Prison capacity crisis caused by political drive to appear “tough on crime”
|
Inconsistent, ill-considered and knee jerk sentencing reform
implemented by successive governments drove the justice system to
the brink of collapse, according to new analysis published today
(Tuesday 18 February). The report, published by the Independent
Sentencing Review, found that despite an overall decrease in
incidents of crime since the mid-1990s, an over-reliance on a
“tough on crime” narrative and belief that longer incarceration is
the only effective means of...Request free trial
Inconsistent, ill-considered and knee jerk sentencing reform implemented by successive governments drove the justice system to the brink of collapse, according to new analysis published today (Tuesday 18 February). The report, published by the Independent Sentencing Review, found that despite an overall decrease in incidents of crime since the mid-1990s, an over-reliance on a “tough on crime” narrative and belief that longer incarceration is the only effective means of punishment has left the system overwhelmed and ineffective. The study, which interrogated the drivers behind the increase in use and length of custody, found that the rise in the prison population cannot be attributed to a considered strategy focused on cutting crime. Instead, it is the result of decisions made by successive governments in response to the growing “tough on crime” agenda which has focused on punishment – understood as longer prison sentences – over effective ways of cutting reoffending. This has contributed to resources being diverted away from the probation service and tough, effective alternatives to custody, which has, in turn, resulted in the need for government to adopt costly and high-risk emergency measures in an attempt to stabilise the system. Chair of the Independent Sentencing Review David Gauke said: “Last year we were confronted with the consequences of decades of haphazard policy making and underinvestment in the criminal justice system – bringing it to the brink of collapse. “For too long politicians have operated in a vacuum, increasing sentencing for individual crimes without considering the knock-on impact on the wider system. It is time to accept this does not deliver justice for victims, it fails them.” Academics argue that the introduction of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 can be identified as the beginning of a shift in media and political narrative which has led to each government of the day facing significant pressure from opposition parties to be “tougher on crime”. Legislative changes such as mandatory minimum sentences, the introduction of Schedule 21 (the statutory framework for murder sentencing), extended sentences including introducing a two thirds release point for some offences, and new offences are key drivers of sentence inflation. Many of these changes have been made in response to tragic events, and while the report is clear that real-world cases should drive necessary change, the knock-on impact of such changes has not always been considered. This has led to inconsistencies in the sentencing framework which can leave victims with a sense of injustice, or which require patchwork policies to try to correct. At the same time, public understanding of sentencing remains low and opinion is often skewed by press coverage of atypical cases, contributing to a belief that fewer people are going to prison and for less time - when the opposite is true. This is exacerbated by the impact of piecemeal changes to sentencing policy creating an increasingly complex legislative framework which is hard to understand and can be damaging to victims' confidence in the system. The report reaffirms that despite a reliance on prison as a form of punishment, it is not always the most effective way to reduce reoffending. Analysis shows offenders given custodial sentences have the highest reoffending rates. The reoffending rate for those leaving custody is 37.2% overall, rising to 56.9% for those on short sentences (under 12 months). In these cases, a community order or suspended sentence seems to be more effective at reducing the risk of reoffending. Chair of the Independent Sentencing Review David Gauke said: “It is clear that in order to address the capacity issues we face, we must have an honest conversation about who we send to prison, and for how long. “Punishment will always be a central aim of the criminal justice system, but it is not the only aim; and prison is not the only form of punishment.” Alongside longer sentences, increased use of recall has had a striking impact on the size of the prison population. In 1993 the recall population was estimated to be less than 100. By 2020, this had risen to 9,000 and reached 12,920 at the end of December 2024. While there is undoubtedly a need for a system which can quickly and effectively recall offenders who pose a threat to public safety, factors including the introduction of a mandatory supervision period for shorter sentences, and heightened probation officer risk aversion following notable serious further offences covered in the media have contributed to this increase. The review has been tasked with specifically looking at the administration of sentences, including the point at which offenders are released from prison, how long they are supervised in the community on licence, and recall. Finally, the report outlines the need for a system reset, firmly rooted in all five of the statutory aims of sentencing: punishment, crime reduction, reform and rehabilitation, public protection and reparation. The sentencing review will set out its proposals for that reform in the Spring. ENDS Notes to editors:
|