Unlock comment: Naming and shaming in the Sentencing Bill

The Guardian reports today, Friday 26 September, on the new Sentencing Bill giving probation the power to name and shame people carrying out community sentences.

We see three critical risks in this inhumane element of the Bill: deepening stigma, undermining rehabilitation and extending punishment far beyond the courtroom.

If the justice system is serious about reducing reoffending, it must stop policies that entrench stigma. Likewise, it has to start listening to evidence on what helps people change.

Deepening stigma

Unlock’s Head of Delivery and Programmes, Debbie Sadler said:

“Let’s be clear. Stigma is one of the biggest barriers people face when trying to move on from a conviction. It’s real. It exists in the opportunities that you might have but also the mental barriers you construct.

“Proposals to publish the names and photographs of those carrying out unpaid work orders will only deepen that stigma. What should be an opportunity to repair harm risks becoming another form of public punishment. Such an approach could brand people as offenders long after their sentence has ended, making it harder for them and their families to secure work, housing, and a sense of belonging.

Undermining desistance

“Anyone who has worked with people with criminal records knows how fragile the journey can be. We use the word, ‘Desistance’. This is the process of leaving crime behind. It is not imposed from outside, but grows from within: from building a new personal narrative rooted in hope, responsibility, and belonging.

“Public naming and shaming is counterintuitive. Instead of reinforcing values that support change, it risks replacing them with humiliation and exclusion. Far from being ‘tough on crime,’ this approach could set people on community sentences up to fail.”

Unlock believes these proposals also ignore the damage done to families. We hear from partners, wives, husbands who already live with the weight of a loved one’s conviction. Naming and shaming could carry through into classrooms, at the shops, in workplaces and in neighbourhoods. It affects the children of the people involved and cuts directly across manifesto commitments to protect and support such children.

As The Guardian reports, probation inspectors and unions have already warned that “naming and shaming” could act as a disincentive, with some people refusing to turn up for unpaid work rather than face the risk of public exposure.

Punishment beyond the courtroom

The final risk we are concerned about is how long these images and names will remain online. At present and while it is still being worked out, it isn’t clear where they’ll be published and what protections might be in place against misuse. Some of our current work looks at how long digital records stay online long after a criminal record is ‘spent’. We often hear from people who are concerned about online stories about a minor offence that have stayed live years after their conviction is ‘spent’. The internet has a long memory. Criminal records shouldn’t be hard-coded into the web forever.

Join the conversation: Right to be Forgotten webinar

These are exactly the questions we’ll be raising at Unlock’s upcoming Right to be Forgotten webinar on 30 October. We’ll look at how criminal records, online reporting and what changes are needed to ultimately enable successful rehabilitation.

Register now to join the webinar: https://unlock.beaconforms.com/form/50082762