Treating the root cause

Last week the Sentencing Guidelines Council announced changes to the approach in relation to certain drug offences. Unlike changes to the guidelines for offences of assault and burglary, which came into force recently without much comment, these latest changes, due to take effect on 27 February, have caused significant controversy.

Because of their insidious impact and pernicious nature, drugs and those who involve themselves in drugs are frequent topics of debate. So, when there is a suggestion that sentences related to drug crimes may in fact be reduced for certain aspects of that criminality, you might expect a reaction. The new guidelines do not disappoint in this respect.

One of the changes highlighted in the press is the proposed reduction in sentences for drug 'mules'. 'Mules' are individuals (often women) who, whether perceived or in reality, are tricked or forced into crime; taking the role of moving drugs from place to place. Often, this involves travelling across borders of countries, therefore resulting in illegal importation. The new guidelines propose that in circumstances where it can be identified that mules are playing a lesser role or are forced into the crime, they now face a starting point of custody reduced from that currently in place.

To many, that may seem to be a fair position to take. The people who operate higher up may seek out those more vulnerable and cajole, persuade or force them into doing what is the most dangerous aspect of the trade; dangerous not only in that they stand a greater chance of getting caught, but, in many cases, dangerous to their own health as drugs are often moved inside the body. It should perhaps follow that when those people are caught their vulnerability should be reflected.

Narrow view

I have heard opinion, however, that an army can only operate if the generals have soldiers to do their bidding, and that, whatever the motives of those who sign up to be the foot soldiers, whether it is economic necessity, conscription or press gang, they facilitate the bidding of those above and ought therefore to face the full sanctions attendant on capture. To view it in such stark terms fails to take account of people's personal circumstances and factors that should be properly considered and factored into sentence.

In addition to looking at the foot soldiers, the recent review proposes that those who operate at the top level should receive higher sentences for their involvement. The reasoning is, of course, that higher sentences not only punish those involved but act as a deterrent to others who may consider getting involved. Factored into this, however, is the likelihood of being caught if sufficient distance can be put between the persons operating at those levels and the actual ground floor activities. Whatever the potential sentencing, it has little or no effect if the likelihood of being caught is remote.

Radical rethink

One overriding thought, however, is that whatever the change in the guidelines '“ be it higher sentences for some or lower for others '“ are we not simply Canute-like in our view; simply shifting the throne along the beach. There is a danger that should we not readdress the whole question of our attitude to drugs, then, very soon, regardless of our position, the waves will have washed over us unabated by whatever we may have said sentences ought to be.

Is now not the time, given that the question of drug-related crime sentencing is in the public eye, for a proper root and branch review of our policy towards drugs? Shouldn't addiction be seen for what it is, a medical problem?

Perhaps if addiction is treated as such, with supplying drug users becoming effectively funded by the state, the potential profit from the trade of drugs will be greatly diminished. By a fresh approach, not only will the drugs trade itself be dealt a significant blow but also the wider criminal sphere where individuals are committing offences such as shoplifting or burglary to feed addictions.

It would take a radical rethinking and overhaul of the system, but, given the present approach does not appear to work, it is a legitimate question to ask. What have we got to lose?

Instead of trying to hold back the tide we should start looking at the ebb and flow of the waves in a different fashion.