Crime

Professor David Nutt, the former Chief Drugs Adviser to the Government, has sparked controversy again today by pronouncing that alcohol is more harmful than heroin, crack, powder cocaine and methamphetamine. His findings are based on a paper published today, which builds on a 2007 journal that explored the same issues. So, is Professor Nutt right? If he is, what should the consequences be for public policy and, in particular, our systems of drug classification and alcohol taxation?   To find out, it is worth returning to Professor Nutt’s 2007 academic paper.  The relative harm of drugs is measured according to nine meters, taking into account the various aspects of physical

The police are more Thin Blue Line than The Sweeney. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary has found that 15 of 22 police authorities perform ‘adequately’, which is defined as meeting ‘most of the minimum requirements of the specified role…they were most effective at dealing with local short-term policing priorities’. More worrying, with forces facing 20 percent cuts: only 4 authorities were judged to have set clear strategic direction and ensured value of money. Worse still, the report found that: ‘In just over half of the police authorities inspected, there is little or no account made of the delivery of efficiencies or workforce modernisation’. These administrative shortcomings are adversely affecting operations,

It has taken Ed Balls 24 hours to steam into action. He says: “The government’s deep cuts of twenty per cent to policing could mean up to 20,000 fewer police officers, according to the Police Federation. And I’m particularly worried that specialist policing units, such as those to tackle organised crime, domestic violence or child abuse which the government no longer considers to be part of the frontline, could be the first to be cut.” This comes as the latest crime figures suggest that crime has fallen, thanks in part to the last government’s massive recruitment drive in policing and its increase of the prison population. Deep budget cuts to

George Osborne’s statement is, I hear, about 40 minutes long. I also hear that there is no obfuscation in it about what is being cut. The coalition is determined that no one can accuse them of trying to disguise what they are up to. Given what we have learned from pre-briefing, the cuts must be just massive in the departments we haven’t heard anything about yet. There is word this morning that the legal aid budget is going to be being reduced by far more than was expected even at the weekend. It appears that legal aid is one of the things that took the hit as the Treasury tried

I hear that the Department of Transport’s settlement is another one that is not as bad as expected. The capital statement is, apparently, positively reasonable. George Osborne’s commitment to infrastructure spending has meant that a good number of transport projects have been saved. On rail fares, I hear they will indeed go up significantly. But not by as much as the doomsday 30 to 40 percent scenario reported in the Sunday papers. Nearly all the settlements we have heard about so far have been less bad than expected. There must be, given that Osborne is sticking to the cuts schedule set out in the budget, some departments that are going

This is the latest in our series of posts on the Spending Review with Reform. A list of previous posts can be found here. What is the budget? The UK has one of the most expensive criminal justice systems in the world, spending a higher proportion of GDP than any other country in the OECD. Total spending on crime amounted to £23 billion for 2009-10. However, recent research suggests that total government spending on public order and safety amounts to more than £31 billion overall. Aside from central government funding, police authorities receive funding from the police, raised locally through council tax. In 2009-10 this amounted to just under a

Policy Exchange has been arguing for some time that the Youth Justice Board  should be abolished, with its functions shared between the Ministry of Justice and local councils. It has just been revealed that the body will indeed be scrapped, despite rumours that the Justice Secretary tried to buy more time before making a decision on its future,  before eventually losing out to the Cabinet Office.  There will inevitably be concern at the news from various children’s charities and penal reform organizations who will argue that young offenders need to be treated as a distinct group. So, why did we argue for the YJB to be scrapped and what will

There’s an intriguing pre-conference story in the Mail on Sunday today. The paper reports that: “Ken Clarke faces a whispering campaign by allies of David Cameron and George Osborne to move him from Justice Minister because of his ‘disastrous’ views on law and order, it was claimed last night. Conservative MPs say Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne are ‘ frustrated’ by Mr Clarke’s refusal to take a tougher line on key issues such as prison sentencing.” Clarke’s liberal views on criminal justice certainly are infuriating his colleagues. Allies of Theresa May have been heard to complain that “Ken is going to send the crime rate soaring and we’re going to

I’m not sure if the sun will ever rise in the east again: Michael Howard has supported a Ken Clarke prison policy. The Justice Secretary has launched a pilot scheme at HMP Peterborough that uses private bond investment to fund inmate remedial programmes to cut re-offending. The Social Impacts Bond will provide £5million to produce £8million over the course of six years, assuming the scheme is a success. The situation required boldness. For once tabloid melodrama is accurate: reoffending is the scourge of our times and its incidence has risen steadily over the last decade. According to Dame Anne Owers, the former chief inspector of prisons, one cause is that