The Hidden Shame of the Prison System
As a society suicides are something that we should always seek to prevent whether that is by removing the means for committing suicide or simply providing better mental healthcare. Sadly it will never likely be possible to reduce the number to zero but that should be the aim amongst the prison population where inmates are totally dependent on the state for their wellbeing and ought to be carefully monitored.
Instead rates of self-harm amongst prisoners have almost doubled since 2015. On average one inmate ends their own life every five days.
The numbers speak for themselves but in order to understand why this is happening and how the trend can be corrected it is necessary to examine the most recent report written by the Council of Europe's Committee for the Prevention of Torture.
The Committee identify a number of areas for improvement recommending, amongst other things:
Greater investment
More diligent monitoring
Effective management within prisons
Anti-violence interventions
More staff
Better training for staff
Accountability procedures
To put it more simply the situation is dire. If a society is measured by how well it looks after its most vulnerable then the UK is failing.
To compound things, these issues were raised before COVID-19 hit the UK's shores. The most recent figures are not due out for another few months but it would be a safe bet that the global pandemic has not improved matters. Instead the necessity of isolating inmates from the coronavirus is likely to have a further negative impact on the mental health of prisoners.
In the aftermath of the pandemic when the UK begins to assess its response it will be vital that the effect on prisoners is examined in detail. Although the problems in the system are longstanding the present crisis will present an excellent opportunity for reform that the Home Office should not pass up on.
This subject is also related to this week's episode of the podcast.
In 2016 James Maughan committed suicide in his prison cell and this led to an inquiry by the senior coroner. A legal question arose about the standard of proof that was required in these types of cases:
the criminal standard - beyond reasonable doubt
the civil standard - on the balance of probabilities
As students, academics or lawyers we often don't spend much time thinking about the standards of proof. In a criminal case we apply the criminal standard and otherwise we just apply the civil one where it is relevant. This grey area gives us an opportunity to think about the question much more closely.
The criminal standard is clearly a much more difficult hurdle to overcome. If we thought about the standards in percentage terms the 'balance of probabilities' is equivalent to 51% (is something more likely than not?) whereas 'beyond reasonable doubt' is probably more like 90% (you have to almost be certain of something).
The reason behind this is that in civil proceedings a claimant is simply seeking to prove their case against a defendant. On the other hand a criminal case is brought by the state against an individual and could lead to that citizen losing their liberty if a prison sentence is imposed so the stakes are much higher. To put it another way: if you were accused of murder wouldn't you want the jury to be certain of your guilt before they threw you in prison for the rest of your life?
At this point the question about how to assess a suspicious death raises an interesting philosophical question: is a potential suicide something that should be examined within the criminal or civil framework?
Due to the complexities of these inquests the answer, for a time, depended on the conclusion that the jury wanted to reach. Such an approach has been justifiably criticised for its inconsistency and in this week's case the Supreme Court had an opportunity to decide which standard should be applied to all future cases.
If you want to find out the answer then here's the episode link: http://uklawweekly.com/2020-uksc-46/
Make a difference today,
Marcus
PS I also have a new video out on contract law and the difference between conditions, warranties and innominate terms: