It is time to re-examine the complex relationship between crime and punishment

Prison reform and the criminal justice system have a long history. We have certainly made progress. In the 18th century there were nearly 200 crimes and offences -the “blood code” era- which were punishable by death. Or by avoiding death prisoners were sent to Australia or British colonies in the Caribbean. Or as John Howard the Howard League founder described, living in “filthy, insanitary and cruel cells of the emerging Prison Estate.”

Much of our existing thinking is tired and dated. A new approach, embracing new ideas, understanding society, and confronting our over reliance on prisons is long overdue.

The outcry, over new “early release” schemes, rightly demands reforms rooted not in our obsession with locking up more and more people, but addressing, who needs to be incarcerated and why.

In particular we need a critical review of key issues: First, to examine the proposition that, the best way to reduce the prison population is to send fewer people to prison but make more space for those who need to be there and for much longer periods.

What are prisons for? Who should occupy them and for how long? Simplistic, yes, but providing a way forward that doesn’t obsess on “early release,” a necessary response but rooted in the long term neglect of the prison estate and the refusal to pursue alternative ideas.

Second, our governments rarely talk about, internationally agreed incarceration rates based on the number of prisoners per 100,000 population over 15 years of age. The House of Commons Library stated in 2026 that the rate for England and Wales was 170, and for Scotland 177. In sharp contrast international comparisons for small and large countries, record Finland as 51, Denmark 69, Norway 56, and Germany as 69. The median rate for Western European countries was 73 in October 2024. These comparisons speak volumes about our excessive use and reliance on prison.

Third, reoffending or recidivism rates are alarming - a system of revolving doors.

Fourth, my committee report on the future of the Prison Service in Scotland, “Scotland’s Choice” published in 2008 for the Scottish government, and many subsequent reports have highlighted the fact that short sentences don’t work, so why do we persist with them?

Fifth, for prison officers rehabilitation of offenders is impossible to achieve if prisoners are locked in cells for 23 hours a day, in periods of chronic overcrowding.

Sixth, after a calamitous privatisation by the Tories, now reversed, the probation service in England and Wales needs considerable investment if we are to protect victims and monitor prisoners.

Seventh, despite the introduction of electronic tagging, providers seem incapable or unable to deliver a full proof service, despite remarkable innovations in technology.

Eighth, as sentences get longer, whole life tariffs are handed down and serious crime grows, more prison places can be found by having a closer look at for example, prisoners on “remand,” who are retained in prison prior to trial and sentencing.

Ninth, although not a large part of the prison estate, there are good reasons why the vast majority of women offenders should not be imprisoned, especially on short sentences.

Tenth, prison occupancy is expensive. The average cost per prisoner of imprisonment is £55,000 in England and £45,000 in Scotland.

Overall crime in Britain is falling but there remains a perception gap between the public and much of the political rhetoric and media coverage.

In releasing prisoners, we must bear in mind the more practical point, “that justice has to be seen to be done.” Early release makes sense to the government managing long term prison numbers. For victims of heinous crimes such as the widow of PC harper, the police officer killed in 2019, justice is certainly “not being seen to be done”.

No policies or words will ever compensate the loss of a loved one in such egregious circumstances. Media coverage however important mustn’t be the sole arbiter dictating government policy. On this occasion there are options to be explored, including viewing emergency workers, protecting society, as special cases.

Maybe these complex questions and outcomes can be explained by looking at the role of “gatekeepers” or key players who influence governments and help shape public policy on crime and punishment.

Who are these influencers?

First the people. Prison is often sold as the only punishment. Everything else is judged to be soft on crime and a threat to public safety.

Second, the media, play a vital role informing on issues but often pose incarceration as the only solution.

Third, the courts and judiciary, are crucial, play a critical role and can show their displeasure when politicians intrude or comment on sentencing decisions.

Fourth, politicians are often reluctant to get on the wrong side of the media with views that would risk be attacked for being soft on crime. Ian Birrell writing in the I Paper said, “there is nothing tough about locking people up in cells all day” and added, “politicians must confront their fear to solve this corrosive issue.”

A number of criminal justice policies simply don’t work, being championed by those who see incarceration, supported by myths and misinformation, as the only path to safer communities and offender punishment. Powerful players can frustrate or ignore the evidence for much needed reforms and innovation. They could however become powerful advocates for positive change.