We have made a great deal of progress in terms of fighting crime as a police service. Since the mid-1990s crime has fallen by 43 per cent up to 2009/10, according to the British Crime Survey figures. The biggest contribution the police can give to ensuring victims’ needs are at the heart of the criminal justice system is by preventing them from becoming victims in the first place. In 1997 there were 16 million victims of crime, by 2010 this had been reduced to 9.6 million, that’s more than six million less victims. That said, one victim is always one too many and much more can be always be done.
One area that needs more attention is around reoffending rates, which are particularly high for young men. Ministry of justice statistics show that nearly half of all offenders go on to reoffend within a year of their release. This is where our criminal justice system should be focusing the microscope. The issues we now have in the police are that the cut by 20 per cent to the police budget by 2014 and the reduction of more than 16,000 officers over the same time period, will impact on our response. The teams set up to help combat repeat offending and prevent those getting involved in crime in the first place – neighbourhood policing teams, specialist burglary squads, domestic violence units and child protection units as well as intelligence-led policing – are all under threat. We are now seeing these squads being reduced or disbanded and officers moved to uniform response roles. There is a real risk that we just go back to fire brigade policing, and it’s the victims, the public, who will lose out.
There is also still an issue of ownership over offenders moving through the system and who keeps victims informed about what is happening to their case. Police officers deal with a crime and pass it on to the CPS and often lose touch with victims or expect the CPS to follow up and keep them informed. When someone is dealt with by the courts the victim, too often, can feel left out of the loop. I feel it is one area victims can be let down. One of the issues is around our goals; the police ultimately look to tackle crime, the CPS to prosecute in cases likely to have successful outcomes and prisons basically want to prevent criminals escaping. But surely the main focus for all of us should be about ensuring that if a crime takes place the offender will only go through the system once without committing another offence – it is a question of punishment or rehabilitation. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think anyone can control every individual’s behaviour completely because it is connected to other factors like education, housing and unemployment. However, at the moment it is just about punishment and more needs to be done to rehabilitate and reduce reoffending.
The Purple Book talks about victims being involved in sentencing decisions. I do believe that victims should be informed about cases and that they should have a say through the victim impact statements already available, but sentencing should be standardised and it would not be fair for a shoplifter who may have stolen a chocolate bar to receive the same sentence as someone who had carried out a burglary.
We should also be utilising local Criminal Justice Boards, which bring together many different services such as the police, probation, prison service and health to tackle offending and prevent it happening in the first place. Perhaps, instead of Police and Crime Commissioners we could have an elected member on that board who could coordinate the different services and ensure that offenders do not go on to repeat their crimes and create yet more victims. The cycle needs to be broken.
Simon Reed is vice-chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales
Photo: Ian Britton
“ere mate ” “wot” ? “is that a chocolate mouse” ? “nah mate ,radio controlled remote-view ,clever innit ”
“where’s it goin'” ? “wheredjafink”
Simon Reed’s argument is irrefutable. Reoffending rates are an offront to the Judicial system in this country and indicative of the poverty that lies behind the figures. Mostly young men from poor backgrounds, lack of confidence and educational opportunity, it follows joblessness and other temptations will lead them into areas they would not otherwise go. Lack of education and poverty does not equate to lack of intelligence and opportunity nor should it. These young men need intervention once identified. Loss of public service safety nets, family breakdown will had to the numbers who play havoc with society. Loss of police will make it easier for them to continue their lives of crime and take them further down the road to harder crime still and many a victim will feel the cold wave of the Government cut backs in a way they never perceived.
Under Margaret Thatcher burlgary, car crime increased dramatically. In better areas as well as in council estates. Drugs started their ulgly journey unfettered by police intervention and youngsters from all walks of live got caught up in addiction. In the end society paid the greater cost, but none so much as those who lost their children to drugs and whose homes were burgled.
I agree with most Simon Reed said and hope that his wisdom and experience will not be stifled by nonsence and political spin that losing 16,000+ police, loss of experienced offices made to retire early and police officer recruitment freeze won’t take their toll on front line services or increase in crime. OF COURSE IT WILL.