Janet Street-Porter: Vicky Pryce and why we shouldn't send women to jail



Vicky Pryce, sentenced to eight months for taking her husband’s speeding points, has moved from Holloway (which she found ‘a struggle’) to an open prison in a manor house in Kent, joining 100 inmates to muck out the stables, work in the garden (though not in this freezing weather I hope), help with the catering and participate in training courses.



A world-class economist shovelling horse muck or washing up plates is hardly an appropriate punishment for a non-violent crime, and now this mother is separated from her five children, nowhere near home.



Why didn’t the court tag Vicky, place her under a strict curfew and impose a community sentence that involved teaching other women how to get a job? At the very least this intelligent (but misguided) breadwinner should be sharing her skills with others less fortunate. That is the way to repay her debt to society, not gardening or dishing up a prison lunch.

Why didn't the court tag Vicky, place her under a strict curfew and impose a community sentence that involved teaching other women how to get a job?

Justice Minister Helen Grant (who worked as a solicitor specialising in family breakdown and domestic violence, so she knows the territory) wants to reduce drastically the number of women in jail and is setting up a new advisory board to overhaul community orders and set new ‘robust’ standards.



It costs £45,000 to lock up a woman, and only £10,000 to £15,000 to enforce a non-custodial sentence.



The Government is desperate to reduce the cost of our prisons, and recently announced the closure of seven public sector jails.



The number of inmates is shocking — peaking at more than 88,000 in 2011— and currently standing at just over 80,000, resulting in chronic over-crowding, violence and bullying.



Women make up only five per cent of the prison population — just under 4,000 — but a far higher proportion of them (over 20 per cent) self-harm.



Unlike men, eight out of ten women are locked up for non-violent crime, meaning they’re unlikely to be a risk to anyone but themselves.



Most are serving sentences of less than six months, but almost half will re-offend within a year of release. Not only are they learning nothing from their incarceration, the mindless cycle of self-abuse, petty crime, minor drug offences and receiving stolen goods will continue as before. No lessons have been learnt.



More than half the women in jail have been in care and many have been the victims of domestic or childhood abuse (double the number of men). Over the course of a year, 10,000 women — more than half of whom are mums — will be sent to jail for a short period of time, resulting in 17,000 children being separated from their mothers, causing huge upset and disruption and stigmatising the totally innocent.



Some of these youngsters will end up in care, costing the Government even more.



Although Justice Secretary Chris Graying says there will still be a role for women’s prisons in the future, he is looking at secure hostels for the small number of violent female offenders.



It does seem that the Government has finally listened to the many pressure groups who have been saying for years that sending most women to prison is pointless.



Ann Widdecombe was predictably combative on Radio 4’s Today programme last Saturday, furious at the suggestion female offenders might get treated differently to men.



But women are mothers, and many are forced into crime or trafficked by men who control them. Others have drink or drug habits and need treatment. Many are illiterate, unskilled and incapable of holding down a job.



If the imprisonment of Vicky Pryce could achieve one thing, it could signal that we value these women, and will help them get back on their feet to provide for their families and remove the cost of paying them state benefits.



The only way to do that is through education, medical treatment and support, not slamming a door and chucking away the key for months on end. In a civilised society, only violent women belong in jail.





NEW STATUE MISSES AMY'S MAGIC



Amy Winehouse spent much of her sad, chaotic life wandering around looking wrecked and dishevelled, but in death there are plans to commemorate the talented singer with an extremely romanticised version of the real woman.



A bronze statue by sculptor Scott Eaton has been commissioned to be placed on a terrace outside the Roundhouse in Camden, where Amy performed her last gig.



It's her records not her sculptor that really captures the magic of Amy Winehouse

The theatre is just down the road from her home where she died in 2011 from alcohol poisoning. I had to look twice to work out who this sylph-like fairy with a beehive actually was. It resembles a pre-pubescent member of the corps de ballet, rather than a raunchy rock star.



Most new public works of art in London are third rate. My most loathed is the one on Park Lane commemorating animals who have died in battle, which is completely tacky — and Amy’s fits an all-too-familiar pattern. Limp, lifeless and uninspired, it’s the opposite of the real Amy.



Her records are her best memorial, not this clunker.

BAG LADY ALEXA HIT BY CURSE OF JSP

Alexa Chung, the fashion 'icon' (i.e. a woman wearing free clothes), had a Mulberry bag named after her, which costs from £525 to £3,750

While waiting for someone in Oxford Street, I made the fatal mistake of wandering into Selfridges’ ground floor, which appears to be a temple to the handbag. Do you know anyone who can afford £800 for a bag? No, I thought not.



All I did was lightly touch a few specimens, mostly to get a squint at the price tags, but you’d think I was fingering the Crown Jewels. No sooner had I put down a fake snakeskin wallet (costing hundreds of pounds, by Stella McCartney) than a snooty minion rushed up to re-arrange it back into a perfectly symmetrical display.



Obviously these bags are worshipped, not actually used.



No one has ever called me up to ask if they could use my name for a handbag — if they did it would probably be a wheelie shopping trolley or a sack — so I was sick with jealousy a few years back when Alexa Chung, the fashion ‘icon’ stick insect (i.e. a woman wearing free clothes), had a Mulberry bag named after her, which costs from £525 to £3,750, depending on the skins used (she’s pictured with it).



Other bag goddesses are Jane Birkin (the Birkin, by Hermes, can cost thousands and has a permanent waiting list, a bit like an NHS hip replacement) and Lana Del Rey, also signed up by Mulberry.



Well, the curse of a spurned JSP has worked again, as the company has reported ‘weaker-than-anticipated’ trading after Christmas, owing to lack of demand for the Alexa and Del Rey models!



Once you’ve bought one Alexa, you don’t need another, and demand for luxury goods in the UK, U.S. and even China has plummeted. Time for Alexa to work her ‘magic’ elsewhere.

A study concludes teenagers have unrealistic ambitions. Eleven thousand young people were asked what jobs they aspired to — most said musicians, actors and policemen, and more than 20 per cent wanted to work in media, the arts or sport, even though less than three per cent of available jobs are in that sector.



Very few said they fancied working in hospitality (i.e. being waiters or cleaners), the care industry or administration, where real jobs might be found. I’m not surprised.

