The Tories are about to rediscover the cost of being seen as soft on crime
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
There are no votes to be won in penal reform, but plenty to be lost by being seen as soft on crime. The politicians’ dilemma down the years is how to balance the two. They have tended to err on the “tough on offenders” side and neglect the impact on the prison estate, hoping that it will somehow sort itself out – or that no one will care if it doesn’t.
But they do care if the jails become so full that criminals have to be released early or are given community sentences rather than custody. These matters used to be in the bailiwick of the Home Secretary, but were transferred to the Ministry of Justice in 2007, with Alex Chalk KC the current holder of the poisoned chalice.
A barrister who has helped bang up quite a few criminals in the past, Mr Chalk is now being forced to let some of them out earlier than planned because the prisons in England and Wales are full to bursting.
He is also required to make a virtue out of handing out community sentences to offenders who would otherwise have received a custodial term of up to 12 months. These are described as “low-level” criminals, but this is a relative term not necessarily accepted by their victims. A 12-month prison sentence is a serious matter and, until recently, could only be handed down by a judge, though magistrates now have the power to do so too.
But a burglar or thief receiving such a jail term has often already been before the courts on several occasions and been given community punishments, fines or a suspended term. They will receive a short prison term if their recidivism persists.
Mr Chalk now proposes as a matter of routine that these short custodial sentences will be suspended and offenders punished in the community instead, cleaning up neighbourhoods and scrubbing graffiti off walls.
“More than 50 per cent of people who leave prison after serving less than 12 months go on to commit further crimes,” he told the Commons. “The figure is 58 per cent for those who serve sentences of six months or less. However, the figure for those who are on suspended sentence orders with conditions is 22 per cent.”
But this tells us little about the nature of the offenders. Those given suspended orders may have been judged to be the least likely to commit further crimes. There is a danger of constructing a specious virtue out of a necessity.
Would Mr Chalk be making this argument if there wasn’t a prison population crisis? Perhaps he would, but I have yet to see a political party enter an election with a pledge to send fewer people to jail. The White Paper “A smarter approach to sentencing”, published a few years ago, set out proposals for a move towards stronger community orders and a presumption against short-term imprisonment – but nothing happened until the prisons filled up.
There is a standalone case which holds that only violent criminals should be behind bars, and it is not confined to campaigners. In the Commons on Monday, Sir Bob Neill, the Tory chairman of the Justice Select Committee, said: “It is right and proper that we are frank with the British public that prison is an extremely expensive way of dealing with people, and that it should be reserved for those who are a threat to us, not simply those with whom we are – perhaps justifiably – angry or irritated.”
But the first function of prison is to punish. Rehabilitation is a secondary task to be pursued if possible. Prison also takes offenders off the streets, which is a relief for their victims, if only a temporary one.
Even now, politicians are calling for shoplifters to be jailed in a bid to stop an epidemic of retail crime, and yet most would fall below the 12 months threshold. So, too, would those who people want locked up for glorifying terrorism by backing Hamas after their murderous incursion into Israel.
The reason why the UK has the highest prison population in western Europe is because the politicians think the public wants to see offenders properly punished and have ratcheted up the sentences over the years.
There are now twice as many in jail as there were 30 years ago, but the cause of the surge is often forgotten. In 1993, crime was at an all-time high. The Tory government was being hammered in the polls and a young Labour Home Affairs spokesman called Tony Blair was stealing the law-and-order mantle that had previously been the exclusive property of the Conservatives.
Ken Clarke, seen as too soft in the Home Office, was moved – albeit in a promotion to the Treasury – and his place taken by a hard-liner, Michael Howard. He proceeded to undo his predecessor’s reforms, toughened up sentencing, and prison numbers began to rise. But almost immediately, crime began to fall.
So, are the two connected? Is there a correlation between a high prison population and falling crime? It would be a brave minister who would empty the prisons in order to test this proposition. But Mr Chalk finds himself in that very predicament, arguing that short sentences are self-defeating, but not really knowing the consequences of their removal.
If you want to see more people in prison, then the simplest solution is to build more of them; but while some extra places have come on stream, budget pressures and local objections have thwarted plans for expansion. The 2021 Spending Review said the Government would spend £3.8 billion to provide 20,000 prison places but only 5,200 have so far been delivered.
With pressure from the Treasury to cut spending, this will be one of the first programmes sacrificed. Where to get the money? For 20 years or more there has been talk of selling off the old Victorian prisons like Brixton and Wandsworth for much-needed housing development. It is a good idea, but nothing has ever happened.
Mr Chalk wants to deport foreign prisoners, who now make up about 15 per cent of the prison population, but we have been here before, too. Schemes to encourage them to serve their sentences overseas already exist, but an idea to build prisons abroad to house them flopped. Renting cell places in Estonia looks like a non-starter.
Bespoke community programmes may sound good, but they are expensive. If they don’t work, then the criminals who would otherwise be in jail will continue offending, pushing up the crime rate once more. Then votes really will be lost.
