Rebalancing the UK Justice System - Coursework Example

Reoffending and Punishment Control: Labour Government vis-à-vis Coalition Government Abstract The victory of the Conservatives in the May 2010 elections ended the more than a decade rule of Labour. A Coalition Government was created between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats and recently appointed Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke immediately scored predecessors for a justice system gone awry, reviving the “punitive populism” criticism often hurled against Labour’s handling of crime and sentencing. Mr Clarke announced budget cuts asserting that his department will not spend for criminals but only for victims and the law-abiding public – a remark that smacks of punitive populism. Moreover, he proposes tougher prison reforms where inmates will have to work hard to earn their keep and to pay their victims and where prison should be confined to serious and violent offenders. The rest are to be imposed tougher community sentences to minimise government expenses. This bifurcated approach towards crime and sentencing are not, however, dissimilar to the Home Office Report published the Blair administration in 2006, where the proposed reforms were said to be geared to rebalance the scales of justice towards the victims and the public and away from the offenders. The only exception was that whilst the Labour government was ready to spend billions to ensure the success of their proposed reforms, the present dispensation would rather save its money. Moreover, the present proposals are not new. These were the same approaches of the Conservatives in 1987, approaches that had to be watered down because of their unfavourable outcome and later totally dropped because of public pressure. More importantly, the proposals are sweeping and do not take into account the theory of social exclusion, which considers factors that influence re-offending. The proposal to cut the budget especially for prisoners entails halting programmes, which studies have identified as important in reducing reoffending. Introduction In the May 2010 general elections, the Conservative Party finally ended more than a decade rule of the New Labour Party, taking the largest number of votes albeit several seats short to reach majority votes. Since a hung Parliament resulted, a coalition had to be created between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats at the behest of the Queen. The new Secretary of Justice of the Coalition Government, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, in his first major speech in June assailed the present prison policy as ineffective and a veritable “revolving door of crime and reoffending” citing the record high of prison population in 2010. In another speech towards the end of the year, Mr Clarke criticised the former New Labour government anew for being “all spin” but lacking substance and failing to solve the problem of reoffending. The Justice Secretary laid down the areas with which his new administration at the Ministry will be reforming in the next few years: reducing reoffending; reforming criminals; reforming prisons and prison life, and; paying the private and public sector for their effective participation in cutting crime rates (Clarke 2010). This paper seeks to understand whether this criticism against the previous government is warranted, particularly the charge of its being “populist punitiveness” and whether the present coalition government’s planned reforms are a departure from this type of policy. This paper will also look into the strengths and weaknesses of the present proposals for reforms. 1. Materials and Methods To answer the question posed in this paper, there was a need to examine the policies of the previous dispensation regarding the criminal justice system. Before that however, there was a need to examine the terms underpinning this research and these included “punitive populism,” “penal populism,” “penal punitivism,” and “populist punitiveness.” Understanding of these terms was necessary to be able to make an informed judgment whether or not the policies of the previous government under Labour did indeed come within the ambit of these terms. In July 2006, the Home Office under the Tony Blair administration published a report entitled Rebalancing the Criminal Justice System in Favour of the Law-Abiding Majority, Cutting Crime, Reducing Reoffending and Protecting the Public. The report reviewed the Blair government’s plans to institute new measures geared to further rebalance the criminal justice system by tilting the scales more towards the victim and the law abiding people and away from the criminal. This report provided one of the resources used in this paper because it embodied the thrust of the Labour government in crime and sentencing and indicative of a populist punitiveness thrust. On the other hand, Justice Secretary Clarke’s speech last October 5, 2010 was good indicia of where the present Coalition government is heading as it spoke of future reforms in the justice system although in general terms. 2. Results The person who first coined the term “populist punitiveness” was Professor Anthony Bottoms during the 1993 Colston International Sentencing Symposium in Bristol. In his opening remarks, he used the term to refer to “the notion of politicians tapping into, and using for their own purposes, what they believe to be the public’s generally punitive stance.” Bottoms referred to the term as a concept, which constitutes one of the sentencing influences in the late twentieth century along with the concepts of just deserts/human rights, managerialism and ‘the community.’ With the caveat that the term does not equate to public opinion, Bottoms later enumerated the reasons why this concept finds appeal with politicians in legislating sentencing laws: first, it is believed that it will result to an end effect of general deterrence; second, it will reinforce the idea in the public mind of a certain crime’s degree of moral depravity, such as drug-related crimes or sexual offences, and; third, it pleases electoral constituencies and gains them more votes in subsequent elections (Bottoms 1995 pp. 35-40). The policies of the Labour administration towards crime and sentencing can be gleaned in a report entitled Rebalancing The Criminal Justice System In Favour Of The Law-Abiding Majority: Cutting Crime, Reducing Reoffending And Protecting The Public published in 2006, where it laid down its programme for the entire justice system. The proposed programme sought to reinforce what it claimed as gains, particularly the lower crime rates, already made previously since the start of its term by pushing for more reforms that would consolidate all these gains. These reforms, according to the report, would focus on the following: the victims and the public; the offenders, and; the supporting bureaucracy. The overall objective of the reforms was to shift the scales of advantages towards the former and away from the latter. To benefit the victims and the public, the programme would introduce procedural reforms at parole boards, prosecution and court level; challenging European court judgments; reduce technicalities that would stifle the legal opportunities of victims; assist both practitioners and police; reform the sentencing framework to allow judges to impose longer sentences by eliminating restrictions imposed by prior legislations; make enforcement of sentencing stricter through faster returns of processes, among others; make communities more involved in the dispensation of justice, and; make the police more responsive and professional (Home Office 2006 pp 4-6). Moreover, the same programme was also aimed at introducing new measures relative to offenders. These measures, however, were characterised by a more severe approach towards those who have broken the law, as a means of rebalancing the scales of justice. These measures included the following: forcing down the rate of serious crimes by building more prison houses, getting tougher on knife-carrying, alcoholism, parole decisions, illegal prison activities, asset seizures of offenders and allowing the courts to extend their powers in cases of violent offenders during periods beyond their sentences; nip low level crimes and anti-social behaviour in the bud through more stringent measures, and; introduce tougher approach to drug-related crimes (Home Office pp 4-5). Finally, the Home Office report outlined measures that would make the supporting bureaucracy in step with the rebalancing programme and this was proposed to be done through the simplification and streamlining of police agencies, the courts and other agencies involved in the processing and dispensation of justice; holding consultations with the communities to attract better and more effective ideas; training crime-related agencies and personnel for the purpose of gaining new skills; improving technology used crime detection (Home Office 2006 4-5). On the other hand, Justice Secretary Clarke’s speech last October 5, 2010 assailed the present reoffending rate, referred to it as ‘absurd’ and called it the handiwork of the New Labour administration. He spoke on two other areas, aside from reoffending, where reforms would be implemented and these are on prisons and payments by results. Mr Clarke referred to the programme he is proposing as Rehabilitation Revolution – Prisons with a Purpose to underscore the idea that the reforms will be geared at making the prison sentence so effective that when the convicts are released they will no longer reoffend. To do this, he proposes making prison life tougher where criminals will have to work harder to earn their keep as well learn a trade so that they will be ready for life once released. Moreover, the proposal includes deducting a percentage from prisoners’ earning to form part of compensation to the victims. His proposals also include providing judges with more leverage to impose tougher sentences on criminals and he talked about “punitive alternatives to prison,” which means tougher and more effective community sentences. The Secretary also mentioned compensating private and public agencies that can come up with effective programmes that actually cut reoffending rates (Clarke 2010). 3. Discussion On the basis of the Home Office report published in 2006 during the term of the Blair administration, it is without a doubt that the previous administration was partly engaged in punitive populism. On the other hand, it can also be said that Justice Secretary Clarke’s pronouncement in his 5th of October speech smacked of punitive populism because the reforms he mentioned also catered to the sentiments of the public, especially the public who are disillusioned by the ineffectuality of the Labour justice system. There is a difference, however. Whilst the previous administration plans entailed spending more – for more prison houses construction and other related matters for the benefit of the criminals – the present administration plans to be tougher without spending a cent as much as possible. According to author John Pratt, penal populism is distinguishable by the way it acts on the feelings and emotions of the public. Particularly, it feeds on and incites emotions such as anger at and disenchantment with the justice system and pounds at the perceived bias of the justice system towards criminals in general. However, these feelings and emotions are not necessarily actual but perceived and are often triggered and brought about by media sensationalism. In addition, penal populism thrives on division rather than consensus usually elaborating inaccurately the gap between the justice system and public expectation, when in fact; the gap is not that wide or does not exist (Pratt 2007 pp 12-13). In the Home Office report, for example, the idea itself of rebalancing the justice system seemed to suggest that there indeed existed an imbalance in the treatment of the justice system between the victims and the criminals. However, the Justice Secretary’s speech was also hinting at an imbalance between the victims and the public on one hand and the offenders, on the other when he remarked “The only money my Department will spend is money combined with well-judged change to improve the protection against crime we must give – to society, and to the victims of crime” (Pratt 2007 12-13). Moreover, the speech also capitalised on the public’s emotions of anger and disillusionment, attacking the previous government as if it had committed a grievous crime, when in fact, there were also good developments during its term such as crime rates going down. According to the British Crime Survey, there was an 8% drop of crimes, in general, in 2008 (Casciani 2010), and according to the British Crime Survey for 2005-2006, there was a 43% drop in violent crimes since 1997 (Home Office 2006 p. 65). The favourable condition relative to crime drops, however, was what precisely set some critics to assail the Labour government as engaging in populist punitivism. Jock Young, for example, attacked the Labour government for failing to heed crime statistics by increasing police personnel and building more prison houses when crime rates were in fact, falling, whilst Michael Tonry condemned the government for “waste of public resources” and giving in to public opinion just to keep itself in power. However, Richard Garside defended the populist tendency of the Labour government’s approach towards the criminal justice system as something that is inevitable in the neo-liberal context of the political economy (Garside 2007 pp. 34-65). The criticism against unnecessary spending must have underpinned the present Justice Secretary’s resolve to cut government spending in his Department, with the only expenses intended to be given to the victims and the public only, which is pandering as well to public opinion as expressed by Young and Tonry. Nevertheless, there is merit in the pronouncement of Mr Clarke that prison must not only serve the purpose of serving as punishment and deterrence to criminals but they must go beyond that by preparing the criminals for their lives outside prison – to be productive members of society and most of all, to keep from reoffending. During PM Blair’s term, his government spent £1.6 billion in 2003/04 to augment UK’s police force, provided supporting funds to crime-reduction schemes, expansion of drug treatment to ease drug-related crimes, and prison education (Social Exclusion Unit 2002 p.3). These are the very same goals that have been outlined in the October 5 speech of the secretary. However, considering the statistics cited by Mr. Clarke, it would seem that Blair’s program was not much of a success. The huge amount spent by Blair’s government was likewise fueled by earlier findings of high rate of reoffending during the term of the Conservative government before his. The study accompanying Blair’s announcement admitted the high costs that are attendant to reoffending, which it pegged at £11 billion per annum. If the Blair government had spent that much to curb reoffending but did not succeed much, there may be doubt that the present administration’s scheme, which sounds similar to the Blair programme will succeed considering that Mr. Clarke had already announced drastic cuts in his Department, especially in areas that will benefit criminals alone. The Coalition government’s criticism of the previous government’s approach at tackling crime and punishment is nothing new. When the Conservatives took the helm of the government anew in 1987, one of the first issues on the agenda was reducing the prison population which had then reached a record high of 50,797. The response was the bifurcation approach, in which only offenders of serious and violent crimes were to be imprisoned and the rest were resigned to community service. Nevertheless, both punishments were made more stringent, as is being proposed today by Mr Clarke. This reform policy was underpinned by the notion that “imprisonment is not the most effective punishment for most crime” and “can be expensive way of making people worse,” the very same pronouncements coming from the Justice Secretary. The Conservatives had to ease up on this approach, however, because of subsequent prison disorders stemming from the tough prison conditions. Furthermore, the Conservatives had to resort back to the law-and-order approach due to public pressure in the wake of the Bulger murder in 1993 (Cavadini & Dignan 2007 pp. 373-374). Moreover, the present government’s proposal for reforms has a sweeping characteristic to it. It is clear that its very objectives are tougher approach and frugality, to be made applicable to everyone without differentiation. This is in complete contrast with Labour’s approach. It could be remembered that when PM Blair first took office, he immediately established a Social Exclusion Unit to study the needs of the marginalised sectors of society to ease them into mainstream society (Gough, Eisenschitz & McCullough pp.1-2). This received criticisms from Will McMahon, amongst others, who describes it as an underclass approach, pandering to the socially excluded, but ineffective considering that the very sectors of society to whom the government tried to do so much for, not only were not able to rise above their condition, but seemed to be in a much worse situation as indicated in the increasing number of black men in prison 4,000 to 12,000 in the last two decades (McMahon pp. 22-23). Nevertheless, social exclusion studies have shown that there are factors that closely influence re-offending for which the government must take into consideration such as: education; employment; drug and alcohol misuse; mental and physical health; attitudes and self-control; institutionalisations and life-skills; housing; financial support and debt, and; family networks (Social Exclusion Unit 2002 p. 6) Except for the drug issue, Clarke’s speech was silent on these issues. The implication of all these is that, there is previous proof that the direction in crime and punishment that the present government is taking was not successful in the past and that the present government is about to institute reforms that will relegate the social exclusion approach to the backroom. Moreover, a comparison between the Labour government’s approach and the present government’s approach point to the same underpinning: populist punitivism. Both approaches attempt to implement a system which it thinks are favoured by public sentiments without actually conducting a survey on what the public sentiments are. The pronouncements of the present Justice Secretary indicates that he would be taking a bifurcation approach: one that that prescribes tougher imprisonment condition for serious and violent offenders and also prescribes tougher community sentencing to non-serious offenders. This is a worse approach and breaks the just desserts policy that underpins most justice systems. In addition, the present dispensation would be hampered by budget cuts that the Department is imposing on itself. 4. Conclusion The criticism that the previous Labour government’s approach to crime and punishment control was of a punitive populism type has some basis. The use of the tag ‘rebalancing’ the justice system to favour the victim and the public as opposed to the criminal carried the badge of this kind of approach. Evidently, the Labour government wanted to earn public approval for putting into words what some people perceived the justice system to be: biased in favour of offenders. Nevertheless, the present government does not entirely come clean from this criticism considering the way the Justice Secretary declared his intentions of rehabilitating the justice system. He had similarly used words that were meant to stir public opinion against the justice’s system perceived bias against victims by declaring that he will not spend anything other than for the victims and the public’s welfare. Moreover, he had reserved the harshest words for his predecessors, which is still appealing to the public’s feelings of anger and antipathy to the previous dispensation. The more important consideration, however, is the staleness of the proposed approach of the present government to crime and punishment and the fact that there is indication that it would throw out the window previous studies indicating a close relationship between reoffending and prisoner welfare in nine key areas. The bifurcation approach has been attempted to be done by the Conservatives before but had to tone it down because of ensuing unfavourable repercussions. Moreover, this is a departure from the just desserts approach considering that the toughness approach will be applied uniformly to both prison and community sentences. In addition, cutting the Justice budget couple with the Secretary’s animosity towards spending for the criminals indicates watering down the social exclusion, the very goal of which is to cut reoffending. The success of the present reform proposals is in great doubt here. Perhaps, the present administration should take into consideration the study done by Professor Downes and Dr Hansen to spend more in welfare to lower crime rates. The same study shows that seven countries with the highest imprisonment rates spend less on welfare below average in proportion to their respective GDPs. On the other hand, Denmark, Sweden and Finland, three states with the highest amount spent on welfare had the lowest imprisonment rates (Downes & Hansen 2008 pp. 1-8). 5. Literature Cited Bottoms, A. (1995) ‘The Philosophy and Politics of Punishment and Sentencing’ The Politics of Sentencing Reform by Clarkson, C. & R. Morgan. Oxford University Press. Cavadini, M. and Dignan, J. (2007) The Penal System: An Introduction, 4th edn. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Casciani, D. (2010) Crime Figures Show 8% Fall in England And Wales. Retrieved 28 december 2010 BBC News. < http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8472007.stm> Clarke, K. (2010) Ken Clarke: Making Prisoners Pay to Support Crime, Conservatives. Retrieved 27 2010. Downes, D, and Hansen, K. (2006) Welfare and Punishment: The Relationship Between Welfare Spending and Imprisonment. Crime and Society Foundation. Retrieved 23 December 2010 Garside, R. (2007) ‘Punitiveness’ and ‘Populism’ In Political Economic Perspective, Social Justice and Criminal Justice (eds) Roberts, R and W. McMahon. Retrieved 23 December 2010 Home Office. (2006) Home Office Statistical Bulletin: Crimes in England and Wales 2005/06. Retrieved 22 December 2010 < http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb1206.pdf> Home Office. (2006) Rebalancing the Criminal Justice System in Favour of the Law-Abiding Majority: Cutting Crime, Reducing Reoffending and Protecting The Public. Criminal Justice System. McMahon, W. New Labour – Social Transformation and Social Order Pratt, J. (2007) Penal populism. Taylor & Francis. Social Exclusion Unit. (2002). Reducing Reoffending By Ex-Prisoners. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Retrieved 24 Decemebr 2010. Read More