The Independent Sentencing Review recognised a number of issues within the criminal justice system, which the Bar Council has been concerned about for years. Over the last few decades, the prison population has continuously expanded, spurred on in part by political parties constantly seeking to appear “tough on crime”. Yet the increase in prisoners is not having the desired deterrent effect, crime is still rising, as are reoffending rates. The Bar Council has called for a rethink on punishment and sentencing, and the Gauke review has reached the same conclusion.
At present there is a significant focus on punishment, it is right that those who break the law be punished, and that society is protected from violent offenders, however focusing solely on punishment does not consider long term societal needs of ensuring offenders do not reoffend. Further, there has been little consideration as to why people offend, and whether a package of measures could have a greater impact than simply locking someone up.
In 2021, 50,000 prolific offenders were responsible for nearly 10.5million offences – nearly half of all offences before the courts. If resources were targeted at those offenders, identifying the root cause of their offending and putting in place measures to stop further offending the socio-economic benefits become clear.
At present the cost of a prison place is approximately £50,000 per annum, more expensive than many private schools in the UK. The criminal justice system has been the victim of under investment for decades, if money was diverted into a package of reforms, aimed at addressing the reasons people offend, and putting stronger measures in place to prevent further reoffending the money spent on incarceration could be drastically reduced – saving prison places for violent, dangerous offenders.
Many offenders have come from the care system, they have fewer qualifications, and often additional mental health needs. Many offenders suffer from substance issues, in particular, drugs and alcohol abuse. A holistic approach is needed, if those leaving care were given more support, they may not be tempted by crime, or used by sophisticated criminal gangs. If people have qualifications they can be economically active in the work place rather than resorting to crime. If people with drug addictions are given support to come off drugs they need not resort to violent or acquisitive offending to support their addiction.
There is no one simple solution which is why we welcome Gauke’s review and focus on packages of measures.
Where possible, punishment should take place within the community. Courts need to look at why people are offending, and offer tailored packages to address individual needs. This can be done in a number of ways, for example, those with alcohol issues can be the subject of an Alcohol treatment order, with alcohol monitoring tag, and also a curfew to prevent them going out at night. Once alcohol free, there should be assistance from Probation to gain qualifications, promoting structure within their lives and helping to prevent reoffending.
The Gauke review suggested an increase in time that a sentence can be suspended. This is something the Bar Council raised as at present an offender can be made the subject of a three year community order – vital if trying to complete a long term rehabilitative programme, but this could not be supported by a suspended sentence as the maximum length of time for that was two years. With the proposed three year maximum the court can now offer support and rehabilitation, with the prospect of custody hanging over someone if they fail to comply.
If prison is necessary then the time spent in custody must be productive, this means investing not just in prison spaces, but also schemes within prison, such as education, rehabilitation, or drug addiction therapy. For those offenders who comply, and show a real determination to change, there is a proposal that they could be released early. This will incentivise offenders to engage with the authorities, and also promote rehabilitation, we welcome such initiatives.
Prison does not prepare one for life once released, there the proposal for greater integration back into society is one to be commended. If a prisoner is released with recourse to public funds, without a safety net in place such as stable accommodation, then they are far more likely to reoffend.
If we recognise that a focus on simple punishment has not worked, we can consider a more nuanced approach to justice. Identify those from whom society must be protected, and address the needs of those for whom there is a realistic prospect of rehabilitation. Let us end the cycle of retribution and reoffending, instead let's focus on a long term solution, with rehabilitation at the heart of it.