Nick Paget-Brown: Crime and the Missing Culture of Punishment

Nick Paget-Brown is a Councillor in Kensington & Chelsea where he is Cabinet member for regeneration. He was previously constituency chairman and has also been a Parliamentary candidate. He runs a consultancy specialising in environmental policy.

So, the latest Queen’s Speech promises even more legislation designed to make an ever-wider range of activities illegal. Unfortunately, as we have come to see from each of these annual inventories of intentions, this Government has shown itself to be hooked on the magical properties of legislation whilst blind to the significance of the powerful cultural and moral values pulling in the opposite direction. Nowhere has this dichotomy been more obvious than in the failure effectively to deal with anti-social behaviour. For years, the Government has proved incapable of addressing the design of a range of effective and plausible sanctions targeted at lawbreakers. The notion of deterrence has withered. Who has stolen the culture of punishment?

It is well-documented that disruptive youths are responsible for many of the anti-social activities which wreck our town and city centres on most evenings and make life intolerable for law-abiding residents. And yet, the current criminal justice system veers between ineffectual hand-wringing and the threat of an eventual big stick in the form of imprisonment in totally unsuitable institutions. The latter succeeds mainly in fostering criminal mind-sets and, for many, will undoubtedly represent the beginning of a journey of “no return” into a life of crime.  All the institutional support provided by the state is therefore designed to avoid the disaster of such a custodial sentence and, it is not surprising that the most disruptive young offenders are fully aware of this and seek to take advantage of it.

A terrible lack of imagination and willpower about enforcement and restitution lies at the heart of the problem. Many professionals have a problem – even with the word punishment – and prefer to get straight on to rehabilitation. The ASBO has done little to change things. For those young people who have crossed the line which separates relatively minor misdemeanours from a fully criminal lifestyle, it is a gambling certainty that no significant action will have been taken against them until they finally reach the stage where a custodial sentence is inevitable. It is this unchallenged escalation which is so damaging. What is needed is a series of milestones before extreme and often counter-productive punishments are ever reached. On this issue, the Government suffers from an extraordinary imagination deficit, where spin about community punishments has long out-stripped the prosaic reality that probation and restitution are not high priorities. The Queen’s Speech might have been a chance to make some progress on alternative and more effective sanctions, but yet again, an opportunity has been missed.

For example, the concept of “a night in the cells whilst we decide what to do with you”, appears no longer to feature prominently as a sanction available to the police as a means of dealing with anti-social or drunken youths. No doubt it would soon be challenged as  involving a loss of human rights and the bureaucracy of invoking any such a punishment would become arduous and off-putting. Similarly, in reality, the public never see any of the “Task Forces” ostensibly intended to require young offenders to clean up the areas which they have despoiled.  Likewise, there seems to be no Government commitment to a full system of residential placements over a series of weekends, which would deprive offenders of a degree of liberty at “peak times” whilst engaging them in worthwhile community activity designed to stretch them physically and mentally. Rather than weeks on remand in a young offenders’ institution, offenders should be required to attend alternative, more pro-active youth rehabilitation centres. Their parents would be legally accountable for ensuring that they did, fully backed up by youth workers, probation officers and the police. Drugs and alcohol would be completely banned. Physical exercise and education in basic citizenship would be integral to the programme. However, setting up running and monitoring such centres, requires a Home Office “fit for purpose” and more culturally attuned to public concerns.

Police and parents both need to know that there are many ways in which young people can make restitution for persistent anti-social behaviour. For example, a range of minor offences could carry fines in the form of “penalty points” which would have to be worked off. Under such a scheme, the painting of graffiti could carry a fine of 10 points, acts of vandalism could be punishable with 20 points, behaving drunkenly or causing offence in public, which the police too often seem unwilling or unable to address directly, could carry penalties of between 10 and 20 points. Points would be issued and recorded by Police and Police Community Support Officers. Head Teachers might also have the power.

These points could be worked off on a range of public improvement activities at times over a weekend when offenders would prefer to be doing something else. Each six-hour block, properly and fully worked, would represent, say, three points deducted.  Anyone with more than 20 points would be sent automatically on a rehabilitation weekend where they would undertake the restoration of neglected and vandalised public spaces which require a clean-up. The points could be worked off and no criminal record would ensue. Keeping out of trouble for a year or more could also contribute to a reduction in the number of points. Parents would also need to be involved and could carry a personal financial liability for ensuring that each point was worked off. The aim would be to deprive perpetrators of their freedom for limited periods and to involve them in public acts of restitution where they would visibly be seen to be contributing to diminishing the damage that they, or others like them had caused. Such a scheme would also involve closer inter-action between young people and their parents and pose each with some clear choices.

Unfortunately, the current direction of legislation shows clearly that whilst we are weighed down by an ever-increasing torrent of laws forbidding things, the cultural values which ought to underpin a truly accountable society, are pointing in a completely different direction. The mismatch between our “liberal culture” fostered and protected by unaccountable “professionals” in alliance with parts of the media, and the real concern of the public to see practical, visible but “positive” sanctions and punishments has become enormous but is largely ignored. Cultural timidity has trumped legislative intent. It is this dislocation which accounts for much of the current public disdain for politics. Until the three elements of morality, policy and culture, essential for the law to have true credibility and to command a consensus, are back in “synch”, however gracious her speech, Her Majesty’s Government will continue to whistle in the wind.

Comments

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Has Nick P-B been exposed to polonium 210?

[Denis Cooper]

I would agree with almost all of this, except -

1. "Points would be issued and recorded by Police and Police Community Support Officers. Head Teachers might also have the power."

I'm increasingly alarmed that people are now subject to summary punishments by state officials and employees of private contractors without due process before an independent court, or are liable to increased penalties if they insist on going to court. I would prefer to see that rolled back not extended. I realise that while a child is at school teachers already have summary powers, within limits, with the implicit agreement of the pupil's parents, but I don't see how that could apply out of school hours.

2. Legal liability of parents for the actions of their children. If society undermines parental authority and disciplinary powers, it cannot then reasonably hold parents responsible for their children's misbehaviour.

[Kinky punishment]

Bring back caning, introduce birching in primary schools, and make prisoners engage in hard labour.

[Mark Wadsworth]

I thought our topic was "Crime and the missing bicycle"?

[Sally Roberts]

Nick, This is an excellent and thoughtful article! Unfortunately the culture of "deterrence" as you spell it out cannot come back - for the reason that we now have the all-pervasive "human rights" culture. Punish wrong-doers - of whatever age, but especially young ones - and you will run the risk of YOU being the one that is sued for somehow breaching their human rights or even - dare I say it - infringing some sort of Health & Safety regulations!!!

[Tapestry]

Yes, Sally. But there is no harm in stating clearly and frequently that the Human Rights approach has undermined the quality of life by removing all respect from human relationships.

[Jay]

I have a comment to make although I do not wish to give my name.

I think we are now living in a society where men and women alike have slowly become devoid of the ability to face and deal with their own personal issues.

We are living in a society where men and women are basically scared of each other.
There is no longer any trust or respect for a fellow human being. This has been made worse certainly for men since 1997 and the ill-fated Protection from Harassment Act.

A lot of domestic / relationship type issues, which would have been dealt with very easily years ago are now subject to extreme legislation and criminality. This legislation as I have personally researched is actually based on weak and ill thought out evidence, or published material.

Granted that in severe and extreme and violent cases a measure of law is required, however what has actually happened is that the slightest tiff or argument between a couple now ends up as a judicial matter.
Almost always it will be the man who is labelled as being in the wrong.

The result of this being is that the prison system is full to bursting with people who do not actually need to be there and the courts are swamped with petty and stupid offences.

We have a "Nanny State", run by an out of control Police force who adopt the rule that "One Glove Fits All". Lets get back to reality. I for one have a bitter experience of Tony Blair's over-legislation. Real people like myself and I dare say thousands of other men are being damaged by what has been done.

The crux of the matter really is that men and women do not think alike and no amount of consultants, experts or academics really can say otherwise.

Lets reserve prisons for the really dangerous people Murderers,Rapists,Child Abusers etc and not your average "Person In The Street", who happens to have fallen foul of a sometimes Wide Ranging Law.

This law and others like it need to be looked at again. Mediation in these kinds of cases needs to play a bigger role, enforced by the courts if necessary.
Lets bring a bit of honestly back to the system. I was brought up to respect the law as a kid from the age of 5, Do I now after knowing what I do. Well the jury is still out on that one I'm afraid.

2032 new laws since Tony Blair came to power
over 200 for every year that they have been in power - Makes you sick really doesn't it !

[Mark Wadsworth]

Jay, don't take it too hard. Our legal system is run by self-serving arrogant badly eduxated incompetent greedy sh*theads, they treat everybody like that.

[Tapestry]

Labour has misused the law so badly that things that should be civil matters are mostly crimes, and things that should be crimes are dealt with as civil matters - in the sense of 'the criminal couldn't help what he did - if only he had not been froma poor family'.

The result - society is angry. But as the government controls the media, (and tries to control the blogs too), it is almost impossible to hear a critical word. The middle ground is not where the media tells us it is. That is merely what the media pretend it to be. Most people want criminals dealt with severely and effectively, prisons built, severity of punishments increased and so on. That is where the middle ground actually is.

[Tapestry]

Mark, I think the judges have lost respect for the law they have to administrate a long time ago. Before appointing judges now, they are interviewed about their racial bias and other political attitudes. The law should be colour blind. Nulab have created this nightmare world where no one has any respect for anything any more, and the media assure us we're slap bang in the middle ground.

In fact we are now in the midddle ground of hell, no more and no less. Thank God Cameron's trying.

If only he'd dump Hague, and get the EU side of things sorted out, we just might be able to make a start of the Herculean task of rebuilding this country. But first he has to play cat and mouse with cultural marxists dug into the BBC and the media - and play along until he properly can go for the standards that we deserve in Britain.

Cameron is the only hope.

[Sally Roberts]

"But first he has to play cat and mouse with cultural marxists dug into the BBC and the media - and play along until he properly can go for the standards that we deserve in Britain."
Tapestry - if you think that is what Cameron is really doing (and it would be an inspired move in my view!) then it perhaps is a little irresponsible to refer to it publicly - after all the cultural marxists you mention are bound to monitor sites like this on the grounds of "know thy enemy", aren't they?

[martinsewell]

It is few years since I practiced criminal law but I did put 17 yars "at the coal face". This is a good article with a workable framework if the idas were to be taken up and developed.

We need not be too defensive about the Human Rights angle. There is the priNciple of "proportionality" and this approach would seem to fall within that.

I agree that the punitive dimension has been lost however ths scheme does not srike me as particularly of that ilk. It sits somewhere in the middle and might be a useful addition to the armoury. It does seem to have similarities to the idea of a caution where the police will formally record a caution in return for a clear admission of guilt. It is not a criminal conviction but does inform future prosecution decisions. It would need to be the preferable alternative to something less benign however if it were to achieve its potential. y making it an alternative based upon admission it would have the collateral advantage of requiring the offender to own up to his/her own fault.