Doing time

Much has been made of the government's apparent U-turn on sentencing policy. The Labour party has claimed that the Ministry of Justice is shambolic '“ but in fact the coalition government has a pretty considered approach to the challenges in the justice system.

True, there have been some public relations disasters. But overall the publication of a green paper with a long period of consultation and legislation planned for the summer contrasts starkly with the NHS restructuring and dismantling of local education that are being rammed through.

Most of the sentencing proposals were welcomed by penal reformers, who considered this a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver real change. However, with plans for sentencing reform delayed, the government must find a way to reallocate the financial savings and this must be through a reduction in the numbers of people in our behemoth of a prison system.

The justice secretary's plan to increase the maximum discount available for offenders who pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity from 33 per cent to 50 per cent was a blunt effort to boost conviction rates and save £134m a year. Officials have already begun looking at alternative plans that would save as much money as the early guilty plea proposal was intended to produce over the next four years.

We all know the vast expense of keeping someone in jail. And research published last week by the Howard League suggests that our use of prison is not only vastly expensive, but counterproductive.

The extensive research project, No Winners, found that the deterrent effect of short-term sentences is lost on people who are jailed time and time again. While prisoners serving their first sentence were 'unanimous' that it would also be their last, those who had served several sentences already said time behind bars was 'relatively easy because it was something they were used to'.

Rehabilitation revolution

The report also found that serving a number of short prison sentences may reduce the ability of prisoners to take responsibility and led many prisoners to 'regard their return to prison as inevitable'.

The effect of poverty and deprivation on crime was exposed, as some people interviewed for the report explained that short prison sentences ensured that homeless people had a roof over their heads in winter. The report found that 'for some men their quality of life was better in prison than it was in the community', although for most it was 'boring, leading to disillusionment and demotivation'.

Over two thirds of those sentenced to less than a year in prison are reconvicted within two years of release. By contrast, the reoffending rate for community orders was 36.8 per cent in 2008. Prompt, well-resourced and well-structured community programmes can challenge and change people for the better. But our overcrowded prisons fail to offer lasting solutions to crime. Spending a few weeks in prison lounging on a cell bunk is the real 'soft' option.

An increase in the use of community sentences fits closely with the government's desire to increase the visibility of community sentences and its strategy for reducing offending. For the majority of people who have committed non-violent offences, community sentences are more likely to reduce the seriousness and frequency of reoffending.

The government must increase the use of community sentences as part of a strategic approach to managing the prison population downwards. In Canada during the 1990s, cuts to public spending saw the prison population reduced by 11 per cent. During that decade, crime also fell to its lowest rate for 25 years, including drops ranging from 23 per cent for assault and robbery to 43 per cent for homicide.

Cuts across the board would be unwise given that a reduced prison population will require increased resources for community provision. But investment in probation services, while reducing the prison population and reoffending rates to make society safer, is a real option for the government. Now that's what I call a rehabilitation revolution.