Penal Servitude - 12th June 2011

The row over sentencing policy rumbled on last week with accusations of a government ‘U’ turn on plans for a 50% reduction in sentences. This had earlier generated a furore when it was suggested that it might also include violent crimes such as rape.

You can’t have a ‘U’ turn unless you have already embarked on a policy from which you can then turn away. This is not yet the case. If the Government had determined its policy it would have brought forward a bill to put before Parliament, or at the very least it would have published a white paper setting out what the forthcoming legislation would be designed to achieve. It has done neither. Instead it published a green paper: this is a discussion document; it is the equivalent of saying “hey, we haven’t made our minds up about this, but here are some interesting ideas. So, what do you think?” That consultation has now ended and the Government is  considering all the responses. It is the frenzy of 24 hour news coverage - which has always to try and find a new angle for every subsequent bulletin - which paints any discussion as a frenzy of confusion and contradiction.

The Government’s policy will be published in due course. In the meantime I have an opinion. I do think there is a proper role for plea bargaining with the offer of substantial remission for those who confess early and spare victims and witnesses the anxiety of court appearances, and the taxpayer the cost of a trial. We already have one third remission for early guilty pleas, I see no great issue of principle in extending discretion to allow remission of up to half.  No one could accuse the USA of being soft on crime, but there they make extensive use of plea bargaining negotiated by hard headed prosecutors, many of whom are elected.

The problem for us in Britain is that there is already a widespread perception that we are indeed soft on crime, so the mere suggestion of greater remission to encourage offenders to enter an early guilty plea plays into a public suspicion that this is just another measure to reduce the cost of our prison population. I fear that reforms of this sort will not gain public acceptance until attitudes to penal policy change. The same is true of greater use of community sentences. Prison is inefficient in that it is very costly and there is a shocking and unacceptably high rate of reoffending. It is argued that community sentences can be more effective in that they cost less and lead to lower reoffending rates. The public perception however, is that community sentences are a poorly enforced soft option. A policy of increased use of such sentences instead of prison must first be preceded by a measure of reassurance about what the community sentences involve. It can certainly be done: a trip to Rwanda is instructive; there disciplined teams of miscreants labour at the roadside in bright pink uniforms.

I was for many years a prison visitor. Although the regime could be tougher, the impression of pampered prisoners living in comfort - which is encouraged by the coverage of some of our Sunday newspapers - is well wide of the mark. One thing I think all my constituents will approve of, is the Government’s determination to introduce a regime where prisoners earn their keep by nine to five working. It isn’t quite a return to ‘penal servitude with hard labour’ but it is a start.