Crime, punishment and redemption -Jun 15, 2006

Tony Blair is desperate to regain the initiative on crime after a damaging political row about released criminals. As a result, the Lord Chancellor has been told to deliver justice that is “speedy, simple, and summary”, with public safety the central concern.

The new Home Secretary, John Reid, has received similar instructions – and is currently enjoying the headline popularity of accusing judges of ‘being soft’, even when they are simply following the rules the government has set.

The tabloids are also in on the act – confusing people into thinking minimum sentences are maximum ones, and paying little attention to the true the impact of Britain’s tendency to imprison more and more people.

At one level, all this is a predictable reaction to a media-conveyed furore, which reflects and contributes to a wider moral panic about law and order. But, at another level, it threatens to tip the balance in the clash of criminalisations at the heart of government.

Since 1997, more than 40 pieces of criminal-justice legislation have been passed. Labour has introduced more than 100 new criminal offences in each and every year since it came to power. It has talked tough on crime, and its actions have spoken just as loudly.

Such an approach is not new. Indeed, it is the one represented by the ancient figure of Justice that sits above the Old Bailey, and in the antechamber to the House of Lords.

Objective and removed, she waits for the criminals to offend. When a violation is committed, a process geared towards the offender's punishment commences. Her sword comes down in judgment, and justice is said to have been done.

But an alternative vision has also been present during the past ten years, and it is one that has roots in alternative Christian ideas. Crimes are also seen as a breakdown of relationships. Attempts are made to make things right again.

The emphasis of this perspective is not on criminalisation, but on bringing the parties around any crime together. The victim, family or community might get to tell their stories, explain their hurt, and overcome their fear. The offender is faced with the human cost of what he or she has done, and its implications. There is scope for reparations to be made.

Labour's rhetoric has often masked this alternative approach, and its legislative programme has frequently been at odds with it. But a number of government projects have also taken forward this quiet revolution. Sentencing guidelines have reflected restorative possibilities.

Within such moves, there is a recognition that creating more offences, and putting more people behind bars for longer, is no long-term solution. It seldom satisfies the requirements of justice, and, at some point, most people must be released, as recent tensions over human rights have highlighted.

When offenders are released, more often than not they go on to re-offend, having been schooled further in criminality behind bars, but never confronted with the true consequences of their actions. Prisons are rarely places of redemption.

One of Mr Blair's legacies could still be the beginning of alternative initiatives, which could provide, in the long term, the public security he values. They are still in their infancy, and much is yet to be explored and tested. But, at the end of his premiership, it would be a tragedy if he reverted to the failed mantra of “prison works”.

To be both tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, those who have offended must be brought face to face with the true consequences of their actions, not shut away in institutions, to be released one day, and, more than likely, offend again. That is as cruel on victims as it is hopeless for offenders.