"A man murdered his girlfriend after he was released early from prison to ease overcrowding. Andrew Mournian had already served five jail terms when he was jailed for 20 weeks for attacking Amanda Murphy. But eight weeks into that sentence, he joined the roll-call of 11,000 other inmates given their freedom early. And five days later he beat Miss Murphy so badly that the mother-of-two died in hospital of her injuries."
That story appeared in the Daily Mail last December. Amanda Murphy is just one of the victims of Labour's failure to provide enough prison places to maintain public safety.
We learn today that there are just 21 places left in Britain's prisons (total capacity c82,000). Justice Secretary Jack Straw's response is to urge magistrates to send fewer people to prison.
This combination of increasing the number of non-custodial sentences and early release is unacceptable to Nick Herbert, Tory spokesman. He issued this statement last night:
"Only weeks after a National Audit Office report revealed that offenders are let off community sentences when they lie in, Jack Straw is yet again desperately trying to persuade magistrates to use these weak alternatives for repeat or serious offenders when justice demands a custodial sentence. Victims of crime will be outraged at the suggestion that criminals should be spared jail simply because of this Government's incompetence in failing to provide sufficient prison places. It would be quite wrong for the Government to extend its early release scheme which has already seen almost 20,000 prisoners freed onto the streets and a murder committed. The prisons are literally full, but instead of doing its duty and securing emergency capacity to protect the public, the Government's response is to give criminals a break. This Government's catastrophic mismanagement of prisons cannot continue. In place of panic measures it is time for a new approach to break the cycle of re-offending and re-build confidence in the penal system."
Home Office research (cited by Civitas) suggests that "the average prisoner admitted committing 140 crimes in the year before capture." That means, on average, that the incarceration of every 100 criminals avoids 14,000 crimes. That's why, as Michael Howard once said, prison works.
The Tories were due to unveil prison reform plans this week but our understanding is that they have been rescheduled because of Northern Rock.
Release people who shouldn't be incarcerated in the first place. Leave prison for those who actually pose a threat to the public.
Posted by: asquith | February 22, 2008 at 09:49
I sincerely hope that Conservative prison reforms do not hold back on the serious issues like violent crime and prison capacity.
The last thing we need is a gently-gently approach to policy on such a key issue in the minds of voters.
Posted by: Letters From A Tory | February 22, 2008 at 09:49
Just as with the NHS, the prison crisis is leading to people dying as a result of Labour government policy. This is unacceptable. Punishment has become diluted under Labour and with it the time needed for rehabilitation.
Posted by: Tony Makara | February 22, 2008 at 09:53
This issue will have much more impact on drinkers in the Dog and Duck and over tea at 2 Acacia Avenue than Northern Wreck.
WHY DOESN'T CAMERON DO MUCH MORE ON CRIME?
Posted by: Alan S | February 22, 2008 at 09:53
This fact wasn't on yesterday's list of fifty Labour achievements!
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2008/02/labours-top-fif.html
Posted by: bluepatriot | February 22, 2008 at 09:55
Nick Herbert keeps impressing me.
He combines intellect, energy and steel.
Posted by: CCHQ Spy | February 22, 2008 at 09:57
With my tongue firmly in my cheek, 21 spare places, enough for most of the Cabinet.
Posted by: James Burdett | February 22, 2008 at 10:03
Such a damning indictment on NuLab.
We need perhaps to remind ourselves of those famous words of St Tone of B-Liar about crime the causes of crime and being tough. It needs to be repeated, quite regularly and NuLab shamed for the manner of their irresponsible dereliction of office.
Perhaps we should be grateful that so many have been released early already, otherwise no doubt, we should be subject to sanctions from the UN and EU for keeping prisoners in a manner that is contradictory to their human rights.
Time for the party to give some very clear messaging on law and order and prisons.
What did come over very clear yesterday from Ipswich, was a demand for the return of capital punishment. Never mind Brussels and other external factors, if the people want it, then the party should be responding.
Posted by: George Hinton | February 22, 2008 at 10:50
In my youth I saw a prison camp for German PoWs with 30 huts x 60 people with full sanitary and catering arrangements up and running from scratch in 4 weeks! The size was doubled soon after, The camp, of course, complied with the geneva Convention .
If they really cared about being tough on crime they could do this for non-violent offenders very quickly indeed and the 76 old who refused to pay his Council Tax should not now be in prison at all. (Even allowing for the fact that he had undoubtedly broken the law this was a matter for the bailliffs not prison)
Posted by: christina speight | February 22, 2008 at 10:52
We are rapidly approaching the point where a custodial sentence will become a very rare disposal in the Magistrates Court. In fact, in the case of a persistent 'low-level' offender, the current situation could be characterised as follows:
1. Fines - the offender is very likely to be on benefits and might well have several hundred pounds worth of fines already outstanding, often for similar offences. In such a case it is well nigh impossible to impose a meaningful fine.
2. Community Order - the offender might well have 'failed to respond' to previous community sentences, which means there is little point in imposing another one. In any case, the Probation Service is under-funded and, if the offender is on drugs, this is deemed to render him/her unsuitable for unpaid work.
3. Custody - magistrates are now being encouraged to reserve custodial sentences for serious cases involving the use of violence (most of which are dealt with by the Crown Court anyway).
Perhaps Mr Straw could advise what is to be done (in the absence of secure drug rehabilitation centres) with the woman on benefits convicted of her 22nd shoplifting offence, committed to support her drug habit; or with the man convicted for the 5th time of driving whilst disqualified?
Neither of these cases involves violence, but imprisonment could be the only realistic sentence.
Posted by: Richard Weatherill | February 22, 2008 at 11:37
So why in the name of God are they imprisoning pensioners for the non-payment of council tax?
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2008/02/council-tax-pensioner-jailed.html"
Posted by: Cranmer | February 22, 2008 at 11:37
"So why in the name of God are they imprisoning pensioners for the non-payment of council tax?"
Cranmer.
Because its a state crime.
Ordinary crime is not against the state so they don't care, but heckle someone important at a party conference and you are for the high jump.
Posted by: George Hinton | February 22, 2008 at 12:20
21 prison places left?.....and over 300 Labour MPs?....yes, that is a tough situation.
:)
Posted by: eugene | February 22, 2008 at 13:33
Yes Cranmer, having just come in I didn't get there before you!
I was going to post - BUT there is always room for pensioners who decide that they cannot pay their Council Tax. What a threat they are to anybody, and it is no argument for some diddy-type like Blears to come on the Beeb and say - 'Oh it isn't up to us, its the local Council's fault that they pensioners are imprisoned'. How they love saying that especially if the council is Conservative! But actually the .....government - if they wanted, which of course they don't, because the people protesting are invariably MIDDLE CLASS - as I say IF they wanted they could quite easily issue a directive to Councils that elderly pensioners should not be imprisoned, when there is such a shortage of space in prisons!!! BUT THIS GOVERNMENT WON'T, FOR THE REASONS THAT I HAVE STATED ABOVE!!!!
Posted by: Patsy Sergeant | February 22, 2008 at 15:36
I bet the MPs are relieved!
Posted by: Sleazebuster | February 22, 2008 at 17:25