The Justice Committee has produced a compelling report arguing
that criminal justice is facing a crisis of sustainability, that prison is a
relatively ineffective way of reducing crime and that the government should commit
to a significant reduction of the numbers sent there.
This was their 2009 report Cutting Crime: the case for justice reinvestment significant parts of which resurfaced this week in
the result of their latest inquiry “Prison Population 2022: planning for the future.”
There’s nothing wrong with reprising what are by and large eminently sound
conclusions. It’s always encouraging to read a cross party group of MPs state that “social
problems cannot be meaningfully addressed through the criminal justice system”
and that “there must be a focus on investing in services to reduce the £15
billion annual cost of re-offending and prevent offenders from continually
returning to prison, thereby reducing the size of the prison population”
Had the incoming Coalition government implemented the
recommendations from the earlier inquiry, we would not now have been “in the
depths of an enduring crisis in prison safety and decency”. Will this week’s
recommendations fare any better?
There must be some doubts. First on the government side, when asked by
MPs about his proposals for reducing short prison sentences – enthusiastically endorsed
in the Committee’s report- Justice Secretary David Gauke said, “I do not think it can be sorted by the end of the year”. This is what officials call kicking a
policy into the long grass. There must be long odds on Gauke still being in post
by then and no guarantee that his successor will also hail from the Hurd/Clarke
tradition of Conservative penal policy-making.
As for Parliament, the Committee wants MPs to look more
closely at the impact on prison numbers when legislating. But while decrying an
ever upward trend in sentencing levels, Justice Committee Chair (and member
back in 2009) Bob Neill supported the 2015 Criminal Justice and Courts Act
which did just that in respect of offences relating to possession of knives and
causing death by dangerous driving.
In terms of public attitudes, the 2009 report argued that means
must be found for encouraging and informing sensible, thoughtful and rational
public debate and policy development on the appropriate balance and focus of
resources. This week we heard that “Greater transparency is necessary to enable
the public and others to understand the true costs and the challenging and
testing nature of decisions which need to be made about public spending on prisons.” There's not much evidence that an emphasis on costs is the best way of persuading people
to reduce the use of prison. Nor does it seem a particularly propitious time
for a "national conversation" about crime and justice- whatever that might entail.
More promising is the Committee’s argument that improving
the sustainability of the prison population will require a review of sentencing
legislation which should include the role of the Sentencing Council. This week’s report quoted from evidence I submitted that the Council had not done enough to “challenge increasing
sentence lengths, nor to give more explicit assistance to courts in determining
when offences are so serious that only a prison sentence will do”. Perhaps their current mandate does not permit
them to do this- but when, as seems likely, the Justice Committee looks at the
Council’s role this year -ten years after it was established- it should consider
what more the Council should do to reduce prison numbers and promote community-based
rehabilitation- both within its existing remit and with an expanded one.
No comments:
Post a Comment