Why is equity such a problem for the establishment?
Let’s begin by clarifying what we mean by ‘equity’. Equity is about providing services and opportunities with an understanding that everyone has different starting points and that some people have been historically and socially excluded. This means that there are more factors to consider for some people, than there are for others and we act accordingly with that knowledge.
Recently, the Sentencing Council created a set of guidelines for judges and magistrates to assist them in their sentencing of people ‘from minority groups’. These are people who might be pregnant, very elderly or Black for example. The guidelines were simply to advise magistrates and judges to obtain a pre-sentence report which would provide useful information such as:
A person’s faith
If they were an abuse survivor
If they had been in the care system
If they have an ethnic minority background.
I believe, this information is particularly useful. As a citizen, I want to know if it is in the public interest to sentence an 80-year-old man with dementia to 10 years in prison - I think this should be considered in sentencing. I want a magistrate to think very carefully about the impact of sustained domestic abuse on a woman who may have physically harmed or even murdered her abuser. I want there to be careful consideration of the over representation of Black males in prison and whether bias and stereotyping is being addressed in sentencing.
Referring to this guideline (remember, it’s only a guideline) to ask for a report is in my view excellent use of equitable practice. Thinking carefully about the circumstances a person has before decision making. This isn’t a two-tier system, its equity, and what is more, it is reflected in The Equality Act 2010 and in the Public Sector Equality Duty which places the expectation on public sector organisations to ‘eliminate discrimination’.
The disparities in the justice system particularly for ethnic minorities has been known for decades and in the public domain. The government produces its own data on this and you can take a look for yourself here. Judges and magistrates have already had plenty of training and guidance on this in the shape of formal training modules for magistrates on equality and diversity, intercultural communications, modern day slaver, mental health awareness. Judges have training on independence and integrity. There is the existence of the Equal Treatment Bench Book and the Judicial Diversity strategy 2020 to address the existing bias and lack of diversity in the judiciary. Do we really think these guidelines from the Sentencing Council would be able to undo the thinking and expertise of a judge? Really?
And despite all of this, the justice system in the UK looks like this in 2022
So evident is the bias and discrimination in the judicial system, the Sentencing Council offered a further method of addressing this and other biases and points for consideration.
According to the Office for National Statistics 30% of prisoners had learning difficulties and or disabilities in 2022. Surely, being aware of a person’s disability as part of a presentencing report would be useful information to ensure a person ends their sentence better able to make a positive contribution to society.
The Sentencing Council said that the guidelines sought to provide ‘the most comprehensive information available’. Don’t we want decision makers to be informed? Do we not think judges can handle more information?
Robert Jenrick suggested that the guidelines might mean create a two-tier system where white men are disadvantaged. Let’s look at the figures above. They make up 69% of arrests and only 49% of the prison population -it looks like they are doing ok out of the current situation despite all of the support for judges and magistrates I outlined above.
In the process of fighting to remove this guidance not only has the government decided to maintain the status quo which has significantly poorer outcomes for people with global majority heritages but has paved the way and set a precedent for ignoring the importance of understanding the circumstances which have led to a current situation for other demographics. What if they decide a person’s sex is to be disregarded? We could see more women going to prison and the impact of that on families is catastrophic for families and for the future outcomes of young people.
What you should consider for your own inclusion strategy?
This example is fabulous for understanding how the status quo and normal ways of doing things perpetuates the exclusion or disadvantage of specific groups. How do we know? Well, we can see that the judicial system has already had reviews, advice, training, guidance and strategies and yet it continues to see, recognise and talk about the bias and discrepancies in the judicial system. I’m not saying that, they are using their own evidence.
For different outcomes, you would need something link the following:
The guidance is produced and it might have some impact. (Give it the benefit of the doubt albeit I think the impact would be limited or none)
People who don’t directly benefit from the guidance (Robert Jenrick) would have to recognise that it would benefit others including the tax payer and support it on whatever basis feels comfortable, and champion it on that basis
The dominant group (the government in this case) would have to promote it
The efficacy of it would need to be measured regularly
Adjustments would need to be made where necessary.
The important thing for anyone embarking on an inclusion journey is to recognise these 5 steps and apply them to any discrepancy or disadvantage you observe in your organisation.
Change won’t happen without an equitable approach. Without it, we actively promote the status quo.
Sources
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/section/120
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201719/jtselect/jtrights/1610/full-report.html
