Sophie Willett, of The Howard League for Penal Reform, reports on public attitudes to crime and punishment and the need for more evidenced based policies to reduce crime.
Sophie Willett, of The Howard League for Penal Reform, reports on public attitudes to crime and punishment and the need for more evidenced based policies to reduce crime.
The Times’ poll (£) into public attitudes on crime and punishment has found the public worried that sentences are too short and they blame the lack of deterrent as the principal reason for their fears over crime.
The timing of this poll is important; at this moment the prison population is teetering on the brink of a record high. Never before have we sent more people to prison; 126,000 men women and children last year alone. Consecutive governments boast about locking up more of their citizens in prison than ever before; a badge of honour for being the tough guy of politics.
But this tired rhetoric has failed to engage with the common man. After 20 years of being tough on crime, at a cost running into billions of pounds for the taxpayer, people still aren’t happy. Three quarters of those polled say that the coalition is no tougher than the previous government.
The reality is that sentences have got steadily longer over the past 10 years. The average time served of those on determinate sentences has increased by 14 per cent since 2000 and we now jail more people on life and other indeterminate sentences than the rest of Western Europe combined. Sending ever increasing numbers of people to prison does not work. People are still fearful of crime. So maybe it’s time to look beyond the Mitchell brothers’ school of tough politics.
Now is the time to focus not what is tough, but what is effective. If given a choice between a punishment that will reduce the chances of somebody going out and doing the same thing to someone else, or a punishment that will encourage it, I know what I’d pick. It doesn’t really matter what the remedy is, as long as it works.
Ever increasing prison populations are a sign of failure, not success. In recognising that the criminal justice system is a blunt tool, and that lasting solutions to crime lie outside the confines of the prison cell, the government is taking a major step towards meaningful reform that will shape the way we respond to crime in the 21st century. I just hope they rely on empirical evidence on reducing crime to inform public opinion, and not the other way round.
23 Responses to “Progressives should rally around coalition’s better instincts on prison reform”
John
Interesting comment that people should be locked up for longer – presumably then, the author believes that every crime should attract a life sentence, since there is no suggestion as to how much a time it would take before they didn’t reoffend. All the evidence suggests that the longer people are in prison, the more likely they are to re-offend, as they become less able to deal with everyday life. On that basis, with roughly 40% of the male working age population having commtted crime of some sort, we’d best fence off a big area!
Sophie Willett
Anon E Mouse
I don’t believe prison prevents crime- it might interrupt it, but doesn’t stop it. Crime is still committed in prison by the way Mouse- the rapist could rape his cell mate or staff.
So my house keeps getting burgled over and over again. The person doing it has quite a pricey drug habit. It makes sense to me to try and address their crack habit, rather than sending them to prison (be it one month or one year) where their crack habit will remain intact. If this programme stops them burgling my home, I’d want them on it.
Drug programmes are largely unavailable to people in the community.
It’s not about cost- it’s about being sensible.
Anon E Mouse
Sophie Willett – If a burglar is in prison he can no longer steal people’s property. Prison works.
You may argue for rehabilitation blah blah blah but I’m with Labour on this because to say prison doesn’t work it deceitful. The government is wrong to shorten sentences.
With longer sentences a deterrent (imagine that concept to protect the weak victims) might be introduced, training for employment in prison might become viable and by stopping methadone a drug habit may be stopped because the repeat offending rates show your bleeding heart liberal ideas don’t work.
Do any of the staff at the Howard League come from the sort of deprived backgrounds the majority of prisoners come from?
Anon E Mouse
John – No one is even suggesting a life sentence unless it is necessary but really what planet are you on? I googled this and got this:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23623393-family-condemns-soft-jail-sentences-for-acid-rape-gang.do
“Three men gang raped a 16 year old girl with a mental age of 8 and covered her in caustic soda to hide the crime. The girl has been disfigured for life and faces further surgery and skin grafts, as well as undergoing counselling for nightmares and panic attacks.”
The highest sentence was 9 years, the lowest 6 years and they’ll be out in 4.5 and 3 years respectively.
So John, I really care more about that poor disfigured innocent young girl, than those horrible individuals and for rape as described, yes I believe there should be a life sentence.
What I find worrying about all these do gooders is their lack of empathy for the victims requiring our protection. It just seems so uncaring…
Anon E Mouse
Tara Majumdar – Please read my reply to John above. I care about victims of crime Tara and not those who commit the crime.
Sorry but in the above example I weep for that poor girl but will not shed a single tear for those horrible criminals who perpetrated that awful deed against her.
And what will definitely stop me being burgled next time is if the burglar is unable to have access to other peoples homes because he’s in a prison cell.
Sorry but I’m with Labour on this one. The government is wrong….