David Green is Chairman of Civitas.
Criminologists have known for many years that the early release of prisoners leads to an increase in the victims of crime, and yet the new government is determined to go ahead regardless.
It is the predictable result of having such an unassailable majority; if the voters don’t like it, they will have to wait five years until the next election.
There will be plenty of researchers in the Ministry of Justice who are familiar with the authoritative research evidence. Among the studies they will know about is an investigation in the 1990s by prize-winning American economist Stephen Levitt, who studied US states in which the prison population was reduced as a result of court orders requiring prisoners to be released to reduce overcrowding.
In the 12 states subject to such orders, Levitt found that reductions in the prison population led to increases in crime. On average, a reduction of one prisoner led to 15 serious crimes, or index crimes in American official terminology: murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, gang violence, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and arson.
Regular collective pardons have been common in Italy and usually involve the release of inmates sentenced to less than three years. In some cases up to 35 per cent of the prison population was released nationwide. Two Italian academics, Alessandro Barbarino and Giovanni Mastrobuoni, examined eight collective pardons issued between 1962 and 1990.
Like Levitt, they found that early releases led to increased crime. As economists they focused on the ‘social cost’ of release – and found it to be significantly higher than the cost of providing enough prison places to match the crime rate. They put the estimated ‘marginal social cost of crime’ at more than double the cost of incarceration.
Labour’s manifesto attacked the Conservatives for failing to get prisons built, and promised that an incoming Labour government would see prisons as of “national importance” and promised to “use all relevant powers to build the prisons so badly needed”.
Sir Keir Starmer claims to be powerless, arguing in one interview that he can’t build prisons in a week. He doesn’t need to.
Cells can be cheaply converted to take two prisoners by buying some bunks, and some of the larger rooms currently used for recreation or education could be temporarily converted to dormitory-style accommodation until new prisons can be built. Shared cells are not unknown here and are common in many overseas jurisdictions. Some prisoners hate being on their own and prefer shared cells.
In recent years overseas offenders have been sent back to their home country to complete their sentence. Last year over 10,000 inmates, some 12 per cent of the prison population, were foreign nationals. Progress on that front alone would eliminate the short-term crisis.
In its manifesto Labour criticised the Tory policy of early release, and yet within a week it is not only continuing the policy but accelerating it. The Government is not at the mercy of events. It has a choice, and it’s currently making the wrong one.
Given the public pronouncements of the prisons minister, it is more likely that the Government has seized the opportunity to fulfil a long-standing ambition. James Timpson told Channel 4 this year that “we’re addicted to punishment”, and went on to claim that: “So many of the people in prison in my view shouldn’t be there.” He thought that about one third should not be inside.
The Government has responded to criticism by promising to recruit a thousand additional probation officers by next year, but government researchers have long known that probation supervision is very light and makes very little difference to reoffending. Even when probation supervision is more intensive it does not protect the public as effectively as prison.
It was fashionable a few years ago to experiment with ‘intensive probation supervision’ and schemes were implemented both here and in America. A report in 2005 on the Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme (ISSP) in England found that the rate of reoffending was higher for those undergoing intensive supervision: 84 per cent for ‘community ISSP’ and 72 per cent for the comparison group on regular probation.
As the American studies concluded, this was probably because offenders continued their criminal lifestyles, but the higher level of supervision meant that their crimes were detected more frequently. Catching criminals more often was a good thing, but it did not reduce the number of crime victims.
The early release of prisoners endangers the public. But with such a large majority the Government can safely ignore inconvenient evidence.
David Green is Chairman of Civitas.
Criminologists have known for many years that the early release of prisoners leads to an increase in the victims of crime, and yet the new government is determined to go ahead regardless.
It is the predictable result of having such an unassailable majority; if the voters don’t like it, they will have to wait five years until the next election.
There will be plenty of researchers in the Ministry of Justice who are familiar with the authoritative research evidence. Among the studies they will know about is an investigation in the 1990s by prize-winning American economist Stephen Levitt, who studied US states in which the prison population was reduced as a result of court orders requiring prisoners to be released to reduce overcrowding.
In the 12 states subject to such orders, Levitt found that reductions in the prison population led to increases in crime. On average, a reduction of one prisoner led to 15 serious crimes, or index crimes in American official terminology: murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, gang violence, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and arson.
Regular collective pardons have been common in Italy and usually involve the release of inmates sentenced to less than three years. In some cases up to 35 per cent of the prison population was released nationwide. Two Italian academics, Alessandro Barbarino and Giovanni Mastrobuoni, examined eight collective pardons issued between 1962 and 1990.
Like Levitt, they found that early releases led to increased crime. As economists they focused on the ‘social cost’ of release – and found it to be significantly higher than the cost of providing enough prison places to match the crime rate. They put the estimated ‘marginal social cost of crime’ at more than double the cost of incarceration.
Labour’s manifesto attacked the Conservatives for failing to get prisons built, and promised that an incoming Labour government would see prisons as of “national importance” and promised to “use all relevant powers to build the prisons so badly needed”.
Sir Keir Starmer claims to be powerless, arguing in one interview that he can’t build prisons in a week. He doesn’t need to.
Cells can be cheaply converted to take two prisoners by buying some bunks, and some of the larger rooms currently used for recreation or education could be temporarily converted to dormitory-style accommodation until new prisons can be built. Shared cells are not unknown here and are common in many overseas jurisdictions. Some prisoners hate being on their own and prefer shared cells.
In recent years overseas offenders have been sent back to their home country to complete their sentence. Last year over 10,000 inmates, some 12 per cent of the prison population, were foreign nationals. Progress on that front alone would eliminate the short-term crisis.
In its manifesto Labour criticised the Tory policy of early release, and yet within a week it is not only continuing the policy but accelerating it. The Government is not at the mercy of events. It has a choice, and it’s currently making the wrong one.
Given the public pronouncements of the prisons minister, it is more likely that the Government has seized the opportunity to fulfil a long-standing ambition. James Timpson told Channel 4 this year that “we’re addicted to punishment”, and went on to claim that: “So many of the people in prison in my view shouldn’t be there.” He thought that about one third should not be inside.
The Government has responded to criticism by promising to recruit a thousand additional probation officers by next year, but government researchers have long known that probation supervision is very light and makes very little difference to reoffending. Even when probation supervision is more intensive it does not protect the public as effectively as prison.
It was fashionable a few years ago to experiment with ‘intensive probation supervision’ and schemes were implemented both here and in America. A report in 2005 on the Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme (ISSP) in England found that the rate of reoffending was higher for those undergoing intensive supervision: 84 per cent for ‘community ISSP’ and 72 per cent for the comparison group on regular probation.
As the American studies concluded, this was probably because offenders continued their criminal lifestyles, but the higher level of supervision meant that their crimes were detected more frequently. Catching criminals more often was a good thing, but it did not reduce the number of crime victims.
The early release of prisoners endangers the public. But with such a large majority the Government can safely ignore inconvenient evidence.