Debates & Lectures archive

Andrew Coyle pointed out that, had this debate been convened eight years ago, the title could have been ‘Is prison value for money’, yet now, we find ourselves asking a more acute question. Imprisonment is the most severe penalty courts can impose and it should be a sentence of last resort – in theory.

In 1975 the Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, said that it would be intolerable if the UK prison population rose above 42,000; last year it was 85,000; we are on the way towards 90,000: what has happened?

Crime has been falling yet rates of imprisonment are a matter of social and political choice; society has become more punitive and less tolerant. What the criminal justice system cannot do is replace society’s values. In the last 150 years we have abolished capital punishment, corporal punishment and transportation. Ethically, can we afford not to abolish prison?

Helen Kersley said that with an nef (New Economics Foundation) perspective, she could ask, ‘What are our values?’ and ‘What do we value?’, which of course are not the same thing. From a societal viewpoint, no, we cannot afford prison; how do we tolerate what society values?

Our criminal justice system is concerned with a reduction of reoffending, but that does not capture what matters to people in terms of rehabilitation and deterrent. There is a need to apply ‘severe chemotherapy’ to the criminal justice system; currently contact with it only seems to make things worse.

A development of long-term systems of support is necessary so that ex-offenders are given an opportunity to flourish.