I have a confession to make. In 18 years in government, I have never come up with a policy that was instantly popular. Today, as Justice Secretary, my job is to mend Britain’s broken prison system and make it less expensive. My proposals have prompted widespread criticism, not least from The Spectator, which said recently on its leader page that decreasing the number of prisoners in Britain will lead to more crime. I disagree.
Our prisons are expensive and dysfunctional — but they do not have to be. Labour introduced 21 criminal justice acts, which increased the cost of prisons by two thirds and sent the prison population soaring. Their attempt to outflank the right on law and order became a shambles. They ran out of cells in both prisons and police stations. Unable to build their way out of crisis, Labour let 80,000 criminals on to the streets before they had finished their sentences. This ‘End of Custody Licence’ was a disgraceful admission of failure.
My goal is a conservative one: to find effective ways of punishing criminals while reducing public spending. Prisons cost £4 billion a year — over a billion more than they did in 1997. An adult prison place costs the taxpayer on average £45,000 a year; a young offender costs £60,000. This would be money well spent if it stopped people from committing crime. But it does not.
Nearly half of those released are convicted of another crime within 12 months; two thirds within two years. This criminal merry-go-round costs more than £10 billion a year. What kind of penal system is it in which half of all crime is committed by people who have already been through it?
It is true that, in the last 15 years, there has been a substantial fall in the number of burglaries, stolen vehicles and other thefts. But we have not incarcerated more burglars and thieves. Sentences for theft have not grown longer but marginally shorter. Fewer prisoners, shorter sentences, yet the rate went down. That points to factors beyond prison — better vehicle security, for instance.
Look at the US. Since 2000, prison numbers in America have increased and crime has fallen. Cause and effect? Again, the facts suggest not. In Florida, imprisonment rose in the past decade, whereas New York locked up 16 per cent fewer offenders. Violent crime in New York fell twice as fast as in Florida. They spent less on prisons but ended up safer.
It is not surprising, then, that American conservatives now question the wisdom of simply locking up as many offenders as possible. Newt Gingrich, the former Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, asks: ‘How is it conservative to spend vast amounts of taxpayers’ money… without asking whether it is providing taxpayers with the best public safety return on their investment?’
This is one of those rare occasions on which I agree with Newt. Of course locking up criminals gives the public a short break from their crimes. But we must do more than that, when there are better ways, at better value, of punishing offenders and cutting crime.
Sensible people agree that criminal acts should be met with retribution; that the purpose of prison is punishment. Prison is the right place to punish dangerous offenders and career criminals.
But prison is not the answer for every offender. It can harden some non-violent, low-risk individuals, who come out as greater threats to society. We risk creating a criminal underclass that moves endlessly in and out of prison, committing more and more serious offences at each turn.
I am determined to break this cycle by ensuring that prisons are places where hard work and training replaces idleness. But punishment should not always mean prison. I aim to make community punishments tougher, and to ensure that they are properly enforced. Offenders should give something back, restoring derelict buildings, clearing litter or removing graffiti. I also want more consideration for victims, so I aim to place a duty on judges to consider ordering offenders to pay compensation where there is a direct victim.
Most crime in Britain is drug-related. Since drug dependency virtually guarantees that an individual will reoffend, we are putting addicted prisoners into better rehabilitation schemes, including Drug Recovery Wings. We are working with the NHS to have addicts and mentally ill offenders treated by doctors, not prison officers, when we can do so without compromising public safety.
In addition, we are about to unveil six pilot projects to prevent reoffending. Contractors will be paid only if their programmes reduce prisoners’ reoffending. The taxpayer only pays to the extent that crime is cut.
In the administration of justice, getting value for money means finding punishments that make the public safer, and that is what I am proposing: intelligent, Conservative reform.
Comments