Indeed, Clarke’s junior minister Crispin Blunt has already been slapped down by Number 10 for suggesting that entertainments for prisoners should be reinstated.
Our starting point is clear of course: Labour’s record on crime is a good one. Contrary to government spin, the British Crime Survey – generally considered to be a reasonably reliable way to measure crime, as it reflects individuals’ reported experience, not just what the police record – shows a fall in crime under Labour, including violent crime. Fear of crime also fell. It’s highly regrettable therefore that Theresa May has decided to remove the public confidence indicator that focused police attention on actions that reassure the public.
What’s more, Labour’s track record wasn’t an accident: increased police numbers and visible policing (especially the highly successful and popular police community support officers) played their part. Tough and focussed action on antisocial behaviour helped too – though it’s fair to say that anxiety about such behaviour remains high on my constituents’ worry-list. A strong and growing economy over most of the past 10-15 years will also have contributed to the good results. Criminologists have long noted that crime is generally higher when the economy experiences a downturn, and it’s perhaps self-evident that people are less likely to turn to crime when employment’s plentiful and they feel better off.
What’s less clear is how effective penal policy has been in recent years, and here Clarke and Blunt are surely right to open up the debate. Under Labour, the prison population almost doubled, so at first sight that too will have contributed substantially to the reduction in crime. But no-one can feel proud of a prison population that’s now proportionately the highest in western Europe, nor at the high levels of recidivism among those sentenced to custody, and nor can we be comfortable with the cost. It’s surely right to look for alternatives to custody that prevent and reduce reoffending, punish appropriately, and protect and reassure the public.
That means far more attention to and support for strong community penalties, which are much less costly than custody, and which, by keeping those convicted close to their support networks, able to keep their homes and jobs, can contribute to improved reoffending rates. We must of course ensure that such penalties are genuinely demanding and constitute a proper payback, but importantly too we have to convince the public that these penalties are no soft option, and that they’re effective in reducing crime. In recent years, it’s not clear that we did very much to sell community penalties either to the public or to sentencers, as we sought to be tough on crime.
Of course we should be protective of the interests of victims, and here too Labour’s done good work. Information’s better, victim impact statements give victims their say in court, and the victims’ surcharge raised £8 million last year. But the coalition government is right to go further, by taking a serious interest in restorative justice – it isn’t by any means what every victim of a crime will want, but where it works it has proven empowering for victims, and appears to be contributing to better reoffending rates.
We must understand where and how far we got the balance of investment right, between prevention and punishment, between custody and community penalties, between focus on the victims of crime and investing upstream on preventative work with those more likely to offend. It’s good that new ministers are asking questions, and we must hope that will lead to a rigorous examination of what worked, and what proved good value for money, as part of the forthcoming spending review.
For our part, we must avoid finding ourselves locked into a kneejerk out-toughing of the government, and instead be open-minded in our assessment of the evidence of the past 15 years. After all, Labour has nothing to fear from such scrutiny. Our successful record on crime reduction is strong enough to bear it.
As always Kate your very thorough reasoned, informed argument makes you a stand out politician in our ranks – as i expressed to you at a Progress event recently, it’s a pity you didn’t put your hat in the ring for party leader – you should certainly be in our shadow cabinet – don’t hold back.
I have to disagree with much of what you say, Kate. your assertion, for example, that the connection between crime rates and the economy is “self-evident” is dubious and certainly not applicable to the vast majority of crimes requiring custodial sentences. What relevence is the financial or (un)employment status of the person who rapes or inflicts GBH or sells drugs etc.? Unemployment may affect rates of small thefts and petty fraud (for which non-custodial punishments are already the norm) but have little or no influence on rates of major crime (which require prison sentences of six months or more). I could argue that your assessment of Labour’s record on crime is less than generous or fair. To describe Labour’s achievemnt of a 50% reduction across most categories of crime as “good” is somewhat miserly – what figure would you describe as an “excellent” reduction? 110%? However, my greatest concern is about your comments on penal policy. You are correct to show that under Labour the prison population almost doubled and you even acknowledge that “prison works” inasmuch that prisoners cannot commit crimes in the community (unlike Ken Clarke). Where you go off the rails, Kate, are the inferences and conclusions you make consequently. Why, for example, should we be ashamed of the size of our prison population? You appear to equate higher prison numbers with failure: but what failure? Surely, if a person commits a serious enough crime to warrant a custodial sentence then confining him (or her) in prison is the right thing to do and protects society from further harm. There is nothing shameful in that practice – indeed, we should be proud that justice has been done. As for the suitability of prison sentences, the only criterion, surely, has to be “let the punishment fit the crime”. As far as I am aware, prison has only been reserved for persons commiting serious crimes or for persistent offenders for whom all other measures (including your ‘community penalties’). To arbitrarily exclude such people from prison for idealogical or cost-cutting reasons would be wrong. You claim, like Ken Clarke, that “prison doesn’t work” because of the high level of recidivism but this is a false comparison. Prison is not the cause of repeat offending but a consequence of it. People end up in prison, usually, after a long history of antisocial behaviour and petty crime. It is therefore not surprising that they re-offend after release since their criminal habits have long since been ingrained. The question is: is it possible for prison to reform and rehabilitate offenders? History tells us the answer is no. Prison can incarcerate, punish, protect the public but its attempts at re-habilitation (turning repeat offenders into responsible law-abiding citizens) has been distinctly ineffective and is likely to remain so irrespective of the level of resources invested. The solution to re-offending lies not with a change of sentencing policy but with a programme of early intervention (which is not cheap but, like preventative medicine, would have long-term benefits both penally and economically). Troubled families would have long-term support structures monitored by suitable experts with powers to coerce as well support and monitor (perhaps a combination of social worker and probation officer). Such early and prolonged intervention could provide a framework for ending the cyclical pattern of offending.
I’m all in favour of this website being a pro-coalition mouthpiece, but I would have thought the quality of commentator could rise above this. The reason offenders get sent to jail, Kate, is because they don’t turn up to community sentences or because community sentences been tried on the offender and have not worked. Your answer to this is to argue that they should be given another community sentence that they can happily ignore as they won’t be sent to jail. This makes no sense what so ever. Your attitude to victims is appalling. You say they should be denied satisfaction and be happy with a victim statement that will be ignored as a matter of policy. That’s pure hypocracy. I wonder if this is another example of the quality produced by AWS?