Offending must always have consequences and we should not be worried of punishment, however treatment is often needed tooAn fascinating fresh movement is growing in the US. Faced with unsustainable costs, rightwing politicians are questioning the decades-ancient mantra that an ever higher rate of incarceration is the best path to fight crime. Former governor of Florida Jeb Bush is the latest high-profile Republican to back the call for fresh thinking.Both in the UK and the US, ancient thinking focused solely on tough enforcement, backed up by an ever-expanding prison population. Indeed, the UK prison population has nearly doubled since 1993 and is at a record level. Yet while crime has fallen – a global trend – it remains also high, with also many victims. Antisocial behaviour is a public concern and blights lives.Half of all crime is committed by those who have already been through the criminal justice system. So the administration has been driving a radical programme of reforms to reduce reoffending. Our “rehabilitation revolution”, under which we are rolling outside the principle of paying public, private and voluntary agencies by results to break the cycle of reoffending, is a truly radical scheme – indeed a earth first.However it must also constitute sense to prevent crime in the first place. This is hardly fresh. Encircling 180 years ago, the founder of modern policing, Sir Robert Peel, said: “The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.”The police cannot prevent crime alone; many community agencies, including health organisations and community authorities, must share this responsibility, and so must citizens. The multibillion-pound costs of failure fall not just on the criminal justice system however on public services and society as whole. Yet resources have historically finished up in the part of the system that comes into play when things go incorrect – the police, prisons and probation.As public services face the challenges of rising demand and constraint in resourcing, wise spending decisions must be made. Increasingly, the focus of the health supply is on public health and disease prevention as well as treating the sick, and these should not be considered as alternatives.It has been nearly two decades since Tony Blair first talked about being tough on the causes of crime. However his remedy – a flood of public spending – meant expensive however poorly targeted programmes. By the end of his premiership Blair admitted that “the rising tide had not lifted all ships”. Today, the resources simply do not exist to repeat the experiment, much if it had worked.The left’s faith in an ever larger and more expensive state also failed to know the importance of social structures and order. Family breakdown, welfare dependency and college discipline were largely ignored. Drugs policy emphasised maintenance, not abstinence, and violence was fuelled by the liberalisation of alcohol licensing. Today’s offenders grew up in Fresh Labour’s years.So the solution must lie in programmes that are locally delivered, autonomous of charge from central micro-management, and specifically targeted. The employment on troubled families launched by the prime minster after the riots at the end summer demonstrates the fresh approach. Delivery is being left to professionals, the focus is on outcomes, and we will be paying for results – a reduction in youth offending.If offending occurs, it must always have consequences. The first instances of wrongdoing – very often nuisance or antisocial behaviour – must be dealt with effectively. Yet one survey found that encircling half of prison inmates have been convicted for at least 30 offences prior to their custodial sentence.When cautions are handed down repeatedly, fines aren’t paid, or community sentences aren’t rigorous, a damaging message is sent to offenders. The state also often acts like a terrible parent, neglectful in repeatedly tolerating terrible behaviour, then inevitably harsh. Like a excellent parent, the state should locate clear rules and boundaries from the commence, dealing with transgression swiftly and surely to prevent escalation.We should not be worried of punishment, however treatment is often needed, also. Offenders with mental health issues should be identified as early as imaginable. Those with substance misuse problems should be place on courses that clean them up rather than just maintaining the habit.Being smart on crime does not mean being soft-headed. Crime should never be excused and offenders should not be treated as victims. Getting them back on to the straight and narrow should be a rigorous task where we demand results, not a misplaced act of compassion.In November the first police and crime commissioners will be elected. The best of them will focus on crime prevention, not just on catching criminals. The public wearied of hollow rhetoric on crime a extended age ago. They are equally sceptical of solutions that appear to be more interested in offenders than victims.However human beings will listen to the commonsense thought that we should be smart on crime. Excellent policy today will prevent the costs of failure tomorrow.This article is based on the keynote domicile to the 12th annual Jerry Lee Crime Prevention Symposium in Washington on Monday 23 AprilCrimePrisons and probationNick Herbertguardian.co.uk © 2012 Twitter News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Employ of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
DOWNLOAD: Rashad Evans