Last week it was reported that the government is considering removing benefits from those found guilty of criminal offences. This follows the announcement from some local authorities and housing associations after the recent riots that they would look at evicting tenants who’d been involved in the disorder and looting.
I’m sure such measures will be popular. But they are unfair and wrong. Our system of criminal justice is separate to our system of social protection – a system that ought to exist to ensure that everyone can live free of poverty and destitution. In a civilised society, that’s not a right people should ever have taken away from them, no matter how badly they’ve behaved.
It is right that criminal penalties are imposed for criminal behaviours – and that, of course, includes financial penalties, through fines and compensation orders – but with important safeguards in place. It’s right that the public should be protected from criminal actions that threaten their peace and security. And it’s right that antisocial behaviour and failure to adhere to tenancy conditions can lead to the termination of a tenancy. But to impose special, additional penalties through the criminal justice system on those who happen to be in receipt of state financial support, which would not be suffered by those (usually wealthier) citizens who aren’t in receipt of such support, creates a two-tier justice system, in which being poor results in extra punishment. It’s not, after all, as if we insist that those convicted of criminal behaviour, and who are better off, are subject to additional taxes.
Sentencers are required to justify their sentences, and the sentencing framework followed by the courts is designed to ensure penalties imposed are directed at clear and specified objectives. Rightly, punishment is recognised one such objective, but adequate criminal penalties already exist to achieve that desired effect. Sanctioning benefits or terminating tenancies constitute significant extra punishment. That harms not just the wrongdoer, not just his or her family, but the whole community – damaged by the poverty, homelessness, educational failure, increased social exclusion and social disharmony that results.
I know many Progress readers think I’m soft on crime. I’m not, not least because I know it’s the poorest who are most often the victims, but I do insist on a system that’s fair to everyone whatever your background, and on penalties that work. Removing social security benefits from those poor enough to receive them, as an extra penalty not suffered by the better off, simply doesn’t pass those tests.
—————————————————————————————
Kate Green is MP for Stretford and Urmston and writes a weekly column for Progress, Kate Comments
—————————————————————————————
Kate, I often disagree with your pieces. I say this because I want to offer support for your view from someone who doesn’t simply inhabit the same part of the party as you. You are absolutely correct on this issue.
As it is, a criminal record will prevent from working many ex-offenders who are trying to reform themselves. Taking away their benefits as well will leave many of those previously engaged in low-level crime no option but to return to it simply to make ends meet.
The punitive element of sentencing is important. The public must have confidence that justice is done so I have no problem with fines, electronic tagging, curfews, ASBOs and so on. In fact, the dropping of our Anti-Social Behaviour agenda in our last years in government is one of the (many) reasons we lost working class support in communities blighted by crime.
However, the courts are the right place to decide that punishment. and both during and after someone has served their sentence, every effort should be made to rehabilitate them back into the community. As you say, we should not heap additional punishment on the poorest not only because that is not just but also because they are the most likely to be edged back into reoffending as a result of sheer economic necessity. If we don’t rehabilitate people after punishment, all we succeed in doing is trapping people into a life of crime with further damage to our communities.
This proposal smacks of populism (and benefit cost cutting) rather than an attempt to improve justice. And in our response, Labour should remember what is still the best encapsulation of where we should be politically on justice issues: Tough on crime, AND tough on the causes of crime.
Kate, I often disagree with your pieces. I say this because I want to offer support for your view from someone who doesn’t simply inhabit the same part of the party as you. You are absolutely correct on this issue.
As it is, a criminal record will prevent from working many ex-offenders who are trying to reform themselves. Taking away their benefits as well will leave many of those previously engaged in low-level crime no option but to return to it simply to make ends meet.
The punitive element of sentencing is important. The public must have confidence that justice is done so I have no problem with fines, electronic tagging, curfews, ASBOs and so on. In fact, the dropping of our Anti-Social Behaviour agenda in our last years in government is one of the (many) reasons we lost working class support in communities blighted by crime.
However, the courts are the right place to decide that punishment. and both during and after someone has served their sentence, every effort should be made to rehabilitate them back into the community. As you say, we should not heap additional punishment on the poorest not only because that is not just but also because they are the most likely to be edged back into reoffending as a result of sheer economic necessity. If we don’t rehabilitate people after punishment, all we succeed in doing is trapping people into a life of crime with further damage to our communities.
This proposal smacks of populism (and benefit cost cutting) rather than an attempt to improve justice. And in our response, Labour should remember what is still the best encapsulation of where we should be politically on justice issues: Tough on crime, AND tough on the causes of crime.
I’d like to second Andy’s comments. Opposing populism isn’t fun, but it makes sense and needs to be done here.
Here in Wandsworth an 18 year old is being prosecuted for theft related to the riots. He has pleaded not guilty and is on bail with strict conditions. He has no previous offences. His Mother and 8 year old sister live in council accommodartion and have been threatened with eviciton if he is found guilty.
I oppose this
1. Because it penalises the family for the son’s alleged behaviour
2. It would then be double punishment
3. What will happen to his family? As homeless people will cost society lots more.
Wandsworth says tenants are bound by a tenancy agreement-but he is not the tenant.
I suspect they are trying really hard to top the poll of obsequious local authorities as they are being pushed hard right now by Suffolk and Hammersmith and Fulham for that dubious honour.
Why won’t more Labour MPs and espeically the shadow cabinet come out and say just how immoral this move is? Combine it with threats to remove benefits then we will be creating an section of society forever crimninalised with no hope of ever being part of society. The silence of Labour shadow Ministers is deafening.
Because the legislation allowing this double punishment was passed by New Labour
Remember?
With the full support apparently of the Labour Housinggn Group who all live in owner occupied housing.