Back in 2002, when I was member of the Youth Justice Board, then
Chair Lord Warner opened one of our meetings by saying he expected we were all
considering resigning. The Prime Minister had called for young offenders to be
taken – it might have been swept - off the streets in order to tackle an
upsurge in mobile phone robberies. Our advice hadn’t been sought and Tony
Blair’s approach didn’t sit well with our efforts to reduce the use of custody
for young people. Warner persuaded us not to resign- every crisis is an
opportunity was the line I think. We were vindicated in part by the fact that
the Street Crime Initiative- developed in a series of COBRA meetings normally
reserved for national emergencies – turned out to include prevention and
treatment measures alongside enforcement. But at the outset and at its heart, was
tough on crime rather than on the causes. Even Lord Woolf, the normally liberal
Chief Justice was moved to issue a draconian guideline judgement on street
robbery in its wake.
Perhaps my experience back then, accounts for an initially
positive reaction on my part to Amber Rudd’s Serious Violence Strategy. Much of
the analysis of the problem which has come into tragic focus in recent weeks is
basically sound. The Home Office may be a graveyard of liberal thinking, but
this Home Secretary agrees with academics that “big shifts in crime trends tend to be driven by factors outside of
the police’s control – like drug trends and markets, changes in housing and
vehicle security.” Her approach to serious violence “is not
solely focused on law enforcement, very important as that is, but depends on
partnerships across a number of sectors such as education, health, social
services, housing, youth services, and victim services.” So far so good.
The strategy recognises that key areas
for reducing violence include “socio-economic improvements, strengthening ties
to family, school and non-violent norms.” And for young people, early
interventions are effective in reducing violent behaviour and “punitive
activity is less effective than preventative support”. In reducing re-offending
for all ages “Interventions focused on the establishment of cognitive or
character-based skills and/or non-violent norms seem to be more effective than
punitive interventions.” The strategy confirms too that “changes in the level
of stop and search have only minimal effects – at best – on trends in violent
crime, even when measured at the local level”. All this seems sensible and
consistent with evidence. Ms Rudd even plans to hold an International Violent Crime Symposium to hear from international experts (yes experts) if she’s on the
right track.
Where the strategy stops short of
course is in putting in place the measures needed to meet the problems it identifies.
Take drugs. The strategy points out
that drugs can drive up serious violence “indirectly, either by fuelling
robberies to service drug dependence, or through violent competition between drug
sellers. Grievances in
illicit drug markets cannot be settled through legal channels, so participants
may settle them violently. This can lead to escalation as dealers seek to
portray themselves as excessively violent, and carry weapons, so as not to be
cheated in the market.” Is there the slightest
hint of finding different ways of regulating at least some drugs so that at
least some disputes might be more peacefully resolved? No.
As for the much praised early
intervention, a series of small scale targeted funding schemes hardly begin to compensate
for the under resourcing of mainstream provision – whether mental health treatment
or youth clubs, inflicted in the name of austerity. The strategy promotes
diversion of various kinds but to what? The small beer offered here will continue
to leave thousands of young people at risk of becoming victims or perpetrators
of violence.
Police numbers are of course the strategy’s
missing link. Like it or not the Street Crime Initiative did appear to show
that “increased police resources do in fact lead to lower crime”. This strategy
extols the virtues of hot spot policing but shifting onto PCCs responsibility
for providing officers to do it, is simply bad faith.
On courts, probation and prisons, the
strategy only goes so far. We can count
ourselves fortunate that tougher sentencing for once takes a back seat. Given
the state of the prison system, presumably the MoJ put their foot down about
that. It’s good that violence in prison merits a place in the strategy and
among the alphabet soup of initiatives to reduce it, the idea of trauma
informed approaches looks a particularly good one.
But given that much serious violence
is carried out by persistent offenders, why no mention of the cross-government group of senior Ministers, announced last month, which will work across all
relevant departments to reduce re-offending. Presumably because it’s a MOJ
rather than Home Office initiative. The latter will drive this strategy through
a new Serious Violence Taskforce. But there
will surely be benefits in David Gauke’s approach of targeting
“prisoners and ex-offenders with the support they need to find a job, a home,
to get help with debt, or to get treatment for a drug addiction or, a mental
health issue”. Proper resettlement should be more central to what’s being
proposed.
No comments:
Post a Comment