Justice Secretary Ken Clarke’s proposals for penal reform have landed him in hot water with some of the self anointed ‘tough on crime’ brigade. In a speech to the Centre for Crime and Justice recently, Clarke challenged conventional wisdom stretching back over two decades. Eschewing the ‘prison works’ rhetoric of one of his predecessors Michael Howard, the new Justice Secretary called for greater use of community service to reduce both prison numbers and re-offending rates.

Let us be clear, there is a role for prison both to protect society from some of its most violent individuals and also to act as a deterrent.

I subscribe to the view that a prison sentence should be something to fear – there should be no toleration of drugs in jail, no perception that you are met with a stay full of life’s little luxuries and life sentences for murder should mean just that. There also needs to be an equally strong phase of rehabilitation and re-education prior to any release. Recent examples have shown the perilous potential results of premature release.

Over-crowded prisons and high re-offending rates however characterise the British penal system. Whilst we haven’t quite reached the dramatic US level whereby almost 1 in 100 adults are in jail, the prison population in the UK is now one of the highest in Western Europe and the highest it has been in British history. The number of inmates has more than doubled since 1993 from 40,000 to over 85,000. 20,000 inmates share cells designed for one and since 2007 80,000 criminals have been released early to ease over-crowding. That we can’t focus our energies to imprisoning those that actually should be there and instead are releasing violent criminals early due to financial pressures is scandalous. We could learn a lot from the Dutch model which has seen both a deliberate fall in prison numbers (and an emphasis on community sentencing) accompanied by a fall in crime.

Driving the astronomical rise in the prison population in the UK  is the proliferation of custodial sentences and especially short sentences. Two thirds of those in prison are there for less than a year and the majority of those are there for less than three months. Many of these inmates leave prison for a life of unemployment, homelessness, and crime.

Many argue that prisons are increasingly no more than ‘criminal training academies’, solidifying rather than breaking the cycle of crime. Re-offending rates in this country are alarming. Over 40% of inmates will re-offend within twelve months of release or 60% of those serving short sentences. This is the so-called ‘revolving door’ syndrome as the same people pass through jail several times. Despite New Labour’s pledge to be ‘tough on the causes of crime’, rehabilitation remains frustrated by a lack of funds and prison over-crowding.

The wider social impact is a serious if under-publicised issue. An estimated 160,000 children have at least one parent in prison and are three times as likely to engage in anti-social or delinquent behaviour than their peers. 65% of boys with convicted fathers go on to offend themselves.

Clarke blames the ‘bang ‘em up’ mentality of the past two decades which if allowed to continue will see the prison population rise to near 100,000 in five years. While he acknowledges that the prevailing wisdom is not completely misguided he does challenge a key underlying assumption, namely that a correlation exists between prison numbers and crime rates. While it is true that from 1993 prison numbers doubled while crime rates halved, from 1951 to 1971 prison numbers also doubled and crime rates trebled. Not unreasonably Clarke argues there are more important factors influencing crime rates.

This clears the way for greater use of community service to deter, rehabilitate, and reduce prison numbers. This approach has senior judicial support. The former Lord Chief Justice Woolf argued in 2007 that custodial sentences should be reserved for ‘violent criminals’. Otherwise sentences should be reduced and tough community punishments applied in far more cases.

Nearly two decades since Michael Howard fired the starting pistol of a rampant rise in the prison population, and with mounting evidence that conventional ‘wisdom’ is no longer working, Ken Clarke’s considered, evidence-based intervention is highly welcome.

 Marcus Booth is a former Co-Chairman of the Conservative City Circle Law Panel

The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976, which first introduced anonymity for complainants, also provided for anonymity for defendants: apparently for the purpose of providing equality between complainants and defendants, and to protect potentially innocent defendants from stigma. However, this provision was repealed in 1988 and people accused of sexual offences therefore no longer have any particular entitlement to anonymity, it has now again been the subject of debate.

During the passage of the Sexual Offences Bill in 2003, an amendment, later to be defeated, was introduced in the House of Lords that would have granted limited anonymity to suspects and defendants in cases involving sexual offences. Lord Ackner moved a clause that would have granted defendants the same right to anonymity as complainants, the Home Affairs Committee also came out in favour of anonymity for the accused; however, the Government rejected the arguments behind the new clause and it was subsequently removed by the Commons (338 votes to 173)

Now it has been brought forward again – a proposal had not appeared in either party’s election manifesto, although both parties had spoken in support of some form of defendant anonymity during the passage of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the Liberal Democrats had formally adopted it as a policy at their 2006 conference, which make the attacks of Kerry McCarthy in last night adjournment debate especially disingenous. Caroline Flint at the forefront of the attack goes onto to launch the standard line about women coming forward after the accused are named.

I’m dismayed. You could potentially attack the idea of ‘innocence before proven guilty’ under such reasoning. In reality, yes, the law does protect people who are accused of crimes. I’m afraid that we can’t sacrifice that principle purely because any accuser/victim wants to feel more comfortable reporting crimes.

Yes, publishing the names of the accused may have substantial benefits – for example, more women might come forward. However, in every area of criminal law, we must assume that people are innocent before they are proven guilty. People could simply accuse an innocent person of raping them solely so that their life is ruined. It happens – and it’s unacceptable. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 provided that evidence of the defendant’s ‘bad character’ or hearsay evidence may be admitted in some circumstances has led to the situation being even worse.

We should treat people as an end in itself, not a means to an end. A person ought to have rights – and the right not to be vilified as a potential rapist when you could, potentially, be innocent seems like a very decent right to have. That right shouldn’t be trampled over despite a competing objection that it would help in rape cases, for else the accused merely turns into a pawn/tool for the government so that they can get more convictions to boost their stats on rape cases. I value my right not be treated as (and associated with being) a rapist before an actual conviction has been made; and I don’t see how it should be trampled over just because the ‘mob’ desire it, or because it allegedly produces more convictions. Newspapers give a great deal of coverage of the opening of a trial with full details of the defendant, but by the time the trial ends, if the defendant is acquitted it has ceased to be newsworthy and the acquittal is not reported. It would be a serious advance if we did provide anonymity for both parties. It is time to end this injustice.

That is not to say that rape is not a very serious crime – it is. The rights and welfare of the victim are vital, and we should all be committed to ensuring that every victim of rape has access to appropriate support. In particular, the coalition are looking to establish new rape crisis centres where there are gaps in provision and to put funding for such centres on a stable and long-term footing. There are 39 such centres and they are looking at the possibility of a further 15, as noted by Baroness Stern’s review on helping the victims of rape. There are also a number of things the police could do a great deal better. Some women are treated with suspicion and dismissive comments. Others felt that lack of a specialist support officer hampered their chances of recovering and ensuring that the rapist was brought to justice. Baroness Stern recommended more specialist advisers, greater training, and more ‘intelligence-led’ policing, all of the things we should be looking to support.

Honesty is also required if we are to attaince for everyone in society – There is a misinformation put out by many, including in debates recently about the low conviction rate for rape (‘94% of rapes don’t end in conviction’ is the standard line). The rape conviction rate is then compared unfavourably to conviction rates for other crimes. Yet this is a myth. The conviction rate for rape is between 50-60%, which is higher than for most other crimes, the amount of hysteria being spread about these false statistics must be stopped, they are the people that have contributed to the publics scepticism of rape accusers, despite them claiming that allowing for anonymity may throw their claim into doubt. They are wrong. Allowing for anonymity of the accused would completely rid the image of a victim making false accusations for publicity or revenge.

Those attacking this proposal claim they are fighting for ‘womens rights’. I myself, would much rather argue for Human rights, the right to be innocent before proven guilty, the right for victims to be given the care they need, and the right for everyone to acquire justice.

There is a Facebook group in support of the proposals here. and a petition can be put together if people think it’s worthwhile to do so.

The Pre-Budget Report last week promised ring-fenced budgets for policing so that frontline policing services can be protected.  This came with the caveat that £5 billion worth of efficiency savings need to be driven out of the public sector overall.

It seems the perfect time to think about how staff (and costly police officers) can be freed up from back and middle office functions, whilst at the same time strengthening the service to local communities.  At present, each of the 43 police forces of England and Wales have their own Human Resources, Finance, Public Relations, Procurement, Fixed Penalty Notice processing teams and so on.  In addition, each force needs to maintain specialist units many of which, according to Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary reports, are too small to function effectively against crime that crosses police force borders – including serious and organised crime.

It was also announced this week that the Chief Constable of Kent, Mike Fuller, has been appointed as Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service, leaving a vacancy at the top of the Kent force.  Kent Police have been working very closely with Essex Police since July 2007 in an attempt to join up some of these critical services and deliver some savings.  Now is surely the time to facilitate a merger of the two forces to build on the efficiencies and more joined-up policing already delivered.  There are other good candidates too.  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Police forces have wanted to merge for years, but the political will has simply not been there to facilitate this.  Likewise Cumbria and Lancashire proposed to the Home Office back in 2006 that they be allowed to merge to save money and provide a better service.  The then Home Secretary Charles Clarke strongly supported the move, his successor John Reid scrapped all mergers under pressure from the vested interests in Police Authorities.

In the pre-recession wastefulness in public sector spending, where more and more funding was poured in with no clear expectation of improvements in performance or efficiency, this seemed to be acceptable.  It cannot be now, and every support should be given to allowing police force mergers to happen.  The Government would be pushing on an open door – even ACPO recognises the sense in merging police forces.   Mergers are not the solution to all the problems of policing, but the hundreds of millions of pounds that could be saved at a stroke through their facilitation should be grabbed now in advance of the more radical police reforms that are needed.

In the first of a series of posts by award winning think tank, Policy Exchange, the Head of Policy Exchange’s Crime and Justice Unit sets out the impact of the deficit crisis on the Police.

Alan Johnson’s announcement that he is not going to make ID cards compulsory could be any number of things.

It is, first of all, yet another reannouncement – the cards have never actually been compulsory (except for airside workers in Manchester and London, and for foreigners).

Secondly it’s an acknowledgement that the funds just aren’t there.

Thirdly it’s an acknowledgement that the government doesn’t really know what their purpose is – it used to be combating terrorism; then benefit fraud; then underage drinking then probably something else.

And fourthly, it’s a flexing of the power Alan Johnson currently holds.

What it’s not, however, is the abolition of ID cards and/or the National Database. At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy loon, it’s not the card itself that is the big worry; it’s the database.

When I lived in France, I had to have a residency card, which had my photo, name, address, date of birth and nationality on it. I don’t really have any great objection to that; it served as a secondary piece of photographic ID, and I only ever had to produce it when I would have had to do so here (for example, as official proof of address at the Post Office or at France Telecom). I imagine that, had I ever been stopped by the police, I would have been asked to show it but again, I don’t think that providing evidence of who you are in the event of being arrested is really a problem.

My big problem with ID cards and their database is two-fold. Firstly, (unlike France) the UK is not a country where things have to be authorised – the assumption is that you’re allowed to do something unless you are expressly prohibited. Our tradition is much more liberal and free than countries where you’re not allowed to do something unless the law specifically permits it.

But my most major objection is this. Look what the state does when it’s given too much power. Look what Poole Council did using anti-terror laws – they went after people trying to make sure their child got a good education. Look what Labour does with its massive majorities – makes bad laws, wrong decisions and nearly bankrupts us. As I have often argued, the relationship between us as citizens and the state has shifted and is now the wrong way round.

Concrete proposals to restore power to people are a good start. But I suspect an even better one might be to go through and simply repeal law after law after law.

Strangely, I don’t often read the Mirror. But this article is absolutely right. Hunting with dogs was banned – democratically, by a decision of the House of Commons, and in accordance with a Labour manifesto pledge – and agitating now to repeal the ban smacks of throwing a sop to what are perceived to be ‘core supporters’ in a mirror image of the way that the hunting ban itself was seen to have done.

I personally don’t much care one way or another about hunting. I think there are more pressing animal welfare issues (battery chickens, for example). I can’t see why, if we need to control foxes, we shouldn’t extract a sport and livelihoods from that need.

I fundamentally disagree with Edward Garnier’s assertion that just because the law is not liked, it is not legitimate. He should really know better. I don’t like the fact that I can’t judge for myself a safe speed to drive at but I still obey speed limits.

The fact is – the hunting ban IS law. Foxes ARE still controlled. Hunting itself is NOT banned. Breaking the law – any law – should mean that you submit to the appropriate punishment when caught. And making a repeal of the ban your top priority for 2009 (even though I suspect that isn’t strictly true) is a complete nonsense. There are far more important things to worry about.