Twenty years ago this month, Michael
Howard became Home Secretary , bringing a sea change to penal policy in England
and Wales with which we have been living ever since. Overturning a
consensus that Home Office policies could do little to reduce crime, he embarked
on an ambitious programme designed to increase arrests, prosecutions, and
convictions but it is his view that “prison works” and the impact of his
policies on the numbers behind bars for which he will be most remembered.
Howard latched on to two influential conclusions from an
academic review prepared for the US Congress about what works in crime
prevention. The first was that incapacitation policies prevent crime because
people in prison simply do not have the opportunity to commit offences and
second that there are a small number of offenders who commit a large number of
crimes. “If they could be incapacitated “, the review said “a large number of
crimes would be prevented.” Despite caveats in the report, falls in the
crime rate in the US together with political saleability made
the policy irresistible to Howard, who was by instinct sympathetic to victims
and hostile to offenders.
Howard’s 27 point law and order package delivered to the Conservative Party Conference in October 1993 included new Secure Training Centres for children as young as 12 and mandatory minimum sentences for repeat burglars and drug dealers to be served in decent but austere prisons. Later policies to abolish parole and severely limit early release were never implemented but during his four year tenure prison numbers rose from 44,500 to 61,000.
Howard’s 27 point law and order package delivered to the Conservative Party Conference in October 1993 included new Secure Training Centres for children as young as 12 and mandatory minimum sentences for repeat burglars and drug dealers to be served in decent but austere prisons. Later policies to abolish parole and severely limit early release were never implemented but during his four year tenure prison numbers rose from 44,500 to 61,000.
Howard’s legacy was longer lasting however. By provoking political
adversaries to oppose his reforms, he pushed his shadow Tony Blair and New
Labour as a whole into a repressive approach to penal policy. Prison
numbers have continued to rise ever since 1993.
More disturbing perhaps was Howard’s shamelessly populist approach to law and order- most notoriously in his attempts to increase the tariff for the juvenile killers of James Bulger, later described by a senior judge as “ institutionalised vengeance ... [by] a politician playing to the gallery”. In respect of his sentencing policy the Lord Chief Justice told the House of Lords that “Never in the history of our criminal law have such far reaching proposals been put forward on the strength of such flimsy and dubious evidence.” Indeed the most recent review of evidence by the Ministry of Justice has found that “to date there has been no clear consensus from criminologists and commentators about whether there is an incapacitation effect at all, and if so, its scale.”
Howard’s treatment of the probation service was equally cavalier, removing the requirement for university based social work training and threatening the very existence of the service. When he left office recruitment had almost dried up and it was left to Jack Straw to introduce a new scheme of professional training as an urgent priority.
Twenty years on , the liberal Ken Clarke has again been succeeded by a hardliner promising spartan abut humane prisons and threatening the probation service. Rehabilitation now plays a more significant role among policy objectives but Howard’s approach can be seen among a new generation of Tory politicians who want “ to reverse the tide of soft justice”. A group of them have written “After the Coalition - A Conservative Agenda for Britain” in which they call for persistent offenders to be sentenced for prolonged periods in tough unpleasant and uncomfortable prisons all to be run by the private sector. With problems on Europe and the economy to contend with , such a back to basics approach may prove attractive to the Tory Party at least in the run up to the next election.
Warn victims of crime that reactive crime control endangers them. Warm taxpayers that money will be taken from health care to pay for a boondoggle that USA has shown is a failure - higher rates of homicide, more road fatalities and more drug overdoses than any other affluent democracy - see IOM.
ReplyDeleteEncourage Grayling to read PM Cameron - the most effective and cost effective way to deal with crime is prevention - every thing else is picking up the pieces. Any conservative who wants value for money would be reinvesting in targeted social prevention and smart use of police. See Less Law, More Order for facts