. Mr Kerr shakes his head, but that is exactly what he is doing. There is ample evidence—the minister cited many examples—that robust sentencing can take place.
I lodged an amendment commending the continuing role for rehabilitation. We know that for some people who find themselves involved in the criminal justice system, such as those with addiction, there is a clear opportunity to get them sorted. Fundamentally, the criminal justice system should be about prevention: the main role of the police should be to prevent crime and protect life and property. I commend the violence reduction unit’s role and its holistic approach. The proposed bill is way out of kilter with any of that, which is very unfortunate.
It is important that we have lively debates. When we talk in the Justice Committee, Mr Kerr always wants evidence-led debates, and, in this case, the evidence would not lead him to the conclusion that he has reached.