Most voters aren’t exactly keen on allocating generous government funds to convicted criminals. Consequently, prisons often become a convenient target for budget cuts. In the short run, those most affected—prisoners themselves—are not in a position to influence public discussions or vote. However, in the long term, rundown and overcrowded prisons can lead to increased recidivism, worsen drug and mental health issues, and foster more serious criminal behavior. These outcomes don’t just stay behind bars; they spill out into the broader community, affecting more voters and placing a heavier financial burden on government resources. Cutting corners on justice ends up being what many would call a false economy.
This is something Sir Keir Starmer is acutely aware of, given his background as a former director of public prosecutions. There are promising indications that his administration is genuinely committed to addressing the damage and neglect inflicted by the previous Conservative leadership in this area.
On Wednesday, Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, announced plans to construct four new prisons, adding 6,400 new spaces along with further expansions of current facilities. The justice department received an unexpected boost from Rachel Reeves’s autumn budget, which earmarked an extra £500 million for hiring new prison and probation officers, and £2.3 billion for expanding prisons over the next two years.
Around that time, David Gauke, who previously served as a Conservative justice secretary, was tasked with leading a review into sentencing. In a recent conversation with the Guardian, Mr. Gauke shared some of his insights, highlighting the potential use of specialized courts to provide closer supervision for repeat offenders dealing with addiction.
The review’s findings, scheduled for April, are set to acknowledge that short prison sentences often fall short of their intended deterrent and rehabilitative effects. These sentences sometimes have the opposite impact, turning minor offenders into more seasoned criminals. Implementing significant changes, such as reducing the number of people sent to prison, will require political bravery. The government, having already had to release thousands early to mitigate overcrowding, faced intense media criticism despite a reasonable justification: Labour was simply confronting a problem that the Tories had postponed, anticipating an electoral defeat.
Justifying new policies by blaming former administrations is a tactic that loses its impact over time. The argument for shifting justice policy away from default imprisonment needs to stand on its own. This means making a strong case for the societal advantages of investing in rehabilitation. Fewer repeat offenders result in safer communities and fewer crime victims.
This will be a crucial point the ministry of justice intends to make to the Treasury before the next spending review. Early investment in criminal justice reform translates to long-term financial savings, as persistent reoffending strains various budgets. However, it’s challenging to quantify these future savings, making it difficult for finance ministers to factor them into their plans. Other departments will be advocating for similar considerations, and while the prison system is significant, it’s not listed as one of Sir Keir’s primary objectives. Thus, the recent budget increase might be the only one during this parliamentary term.
The stakes are certainly high. The government has taken a commendable step towards rationalizing criminal justice policies. Yet, if the anticipated benefits don’t materialize, the past tendencies of automatic imprisonment could quickly resurface.
