Neil: “For quite some time now, it’s been apparent that there exists a real tension & contradiction in Tory justice policy, and one which will need to be resolved if the party takes power.”

The tension is not just within justice policy, but within all social policy. And it may unravel in an ugly fashion.

The problem is that there aren’t enough social liberals in the Conservative parliamentary party, nor within the likely cohort of new MPs. There may be a desire in Conservative modernisers to create a 21st century party, but they are obstructed by legacy. I’ll take the modernisers on their word because a modern Conservative party is good for UK society, but whether they can deliver…

Alan Duncan is an inconvenient ally on this occasion. So was David Davis in June 2008. They’ve even managed to keep the LibDems on their toes, which is no bad thing given the LibDem failure to look at philosophy in recent times.

Charlieman,

I would agree with that, for the most part – insofar as the Conservatives may become more socially liberal, it would take a lot longer than its modernisers would like. What I suspect is happening here is that the party is hoping that the get tough approach of Grayling will please the grassroots and backbenchers, whilst the work of reforming the prison system could go on quietly in the background. I personally don’t think that’ll work; if you want to get more punitive in the criminal justice system, you’ll inevitably expand the prison system. Given we’re already well on track to having the highest rate of imprisonment in western and central Europe, that doesn’t really bode well.

But what I would hope will be a consequence of the Tories’ prison policy is that it just shifts the policy arguments in a more progressive direction and forces Labour to consider what on Earth it’s been doing for the past 13 years. Hell, just paying attention to the cross-party justice committee’s report on the need for reinvestment in criminal justice (http://bit.ly/4z8ryj) would be a start.

Neil,

Good post. Amazing to think that the Tory Party in large measure hasn’t moved on from the days of Michael Howard, and that Alan Duncan somehow manages to represent the reasonable wing of the party. Not that New Labour’s record on this issue is anything to be proud about whatsoever.

If you’re interested in some of the more philosophical aspects of prison, I’ve a fairly lengthy piece up vis-a-vis the sentencing of the “Doncaster Devil boys” as the BBC named them this morning:

http://badconscience.com/2010/01/24/a-mirror-to-society/

Paul,

Thanks, and no, Labour’s record ain’t much to be proud of. There are 20,000 more prisoners than before they started, recidivism rates are still unacceptable, overcrowding is chronic and causing an early release scheme which makes the public lose faith in the justice system. Their two saving graces are the abandonment of Titan prisons and Anne Owers’ observation that the prison estate is more fit for purpose than it was. Either way, Labour missed a massive opportunity to do things differently in this area.

Cheers for the link, will have a read this evening.

The Tories want harsher penalties for those who break the law; New Labour want more laws they can punish people for breaking.

Second Paul Sagar, great post, very informative and like you, I fear that it may not lead to a more coherent and improved penal policy but at least the thought is there.

@5 Permit me for borrowing a few words from Sunny in another thread: “Wow, shatterface actually making an intelligent contribution.”

Shatterface raises a relevant point: we don’t need more laws or penalties; we have enough laws to address those who offend. Enforcement and honest enforcement are the concerns.

Neil,

To be fair, Titan prisons weren’t exactly abandoned out of choice. If Jack Straw could have kept them, he would have.

Perhaps the problem here is that we allow our judgement to be led by cases such as that in Doncaster, so the debate is always framed in terms related to something shocking (and unusual, but only in extent – violence and bullying are not). Penal reform, whatever one thinks the aim is, needs to be debated in a sensible way. But this debate only raises its head in the light of tabloid-fodder incidents such as this, when politicians feel the need to sound tough to reassure people they perceive as scared (personally I think they underestimate the voters, but no-one has tried an intelligent response yet). It therefore gets nowhere.

@9 Watchman: “Perhaps the problem here is that we allow our judgement to be led by cases such as that in Doncaster…”

The Magistrate’s Blog is a good attempt to put crime and justice into context; even the comments can be well informed:
http://thelawwestofealingbroadway.blogspot.com/

Politicians should keep their gobs shut about theoretical social causes of identifiable crimes, as their words inevitably generate an incoherent debate. They can talk about political and organisational failures that might have contributed towards a freak crime and should leave the sociological analysis alone. When politicians want to talk about crime, they should stick to the aggregate statistics (with which they should not meddle) that present a more accurate and less scary picture.

There’s an excellent video of a debate here:

http://www.intelligencesquared.com/iq2-video/2007/prison-works

The motion is ‘Prison Works’ and the speakers include the Former Lord Chief Justice – Lord Harry Woolf.

What’s exceptional in this debate is the swing in votes before and after the debate with nearly all the undecided voters voting ‘For’ at the end. A fascinating video and it certainly opened my eyes to the role of prisons and their role.

What I found curious in the arguments ‘Against’ was the basic premise that prison fails to reform and therefore it doesn’t work. If this were the case, which is in itself debatable, it assumes that the primary role of prison is to turn bad people good and ignoring the major benefit of prison namely keeping criminals from committing further crimes.