In today’s episode of our Someone's Daughter Podcast, we’ll be discussing whether the law treats everyone equally and how we can think about it in terms of its application and consequences. Today’s panel includes, Sarah Kirkpatrick, the Chief Exec of Welsh Women’s Aid, Ryan Jackson, Acceleron learning's chief executive and life skills expert, Holly Bright from The View Magazine, and His Honour Judge Jinder Singh Boora, a circuit judge. They will speak about their views on whether the law treats everyone equally, and if not, what steps we can take to address that.
For more unmissable content from The View sign up here
In today’s episode of our Someone's Daughter Podcast, we’ll be discussing whether the law treats everyone equally and how we can think about it in terms of its application and consequences. Today’s panel includes, Sarah Kirkpatrick, the Chief Exec of Welsh Women’s Aid, Ryan Jackson, Acceleron learning's chief executive and life skills expert, Holly Bright from The View Magazine, and His Honour Judge Jinder Singh Boora, a circuit judge. They will speak about their views on whether the law treats everyone equally, and if not, what steps we can take to address that.
For more unmissable content from The View sign up here
We want to change the way you see justice. Welcome to the View Magazine's, Revel Justice podcast. This is the 10th episode from our someone's daughter podcast series. Today we'll be discussing whether the law treats everyone equally and how we can think about it in terms of its application and consequences. Today's panel includes Sarah Kirkpatrick, the Chief Executive of Welsh Women's Aid, Ryan Jackson, Acceleron Learnings Chief Executive and life skills expert, Holly Bright from the View Magazine and his honor, Judge Ginger sing Bo a circuit judge. They will speak about their views on whether the law treats everyone equally, and if not, what steps can we take to address that? Thank you all so much for coming. So I'll start with you, Holly. This is a law treat everyone equally. What are your thoughts?
Speaker 2:In my opinion, no, there's, uh, a vast difference. Sometimes I couldn't socioeconomic data of the person, um, in America particularly, and also a racial, um, black people, for example, tend to be incarcerated for much longer and for smaller crimes and white and women in particular. I mean, in parts of the country, there has been a movement towards, um, prison reform in that women with children can often do a halfway so that they still spend time, It's a jail own belief for them, but it's only for very minor offenses. For reader offenses such as drug possession, they tend to be incarcerated.
Speaker 1:And j what is your view? You come from a very different perspective, sits on a different chair.
Speaker 3:I need to make clear I'm here only in a personal capacity, not in a professional capacity. Um, and I don't wish to express any views that could be deemed political cause of my, um, with my job. There's a, there's a strict, um, demarcation separation of powers between the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature. And I can't be seen to be discussing matters from, uh, a perspective which could be deemed political. But what I can do is give you a personal perspective.
Speaker 1:Of course.
Speaker 3:Well, there is absolutely no doubt, a hundred percent. I can tell you that the, the law in theory is completely neutral. There is no, uh, gender based bias, racial, religious, any form of bias that is non within the law itself, the application. However, that's where there may be difficulties might, me personally, I cannot even imagine discriminating in, in the application of the law. So I have the theoretical law, then the application. And the reason for that is because a lot of the people who appear before me and I sentence, I'm from the same background. I'm from a background where I'm the first person in my family to have gone to university. I went to a state school in the middle of a council estate where the majority of the children were on free school meals. I wasn't, but the majority of the other pupils were, many of them were in the care sector. So my own view when I, when I sit and sentence others is, but for the grace of God, there's me, the other side of the doc. And what I have is a strong sense of, uh, a conscience. So even from an entirely selfish perspective where I do apply the law in a discriminatory way, and I'm saying this now from a completely selfish perspective, when I go home, I will not be able to sleep. So for my own wellbeing, I cannot discriminate. I hope that makes sense. But the figures, however, I accept, and I think Holly hit the nail on the head with, with regard to the American figures. There are figures in this country where, which suggest there is a disparity. For example, the number of black young men who are sentenced to prison in proportion to the population or, or in proportion to the numbers appearing, um, in the criminal justice system, uh, in contrast with their white and Asian counterparts. That appears to be greater, but if, but the lame report looked into that and, um, the recommendation was for greater diversity amongst the judiciary. So that may be an issue there, but like I said, I can only speak from a personal perspective.
Speaker 1:Oh, thank you so much. I'll go now to Ryan. Uh, what are your opening thoughts?
Speaker 4:Yeah, so, um, you know, it's certainly the, the comment that the intent or design of the law is being neutral. Um, I I, I agree with that. You know, the application of the law is sort of the intermediate step, but then there's a third part, which is the consequences, uh, or repercussions of that, uh, in a person's life. And, and based on a personal circumstance and situation. And some of those factors are controllable. Some of those things are choices that people make, but some of those things are not. They're, uh, external to the person. Uh, and so, you know, when you think about does the law treat everyone fairly? I think you have to think, uh, in terms of the law's design its application, and then the consequences, uh, of the law and all three parts. I think it's very easy when, when we get into these sorts of conversations to, um, you know, not consider each part independently and, uh, what is, you know, what what is to be done about each phase, if you will, of that process.
Speaker 1:Thank you, Ryan. Sarah, did you have anything you'd like to add?
Speaker 5:The law is written in a, in a neutral manner, which is designed to give equal justice the law. What we see is a disparity of how that justice is delivered store people in different, um, spaces and from different ethnic groups, from different migrant statuses. And I would also, from my own perspective, I would highlight that the way justice is administered looks very different for, um, men and for women. And the proportion of people that are prosecuted seems very different.
Speaker 1:Thank you. So I guess the next question would be, what do you think might help improve the justice system to facilitate treating people more equally? Ryan?
Speaker 4:Yeah. Uh, so, you know, I, as it's going to become very evident if it hasn't already, I'm a process oriented person. And so, um, you know, obviously you think about, um, what can be done, uh, preventatively on the front end, uh, what can be done in terms of when somebody becomes justice involved, um, that, uh, things are done right in the right way as they enter the justice system, as they're in it and as they exit. And so, uh, again, I'm thinking, uh, in terms of process that each one of those requires some improvement. And so in the United States here, you know, there's, there's obviously a lot of talk around, um, sentencing reform, minimum sentencing guidelines, um, the way that plea bargains are handled, all of those sorts of things, uh, on the front end of the process, um, during incarceration, uh, in terms of having an orientation around rehabilitation rather than around, um, you know, punishment if you will. Uh, and then upon exit providing, uh, links back into the local community and support mechanisms that enable people to, um, make that transition successfully and have, uh, sort of a, a safety net available to them. And so I think conceptually, um, you know, there's a lot of of work in each of those areas, but the problem is that it's, uh, such a massive undertaking. Um, and there's so many reciprocal effects among those things that, uh, achieving some sort of, um, you know, uh, a symphony, if you will, amongst all of those desperate parts is extremely difficult to do.
Speaker 1:Sounds challenging. Holly, do you have any thoughts?
Speaker 2:I can expand on that a little bit. Studies have shown that rehabilitation program in prison such as parenting classes, anger management classes, um, drug abuse classes has really, uh, resulted in a much, much lower rate of recidivism, for one and two, has helped use the transition into civilian life after incarceration. Um, the barriers obviously are the cost, the program finding, um, people who can implement the programs and, you know, also getting specific prism to, uh, support the program. But when they have been, they've become tremendous success and it's also resulted in shorter sentences. If it, it, it needs to agree to participate in a program for parenting or drug rehabilitation or whatever related to their sentence, um, their sentence usually is or can be shortened, um, because they share progress and the are about it.
Speaker 1:Thank you. Holly, I see you like to pitch in. Sarah.
Speaker 5:It strikes me that the Ryan and Holly, you've talked about once people are within the justice system and how we process them through the justice system and how they come out the other side and sort of the likelihood of recidivism and such thing. And I guess for me, one of my wonders and the, the, the journey I went on in my head when I thought about does the law treat everyone equally, was not once I'd managed to get someone convicted and incarcerated, but actually that entry point, that question of does everyone have equal ju access to justice? Do we actually push everybody through the same sausage machine? I completely understand that, um, rehabilitation programs have a really powerful impact for some people, but only some people will ever be exposed to those rehabilitation programs because only some people actually are dealt with that hand by the justice system. So while, um, as someone who, who's formally worked on rehabilitation programs, I think they have a huge value, huge value. I'm just thinking about how we target our interventions at a certain group, whether that is fair and equitable. So yeah, it was, it's really interesting to sort of hear the way that both of you went for that rehabilitation aspect, but I think is hugely powerful. Um, and I guess my, that was the way my head went.
Speaker 1:Thank you, Sarah. Uh, gender, may I come to you now? Any thoughts on how we can make the justice system a little more equal?
Speaker 3:Okay, now going back to what I said earlier, I can't say anything that can be deem uh, political, but can I just say something about my personal experience? Uh, my experience is about 80% of the people who come to the criminal courts and get themselves, uh, or have found themselves, um, in, uh, difficulties with, uh, crime, the police, the underlying cause is drugs and or alcohol. Yeah. Now, and I think even 80% may be an underestimate. Now, my own view is we should be looking at crime not simply as behavioral, but also as a societal problem and be looking at, uh, looking at it as a public health issue as well as a law enforcement issue.
Speaker 1:Thank you, Ryan.
Speaker 4:Yeah, I'll, I'll just add, uh, in terms of statistics, certainly in the United States, um, in addition to, uh, the, the drug, uh, issue, mental health, um, alongside it, or if, if not being, um, sort of a, a precursor, um, you know, the, the drug use is oftentimes a coping mechanism for mental health issues. And so when we think about, um, sort of the front end of this, uh, it's as much about mental health care and access to programs and, uh, everything that goes on from that vantage point before people turn to, uh, substance abuse as a coping mechanism, which then puts them into, you know,<laugh>, all of the, all of the things.
Speaker 1:Thank you. Any more ideas regarding how it becomes so unequal if the law wasn't designed that way? Gender,
Speaker 3:I think if we're living in, and I think we can all accept we're living in an unequal world, then we're going to have unequal outcomes. Because the reason why the vast majority of people who find themselves in difficulties law enforcement are from perhaps the, you know, the lowest, uh, 10 to 20% of social e economic, um, start of society is because that's the start of society. Who has the fewest opportunities? That's the start of society where people are most likely to be in care, where there's likely to be issues regarding whether both parents are in the same household where there's, um, difficulties with feeding themselves drug dependency, mental health. So I think the inequality can often start, I mean, uh, I'm not sure which psychologists perform the study, but there was a study I think from the United States from the 1960s where, uh, it was found the dye was cast with most children by the time they'd reached the age of six in terms of their future progression in life. There's, there's exceptions, but unfortunately, if you have disadvantage in your very early years, it puts you, it puts others in such, in a position of having such a headstart in front of you, it's very difficult to catch up with.
Speaker 1:Wow. Thank you, Ryan.
Speaker 4:I'll, I'll give a, a real life example here. Um, you know, as part of what we're developing for England and Wales, we did a series of interviews with, uh, prison levers, pe people who've been through the justice system. And I spoke with a woman, um, who had been in care, uh, as a child and ended up in a youth facility and then ended up in an adult facility. So she had been, um, interacting with the justice system and the, and the, uh, social work system for her entire life. And, uh, we were talking specifically about her time in the youth facility, and this was a ways back. Um, so I, you know, I know that hopefully reforms are<laugh> underway and ongoing, but you know, her commentary was, um, that as a child or a young person who is, uh, incarcerated, what she really most needed was, was a parent. And, um, the way that the system was designed and the way that she was treated and interacted with in, in the facility, um, you know, it was very rule based or very situation specific, but she needed guidance. She needed parenting, is is fundamentally what she said. And so there's an orientation in terms of how we interact with people who are justice involved that fundamentally, uh, should shift. And I think that there's an awareness that it needs to shift, but it's not happening fast enough,
Speaker 1:Ali.
Speaker 2:So early interventions starting when people are children, if they're from a single parent family, if one parent isn't frustrated, if they're not gonna to have the advantages, maybe there be a programs designed, help them further along. I, there there used to be a big brothers and it used to be much more a special net than there is now. And that's going back like 50 years in the last 40, 30 years that those programs have pretty much disappeared.
Speaker 1:Thank you. Holly, you were talking about early intervention. How would you see it would help the intervention for targeted groups
Speaker 2:That open up opportunities? I mean, as, um, since said, you know, life can be by the time someone is six, I mean, if they're into poverty, if they're to uneducated parents, if they're born into a broken or drug addict, they're already, they already may be on a path to a lesser life than perhaps someone who was born into more privilege. But, um, there's a program called Bright, but you, it's, it's not available everywhere to everyone. And part of the, that, that opportunity to some, but not all, you know, again, some people down one path and allows other people to take another path. So if there were a social safety net of some kind, um, that was more generally available, that might change the trajectory of the children's lives going forward.
Speaker 1:Thank you. Holly, Gender, you mentioned you see come through the justice system, a disproportionately representation of the lower social economical backgrounds. And Holly, you mentioned those who have been born into privilege. So the question to all of you is, does affluence equate to privilege and is it affluence that enters your experience of the law? Gender? I'll start with you.
Speaker 3:I, I, I would say no. There, there, there's a correlation between affluence and, uh, privilege in the sense that if you have money, it opens up greater opportunities in life. For example, one of the greatest ways of ensuring mobility's education, and if you have the means to send you a child to a private school, that opens up huge opportunities. For example, there's, um, a greater or a lower pupil teacher ratio. And of course, because the children you are being educated with are themselves going to be, um, the children of successful parents, there's going to be opportunities in the future to make connections to help you get jobs and get yourselves into top universities. So I think that there's certainly a correlation, but I, I certainly don't think affluence is the same as privilege. I think the best privilege is to be brought up in a secure, loving environment, and that's not unique to wealthy parents and wealthy families.
Speaker 1:Wow. Thank you so much, Ryan.
Speaker 4:Yeah, I mean, I, I, I agree with everything that he, he said, and it was well put. Um, you know, you can certainly see criminality among any social class or any economic strata, so I don't think that, you know, there's a one to one relationship there at all. But certainly access to opportunity as, as he said, is, uh, a key, a key difference. And I think one of the things to, um, think about, uh, obviously cost constraint is one of the biggest problems or issues with providing rehabilitative programming or preventive programming to people. And so, you know, the orientation that you have to take and, um,<laugh>, what we have done as a company, um, is, is to always think about everything in terms of what is scalable, what is the most scalable thing that we can do that is the most cost effective to provide, uh, people opportunity and access to things that they may not otherwise have. And one of the things that's frustrating, uh, to me as I look at programming, uh, efforts within the justice system is that you see pockets of things that, uh, are well intended, but they don't scale and they're not thought of or designed in terms of scale. And so even if it works really well with a very limited cohort of people, uh, there's always the lingering question of, okay, how do we apply this more broadly? Or how do we ramp this up? And if it's not thought about correctly from the beginning in terms of the program design and in terms of the cost of, of, of implementation, it doesn't matter how good the program is because you can't get it into the hands of people who need it.
Speaker 1:So how would we get it into the hands of the people who need it?
Speaker 4:Well, I, I, I have an answer to that and it's not a perfect answer, but it's a running start, which is we have this wonderful thing called technology<laugh>. You know, when you think about, I'll, I'll, I'll make a very simple, uh, simple example. Um, in the state of Texas where we do a, a tremendous amount of work, there's a lot of classroom based face-to-face instruction. And when you think about, uh, a hundred prison facilities, which that's approximately how many there are in Texas, uh, alone, uh, that says something about, um, wow, criminal justice in the United States. But when you have a hundred facilities in Texas alone, uh, and you are physically shuffling people between facilities because certain facilities offer program A and certain facilities offer program B, and if you need access to program B, you have to be bust and, and relocated at that facility. Um, there's a tremendous opportunity to improve that with tablets, right? Putting a device in people's hands, uh, designing programming that can be consumed individually in a, in a cell or in a small group setting. Uh, I don't think you can offload all instruction to technology. I think that there's a, a blended model between, um, face-to-face group interaction and use of technology for information transfer, but using the technology that we have, um, can scale education and programming in tremendous ways. And there's a lot of things going on in corrections that are dabbling with that. But, um, implementation of that at scale and really committing to that is a huge shift in the way that things have been delivered in correctional settings and it's starting to happen. And certainly Covid I think, has created a lot of momentum where there was not, and so that's good, but, um, that is a, a very easy cost effective way to scale.
Speaker 1:Sarah,
Speaker 5:An exciting idea and, and certainly you are right covid for me, I've, I've seen some sort of dramatic opportunities, um, in terms of putting opportunity in people's hands. Um, do you think, I know that we were talking, we mentioned a little bit earlier about sort of taking a public health approach and taking a prevention approach. I often look at narratives around rehabilitative programs, which take a very deficit based perspective as if we have to pour skills, knowledge, and wisdom into the years of people who are lacking in those things. Um, and certainly my interactions with people who have transgressed is that it's not that they don't know, but that they are making least worse choices in the face of no good answer. And that actually it is an environment that they live in. Not all of the time, absolutely not all of the time, but some of the time the reason that people are committing events is isn't because they don't know better, it's because that's the best answer that they've got. And so where we talk about programming and rehabilitation, that helps someone function better in an environment, do we have to have a conversation about the environment because that people cannot afford to do things that people see affluent role models who are very able to avoid paying tax, for example. So if I can afford an excellent accountant, then I can reduce my tax burden significantly. Those things send a message that says it is acceptable.
Speaker 1:So do you think there is something about the environment that we send our rehabilitated or our potential offenders into that would reduce their experience? Gender?
Speaker 3:I certainly think there's a lot to be said for having a lot like a mentoring scheme now. Um, I'm not sure whether or not, um, any of the other, um, discussion members are aware that up until a few years back, if, if you were a child in social care come 18, you were treated immediately as an adult. So one day before your 18th birthday, you were a child on your 18th birthday, you are an adult and expected to fend for yourself. So you come from an environment where a lot of things are done for you. Sometimes everything's done for you to a situation where nothing is done for you. Now, if you think about ourselves, where if you have parents looking after you, that doesn't happen because you, you can be treated as a child. Age 16, you can be treated as a child age 22 because your parents don't stop treating as a child. But institutions do. Now, one of the main issues where this drug dependency, um, abuse backgrounds, uh, social services backgrounds is, which we still have this attitudes that you have youth offenders and adult offenders and then youth offenders to be treated like children, adults as adults. But I don't think that applies where you have people coming from a system, which is the, the care system. So if we now adapt, um, the criminal justice system and law enforcement to what's happening now in social services where there's continuing, uh, obligations beyond the age of 18 in, in the form of a mentoring scheme. So you have people keeping an eye on you and often helping financially and certainly helping, for example, finding a home, opening up a bank account, um, helping you set up, uh, utility accounts, which of course parents tend to with their children. If we had a similar mentoring scheme for people who come into contact with the criminal justice system or being released from prison, that it seems to me may be one way forward.
Speaker 1:Sarah,
Speaker 5:I'm sitting here nodding enthusiastically. I'm thinking about some of the through the gate schemes that they do have that it is relational and doesn't just drop people. And yeah, you're right. The children services a few years ago did just stop and that's really hard.
Speaker 1:What are your thoughts on a relational mentoring type approach, Holly?
Speaker 2:I think that is a wonderful, wonderful idea because once you 18 in care system, you're on your own. You know, just as, uh, Ji pointed out, um, these, they do need a parent. And so in mentioned system or, uh, you even, um, in isolation pathway house settings, that's more of a family type thing. Headed two, um, might be a really good, you know, people who get a job, they each to pay their utility bill or find an apartment because a start criminals start small muggings or robberies or were whatever. And that's the way it's being how to for themselves, I think would make a huge difference.
Speaker 1:Thank you, Ryan.
Speaker 4:I mean, I think anytime you, you have a positive influence in your life who's a little further along, who has more life experience, uh, who could potentially has been through similar circumstances and come out on the other side of it, uh, if you have that as a reference point, your outcomes are gonna probably be better because you have that element of hope. You have somebody that you can look to as, you know, um, something aspirational based on what they've achieved. Um, it seems accessible because if they're coming from a similar circumstance, you know, it doesn't feel like it's so far removed from your own life experience. And so, yeah, I I I agree completely. I think the, um, you know, I think the thing is, uh, a lot of those mentoring programs, um, they're, they're on, they're book ended, right? So it's either before or after incarceration. During incarceration. I'm really not aware of too many formal mentoring programs that exist, um, in facilities. And so, um, you know, certainly identifying, um, you know, by whatever systematic means, people who are qualified and, and have the right character attributes or the right dispositions to take on that role, I think that would be a huge, um, benefit. Yeah, I, I think back again to that, one of those interviews that I did, uh, with, with the prison leavers and the comment was, you know, they had been in a youth facility and, and went to an adult facility and, um, she said, you know, surprisingly, she was very relieved to be in an adult facility and much preferred that setting because there were people who could speak into her life and provide her guidance who were older and wiser and, uh, had something to offer to help sort of take her under their wing. And so, um, there's something, there's certainly something to that.
Speaker 1:Thank you, Ryan. So to conclude our session, can you think of a wish list, maybe three points you'd like to see happen to promote change? Uh, Holly I'll start with you.
Speaker 2:We discuss intervention, mentoring and follow up so that people don't just drop off the radar out of the system, but like continuing relationship.
Speaker 1:Thank you so much, Ryan.
Speaker 4:I mean, the three things, uh, in my mind are leadership. Um, what I see is a huge deficit of leadership, uh, in, in dss. Um, there are certainly cases where you have good strong leadership and people who are bold and decisive, but I also see, I can think of many, many examples of very weak, timid leadership or a lack, a lack of direction. And so having leadership at the top of these organizations and have that carry through is extremely important to affecting change. Uh, the second thing is I go back to is it scalable and cost effective? And the third thing that I think is so important is, uh, rapid hypothesis testing. So the analogy that I like to give is, you know, why is Elon Musk okay with blowing up 30 or 40 rockets at the cost of untold millions and billions of dollars? And the answer is because by blowing up 30 or 40 rockets, you're gonna figure out quickly what works, and you're okay with trying things and failing or making mistakes and trying again and trying again. And I think that obviously, you know, the, the, these are human beings, right? It's not a piece of machinery. So you have to have the right perspective on that. But there is a great hesitation to try new things and there's a great hesitation to maybe, uh, make a mistake or, um, and, and so by, by having a mentality of rapid hypothesis testing, particularly in public private partnership, I think that there is a lot of opportunity to start to do things that make sense.
Speaker 1:Thank you Ginger.
Speaker 2:Okay. What Ryan
Speaker 3:Just said, he's expressed himself so well, but I can't comment. That's too political for me Okay. To comment on. But Holly's made my job very easy because I'm gonna adopt everything she says. But I want to add one thing I would love, again, I'm speaking now from a personal perspective, I would love if every single person I sentenced to prison, I was required to meet after they were released and they can then explain to me what effect it had on them. I think that would be so enlightening for judges.
Speaker 1:Wow. Thank you. And finally, Sarah.
Speaker 5:So I think for me, shared social values. I think that we have a society which has different social values and that we demonize and diminish some people's social values. And I think that that's a massive problem and that we should all be more cohesive and value them. I think that we have to take a prevention rather than cure approach. Um, so I think some of the things that you've said during the session today have really made me feel so very hearted that actually our journey towards a more robust justice is not just about within the legal system, but that justice should go beyond for these. And I guess that, that, my third thing is that we have to name the problem. And for me, the reason that the justice system doesn't treat people equally is because our society is rife within equality. Um, and that's the problem. The problem is not that there's something wrong with the law. The problem is that there's something wrong with our society. Society, and there's something wrong with our value set that is seen within the law. But actually, if we went and looked at schools, it's seen in schools too. If we went and looked in the health system, it's seen in the health system too. So the problem is the values and the system not justice or whichever other bit we look at. So those would be my three things.
Speaker 1:Wow. Thank you so much for your time, Sarah, Ryan, Holly, and Ginger, and for sharing with us your insights on whether the law treats everyone equally. This brings to a close or a 10th podcast. You can go online and search for someone's daughter to learn more about the campaign representing women who have lived experience in the criminal justice system. You can also read their stories on the View Magazine and be inspired by their shocking narratives, but also by constructive solutions. Thank you for listening.