Skip to main content

Easy to sound tough on crime

When it comes to crime in politics, it is easy enough to sound tough.  The honest answers usually seem 'soft'.  So, come general elections we expect to hear a tough talk on crime.

Tony Blair found a beautiful message in 1997: "Tough on crime; touch on the causes of crime."  It encapsulated the need to tackle crime at its roots, rather than simply deliver tough sentences.

It is perhaps inevitable that crime, once again,  hits centre stage with London Bridge Terrorist attack.  Here was a man, a convicted terrorist,  who had been released early.   The Tories seized the moment to lay blame on Labour and the Criminal Justice Act, 2003.  This, they said, set in train the early release process that led to the release of .....

It is a diversionary tactic from the scrutiny of a justice system and policing struggling through underfunding for nearly a decade of Tory rule.

Boris Johnson bottled out of the proposed interview with Andrew Neil on BBC television. Still, when he finally appeared this Sunday on the Andrew Marr, he blamed everyone else for almost everything the Tory government did during their decade in office.   It was all the fault of the previous Labour government.  He also appeared to disown his own party by saying he hadn't supported austerity.

Boris Johnson now says we need harsher sentencing.  This is odd because the 2003 Act provided for just that: harsher sentences.

As for the early release scheme, the Tories had a decade of reviews to change it.  What they did do was speed the process up.   Furthermore, the programme remains a central feature of the Justice Department's planning.

The plan published by the  Justice Department on their Website makes this clear. 

"5.2 Reduce the use of prison and increase the use of community and alternative sentences
How we will achieve this
Develop options for restricting the use of short custodial sentences
Implement a new Release on Temporary Licence policy framework
Consider ways to increase the use of non-custodial sanctions"
So, there it is.  While the last Labour government played a significant part in setting up the early release process, the Tories extended its use.  Now, of course, no doubt it will be abolished.   


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As