We’re only a few days into the new Labour Government, and Keir Starmer has already said “we’ve got too many prisoners”.
He did add “[and] not enough prisons”, but other statements from his new Prisons Minister, James Timpson, suggest the focus will very much be on reducing incarceration – rather than expanding capacity. Timpson, a CEO known for employing ex-offenders, told Channel 4:
We’re addicted to sentencing. We’re addicted to punishment. So many of the people who are in prison, in my view, shouldn’t be there. A lot should, but a lot shouldn’t. And they’re there for far too long – far, far too long. And that’s just getting worse and worse.
He went on:
We have 85,000 people in prison. It’s going to go up to 100,000 pretty soon. A third of them should definitely be there. There’s another third in the middle which probably shouldn’t be there, but they need some other kind of state support – massive mental health issues, they’ve been in and out of prison all their lives. And then there’s another third, and this is a large proportion of women – prison is a disaster for them because you’re just putting them back in the offending cycle.
Note the use of language here: prison is a disaster “for them”. No mention of their victims or potential victims, who might have an interest in seeing them locked away. No discussion of incapacitation or the deterrent effect of prison.
In any case, Timpson appears to be wrong on the facts, as Twitter-user Aylmer points out. A large percentage of prisoners are there for serious offences: 52% for “violence against the person” or “sexual offences” versus only 17% for “drug offences”. Looking at the numbers, there’s little basis for saying that only a third of prisoners “should definitely be there”.
Now, the problem of prison overcrowding can hardly be blamed on Sir Keir or his Ministers. It’s one of the many things the Conservatives failed to sort out during their 14 years in power. Nonetheless, Labour’s plan of releasing offenders after they’ve served just 40% of their sentences seems very risky and short-sighted.
Though it’s not widely known, Britain has seen a dramatic fall in violent crime over the last few decades: the homicide rate is down around 30% from its peak, the proportion of people reporting violent incidents is down around 70% and the number of people admitted to hospital with violent injuries is also down around 70%.
There are probably a number of factors behind this decline, but among the most important is a large rise in incarceration. Between 1993 and 2012, Britain’s incarceration rate went from 0.09% to 0.15% – an increase of more than 75%. Detentions to psychiatric hospitals also increased.
What this means is that the dramatic fall in violent crime Britain has enjoyed over the last few decades is due in large part to a policy Labour now intends to reverse. Again, it’s not the party’s fault that prisons are overcrowded (well, it is indirectly – via the mass immigration that began under Blair). However, it is now Labour’s responsibility to ensure crime doesn’t shoot back up to the level of the late 1990s.
Talk of being “addicted to punishment” – as if punishing criminals is somehow a bad thing – does not bode well. Labour needs to expand prison capacity, and it needs to do it fast.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“it’s not the party’s fault that prisons are overcrowded (well, it is indirectly – via the mass immigration that began under Blair).”
Well, slappa my thigh it’s that evil Next Tuesday Bliar in the thick of it yet again.
Or, is this bait and switch?
Release a load of criminals knowing full well that the result will be soaring crime rates – recidivism rates are known – and then “with a heavy heart” introduce some draconian laws further restricting freedoms?
“We’ve got too many prisoners and not enough prisons” is not the best way to express the problem. An admission that “we have too much crime” gets nearer the heart of the matter. If the latter question was asked there might be more inclination to dig for the truth and find honest solutions. These might include too much immigration but also solutions such as disrespect for society due to an attitude of entitlement, and the head-in-the-sand approach to family breakdown and integrity.
Why do they want more crime? Divide and conquer, pretending to be kind plays well to the “be kind” voter, excuse for draconian measures, lefties think they can perfect the world.
“Addicted to punishment” – what a crock of crap. Since time immemorial, societies have had sanctions for stepping over the line. Actions have consequences. It’s also not just about punishment, it’s also about deterrent and crucially reducing crime by taking criminals off the streets for a while – amazingly this works!
https://x.com/recusant_raja/status/1810239126161035722?s=48&t=z-QEFmo-T7EyF1VraAWbsg
Slightly Off-T.
Please have a look at this twitter page which I have just received. It confirms all my warnings concerning the muslim vote. They are organised and building momentum. This letter, which went out the night before the election is a direct call to the ‘brothers’ to reject the Labour Party.
Decidedly sinister.
Not (perhaps) quite as sinister: CAFOD’s UK general election 2024: A guide for Catholic voters
Many thanks.
I am a Catholic albeit lapsed.
Sinister and frightening in equal measure.
For those who may not know, this is from their website:
My emphasis above.
Why this organisation is meddling in UK politics is beyond my understanding… (actually, it’s not beyond my understanding).
Also from their website:
They only support what they call sustainable development. Building and supplying efficient, cheap hydrocarbon fuelled energy is anathema to them.
Thanks for the post.
Much as the Vatican has been taken over by the Davos Deviants it is now clear that so has the whole of the Catholic Church.
Very sad.
‘Ere! Hold on!
I fail to see why this would be sinister. These are people who have a right to vote in Britain (for more or less good reasons) and hence, they’re being ‘electioneered’ by other people who want them to vote in a certain way. That’s the system at work exactly how it should be.
Which shows a failure to understand Catholicism.
I was replying to your comment about ‘the muslim vote’. Someone let all these people in and granted them a right to vote. A sinister agenda may have been behind that. But as people, they’re just more voters and thus, targetted by other people who want them to vote in a certain way. That’s perfecty normal: If someone can make a convincing case for religious voting for some religion XY and lots of aherents of XY have a right to vote, than, their voices will carry a lot of weight. It’s up to competitors of this someone to convince them to vote in another way.
We are back at the old missive.
If prison was a deterrent, no-one would commit crime.
If prison was a reform, no-one would be convicted twice.
I recall hearing that in Spain, the first custodial sentence is, on average, after 7 offences. In the UK it is after 110 offences. It suggests we are too slow in challenging people living a life of petty crime, and that life begins early while still at school. Perhaps instead of trying to teach them algebra we ought to teach plastering, and plumbing and cooking. Give them a chance of remaining engaged in school with some skills acquisition that will pay their bills.
Perhaps teach them the relevance of algebra and geometry to plastering or plumbing?
“If prison was a deterrent, no-one would commit crime.” Less people commit crime when they fear punishment.
Most prisoners are from homes with no father. What have we been doing to the nuclear family for the last fifty years?
“Why Does Labour Want More Crime?”
The same reason it wants more poverty. Being Socialist, Statist, interventionalist, it gives it more scope for social engineering, economic micromanagement, tax – captive cohorts of people dependent on Government to solve their problems for them.
Off-T
https://x.com/hiltonholloway/status/1809718077304762747?s=48
Got to keep the gravy in the family.
The son of Kneel’s most important SPAD, after Bliar of course, is an EU fanatic.
Fancy that.
Cabinet made up entirely of Remainers I think.
I am sure you are correct.
Once they are out raping and robbing tptb can claim the perpetrators are all reform voters, the racism will be the “problem” not iniquitous behaviour.
Prison (or the threat of), is also a deterrent, or at least it should be. Remove the deterrent and you don’t need to be a genius to work out what happens next
Is it wrong to suggest they could free up spaces in women’s prisons by not banging people up for not paying the BBC tax?
Stop sending people to prison for contempt of court when they don’t pay the fine for non-payment of the TV licence fee. Get rid of hate crimes and just have hate as an aggravating circumstance. Deport foreign criminals.
Assume people entering the country illegally are both foreign and criminal and detain them until/unless they are found to be otherwise. Yes, I know this won’t help reduce the prison population.
Give illegal entrants a UK biometric ID on arrival. Keep them in low security basic, decent (warm, dry, sufficient food) accommodation. If they abscond don’t pursue – wait until/if they turn up in the criminal justice system and then keep them in high security until they’re either acquitted or we can work out where to deport them.
If that conflicts with ECHR then… well, we know what the enemy is.
‘As if punishing criminals is a bad thing’.
Well, it is a bad thing to those who believe that crime is a result of poor living conditions and mental health (meaning, presumably, ill-health).
In the election campaign a reporter visited Middlesborough. The social workers formerly known as police (as Mr Hitchens calls them) called on a person with mental health to kindly check that there were okay, And at the same time ignored the gangs stealing from failing businesses.
The owners of these businesses were in despair, reporting these thefts to the police to be given crime numbers so that they can make an insurance claim.
This is dealing with ‘crime and the causes of crime’. And of course, it is a way of ‘dealing’ with it. Theft is acceptable within certain parameters.
Strange, though, that a man whose business is that of locksmith should be given the task of unlocking.
“but they need some other kind of state support”————Ah so all this time I thought we were teaching criminals a lesson by taking away their freedom so that maybe they will think twice in future about indulging in crime, but according to the Liberal progressive mindset we should send them to prison to “support them” and therefore maybe some other kind of support would be better. ——I say to all right thinking people does this not make you vomit? Someone who knocked your mother to the ground and kicked her in the stomach deserves “support”
Fascinating a shoe repair, key maker is put in charge of the prison system. Might as well ask one of the guys down at the pub. As a minimum this “job” requires someone with an education in criminal law not a cobbler. Oh well, it is clear where the Uk is headed with this kind of decision making. Adios britain, your own people are destroying the country one step at a time.
The people who definitely should not be in prison are any (and they’re mainly women) who were sent there for failing to pay the BBC’s Poll Tax.
So “Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” is out and “Weak on crime and pathetic excuses for criminal behaviour” is in.
Why? As always: a scared citizenry is easier to control.
Why? They need more cells for dissidents.
Good point. Us lot perhaps.
Why Does Labour Want More Crime? To bring the UK into alignment with the EU where crime is rising and rising and rising due to countries implementing EU policy.
The people in France had an opportunity last Sunday to stop this BUT the President aligned himself with the insane mooslime lovin’ eco-loonies, the migrant lovin’ France Insoumise party and the Communist Party.
I used to work in a shopping centre, in which there was a Timpsons. One Saturday evening before the centre shut, but after the shops had closed, the manager returned and emptied the tills.
That, unfortunately, is one of the downsides of employing former criminals, no matter how well meaning.
Another time, the manager of the Savers branch hotfooted it on a Sunday with 2 days worth of takings (a not insubstantial sum) in a suitcase. The area manager was livid that they did not prosecute him.
Lockdown for law abiding subjects.