A sustainable approach to incarceration
This is the ninth and final (hooray!) in a series of posts looking into the detail of the 192 page Independent Sentencing Review whose main recommendations I summarised here. The Review was commissioned specifically to address the prison capacity crisis which has meant the last two Governments have instituted ongoing early release schemes to prevent a total meltdown of our penal system. But it was also commissioned to “explore what punishment and rehabilitation should look like in the 21st century, and how we can move our justice system out of crisis and towards a long-term, sustainable future.”
This post looks at the final chapter of the Review which calls for a strategic, evidence-based approach to the use of custody in the future.
Transparency
In Part One of his report, Mr Gauke explicitly laid responsibility for our prison overcrowding problem on the desire of politicians (of all parties) to be seen to be “tough on crime”. He makes the point (repeatedly) that punishment is important but not effective in reducing reoffending:
“The piecemeal and unstrategic manner in which sentence lengths have increased in recent decades has meant that there has been insufficient consideration of all of the statutory aims of sentencing: punishment, crime reduction, reform and rehabilitation, public protection and reparation. Punishment is an important aim for the criminal justice system and prison plays a vital role in delivering punishment. But too often decision-making has been based on an approach that punishment is all that matters, and that the only form of punishment that counts is imprisonment.”
To put an end to this trend (which in my reckoning goes back 28 years to Tony Blair’s “Tough on Crime, Tough on the Cause of Crime” pledge), Mr Gauke argues that the Government and, indeed, the public must have access to independent advice and analysis of the impact of policy decisions and evidence on what works to reduce crime. His first recommendation is the creation of an independent body (external to Government) to advise on the impacts of current and future policy decisions relating to prison and probation resources. He recommends that this body is composed of independent experts and act as a public voice on what works to reduce crime with the aim of supporting decision-making grounded in robust evidence, promoting transparency in policymaking and encouraging awareness of the systemwide impact of policy decisions.
He proposes three main functions for this independent body:
- An authority on what works to reduce crime. The body should champion and promote the most authoritative evidence on what works to reduce crime and prevent reoffending, drawing on national data, international contexts and expertise within the sector.
- Analyse proposed policy changes. The body should advise government on the potential impact of policy and legislative changes including specifically on: value for money, likely crime reduction impact and effect on courts, prison and probation resources.
- Annual reporting. Mr Gauke also proposes that the body should make a longer term assessment of the cumulative impact of government policy by publishing an annual report, which would provide a broader view on how policies interact and the current status of prison and probation demand versus capacity.
His second recommendation is along similar lines: introducing a “requirement for Ministers to make a statement to Parliament during the introduction of a new Bill on its impact on prison demand.”
Although the Sentencing Review covered a lot of issues across the criminal justice system, Mr Gauke flags three additional areas for consideration by the Government including:
- Maximum and Minimum sentences
- Understanding disproportionality in the justice system
- Young adult offenders
Conclusion
Mr Gauke concludes his review by re-stating his goals for reducing demand on prisons and increasing the number of community sentences. He also identifies two key risks to his plan for a more sustainable prison population.
The first is that the Government implements the proposals for sentence reform, but the probation system is left unable to cope with the additional demands.
The second is that politicians are unable to resist the temptation to believe that the answer to every problem in the criminal justice system should be answered by legislating for longer sentences.
Only time will tell.
Thanks to Andy Aitchison for kind permission to use the header image in this post. You can see Andy’s work here.
