Our prison population, including those detained in young offenders institutions, is now at a record 72,000, an increase of 30,000 over the last ten years. New prisons have been built at a record rate and many of the difficulties in our criminal justice system stem from this increase.
The number of women in prison has almost doubled since 1997. It costs millions to keep the system running and yet people are still held in revolting conditions with nothing to do all day but torment each other and plan their next crime. Their children are taken into care, they lose their homes and any chance of a job and then are dumped back on the streets with one week s social security money, which has to last two weeks. The miracle does not happen and they do not suddenly turn into model citizens; in fact most go on to commit more crimes and return to prison.
Successive governments have introduced criminal justice legislation at frequent intervals and public confidence in the system has inevitably suffered. But there are some positive policies which are already working or will work. Perhaps the most significant is the new legislation that, it is strongly rumoured, will be in the Queen s Speech. If press reports are to be believed, David Blunkett will take powers to get the courts to abandon prison sentences below six months. It seems that such a move would reduce the present prison population by as many as 40,000. This would have many benefits as well as saving a great deal of money.
Since 1997, this government has pioneered a revolution in juvenile justice, which has seen the development of some really exciting responses to offending by young people. The Youth Justice Board, which comprises independent experts and oversees the community and custodial programmes, has been responsible for some successful juvenile justice initiatives.
New ideas on restorative justice are starting to form part of Home Office thinking but so far have focused on juvenile offenders. This is beginning to replace a system of justice based on revenge and punishment. In theory, the state seeks retribution on behalf of the victim, proportionate to the crime.
Perhaps one of the most interesting of the new approaches is the use of referral orders, when young offenders have to do practical work to benefit the victims or the community. These are based on three principles: that the young offender accepts responsibility for his/her actions; a victim-led process where the offender has to do something positively good by way of restitution; and the reintegration of the offender into the community. These approaches are supervised locally by community panels; so far there are 5,000 members and the numbers are growing. They ensure the community is actively involved in the handling of offenders.
Another approach is action plan orders, which include a mixture of requirements, including supervision. Intensive surveillance and supervision as a direct alternative to custody are being developed and we have yet to see results. Work is also focusing on young people in each area round the country who are identified as being at most risk of offending, and real funding is being put in place on schemes that are individually tailored.
Perhaps the most positive crime prevention initiatives are the summer Splash schemes which give young people activities and opportunities. Following the dreadful death of Damilola Taylor in Southwark, the Metropolitan police set up the Karrot project, which included an internet café bus and schemes to get disaffected children back into school.
Thames Valley police has pioneered the restorative caution, with plans to extend it nationwide. The restorative caution involves the victim and family and friends of everyone concerned and need only result in an apology. The gratifying element of the process is the satisfaction expressed by victims, something rarely seen in traditional justice.
These initiatives are success stories but more can be done. We need to see more volunteers for the community panels. I also believe the concept of the suspended sentence should be applied to young offenders. It might also be appropriate to extend policies which are effective for juveniles to older teenagers and young adults.
Given the successes of these various initiatives, it is puzzling that the government has given them very little publicity. I think it should make the public more aware of the positive things that have been happening. Acknowledging the contribution made both by professionals and by the community might go some way towards lessening the strong public concern about anti-social behaviour by young people.