Broken Society? Crime

One of the recurring motifs for the Conservatives since the ascent of Cameron has been Britain's Broken Society - the theme that crime is rampant, social ties have vanished and immigration is running roughshod over what it is to be British. It is clever targetting of the base fears of our citizens, good politicking for an Opposition party short on ideas but big on ambition, and, combined with the negativity pouring unchecked for the media, is causing the very problems in society which it is claiming to identify.

We therefore want nothing to do with it as a Party. However, there are elements underlying some of the issues and fears which people have which do require action and which we can make positive changes to. I am going to try and explore some of these in a series of blogs, starting with crime. It is just thoughts on specific areas of each issue, but hopefully might provoke debate.

It is hard to not be influenced by the stories which we see reported in the media. The series of tragic murders in London and elsewhere have been hugely emotive. The thought that young people are being killed, often by accident or chance, is one that points strongly to serious problems within elements of our society. Glasgow may not have as many murders, but we have the joint highest incidence of knife crime in the world per head of population. London feels that it is in the midst of an epidemic of knife-related murders and other urban areas also fear the influence of knives in their communities. General public opinion reflects a fear of crime, particularly serious crime, even if the actual reality is that they are unlikely to come into contact with it. There is a widespread demonisation of young people, with the inevitable generational rift that follows on from this.

I believe that within this context, the Broken Windows theory of James Wilson and George Kelling deserves a serious look (available at http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/_atlantic_monthly-broken_windows.pdf). Essentially, their theory holds that fear of crime is often linked to a causal process, starting with issues as simple as windows in a building being broken. If the windows are not fixed, then an impression is created that breaking them will not lead to any repercussions, and more will be broken. Over time, this can lead on to other crime being more common, as an environment is created without social responsibility. Although it is not inevitable that serious crime will flourish, the perception of those living in the community (and indeed it can progress to the stage where there ceases to be a true community) will be that there are not boundaries or rules, with a resultant lowering in their own feelings of safety.

This is, for me, a fascinating concept, as it is really rooted in psychology and emotional effects - working on how people feel and think about where they live, work or commute. There is a benefit to increasing the feelings of safety that people have, even if it doesn't appear to be directly related to the realities on the ground. This is reflected in the insecure feelings which are reported in the UK just now - although most people do not come into contact with crime or disorderly behaviour, they feel insecure and worried that they will be affected by it.
One of the obvious measures which can be introduced in relation to this is putting police on the beat. Now, most studies have shown that foot patrols do not lead to a demonstrable reduction in the crime rate, and therefore they have been reduced in numbers. However, what they do do is increase the feeling of security in a community, and increase the connection and interaction between the police and the community. The Police Force exists to serve our communities, but nowadays it is very detached from those they serve. It is not to hark back to an idyllic past which never existed, but there is certainly a difference between having a Police Force which is only seen at moments of crisis and one which is a welcome and visible presence in a community. Community involvement on the behalf of the police has to be more than just visiting schools or directly responding to criminal behaviour when it has reached breaking point.

Tony Blair famously declared that the Labour Party would be tough on crime and on the causes of crime, but I think we have not followed through on this clearly enough. There still seems to be a feeling that law and order is a right wing issue, and that only conservatives discuss society and its ills. This is a failure on our part, and presents an open goal for the Conservatives. To highlight this, we can take the example of New York.

NY is one of the most Democratic cities in the US - Republicans are heavily outnumbered in terms of voters and representatives. However, the most successful Mayor of New York in recent years has been Rudy Giuliani. When he became Mayor in 1994, he took over the running of a city which was viewed as out of control and offputting to tourists and residents alike. But crucially, it was also felt that this was the inevitable result of urban decay and nothing could be done to change it. Giuliani took the Broken Windows theory as his inspirition and, combined with the introduction of Compstat which was an innovative new way of tracking statistics in the city, worked with NYPD to crack down on seemingly unimportant crimes, such as graffiti and squeegeemen (the guys who come and clean your windscreen at the traffic lights). He was mocked for this, but in line with the Broken Windows theory these actions started to demonstrate that there was now a different set of rules in play in New York. He then followed this up by restricting the presence of sex shops and cracking down on antisocial behaviour, with the result that New York had a bigger fall in the crime rate than the national average, and returned to its place as one of the preeminent tourist destinations in the world.

Critics have argued that the fall in the crime rate (particularly noticeable in the murder rate) was a reflection of wider national trends, however, the fact that NY managed to consistently beat that national average implies that there were also local dynamics making crucial improvements, especially in contrast to other comparable cities such as Los Angeles. But we as a Party do not seem to have taken those examples on board. Yes, Giuliani is a Republican, but we should be looking to build on success and to implement policies which have been proven to work. However, if Boris Johnson has half a brain (debatable I know!) and implements them in London with similar success, we could be viewing a significant period of Conservative Mayoralty.
Crime is a fear and a significant issue for the public, and we have to respond to this. The Party has to show that we are listening and also that we are learning from elsewhere - we are right not to make unsustainable 'promises' of specific numbers of new police like the SNP did, but we do need to commit to a well-supported police force, able to respond to communities in effective ways. The dispute over the pay for the police was a ridiculous mess which seriously harmed our credibility, and we need to accept the decision that was made by the panel. We need to restore respect for the force by ensuring that it is seen as part of the community, at the service of the community.

Conservatives talk about crime but only to stoke up fear in order to profit electorally. We need to return to Tony Blair's pledge and follow it through - it is possible to be of the left and still tough when dealing with criminal behaviour. We are the Party who believe in society, in contrast to Thatcher's legacy in the Conservative Party, but we do not demonstrate this if we do not listen and respond to the fears which society has.

Louis Theroux - Behind Bars

I had taped Louis Theroux's latest documentary "Behind Bars" at the weekend, and got round to watching it. It was a programme about him going to San Quentin prison in California for two weeks to explore the lives of the inmates and the effect that their imprisonment has on them.

It was horrifying.

The prison is a sprawling city of wasted humanity. Ruled by racially divided gangs, it is rife with drugs and violence and filled with repeat offenders and extremely dangerous people. One man who Louis interviewed is currently serving a sentence of something like 521 years - when he completes this, he has 11 life sentences to serve. Others are repeat offenders, who have been in and out of the 'justice' system their entire lives, and will continue to return until they are dead. The gangs possess huge power, as they provide an illusionary safe haven to inmates of the same skin colour. Some of the inmates are kept in their cells for 23 hours a day, isolated from other prisoners and from most human contact.

It's a depressing journey, and one that is all too common in America's failed justice system. However, it is a danger that looms for us on the horizon. Our imprisonment rates are awful, and the constant posturing for which party can use the toughest language serves only to drive the rate up further. Repeat offending is not just the norm, it is expected and so we create a sub-population who are detached from society and function solely through crime and imprisonment, with damaging ramifications for the wider society that they are excluded from.

Our prisons are becoming dumping grounds. Rehabilitation is fast becoming a legend and as a country we have disposed of the idea that completing a sentence meant that the punishment had been completed and the individual could re-enter society. Now, a criminal record punishes you for longer than the period of imprisonment does - unless you are convicted of a white collar financial crime or an ex-Tory minister, you will struggle to leave prison and earn a living in a legitimate manner.

We imprison people for not paying fines - the tax payer pays a huge amount more to keep them locked up than they ever owed. We take first time offenders and lock them in environments where they are surrounded by experienced criminals - a perfect training and recruiment ground if you like. We are surprised when we hear that our prisons are becoming prime recruting offices for young men into Islamic extremist groups.

It is widely agreed that the key factors which stop reoffending are a home, stable relationship and employment. Even a short term in prison can easily destroy all three and make them virtually impossible to replace. We need to work out what we want our prisons and punishments to be for.

I would suggest looking at crimes in three ways. I am not a lawyer, so these may be very simplistic, but I think they would at least highlight the role that punishments can play.

Firstly, there are the crimes which are serious and for which imprisonment is the punishment. Serious robberies, assaults etc, for which the loss of liberty is considered an appropriate way for society to punish the offenders. These obviously would have various terms according to the crime, which the prisoner would be expected to complete. Time in prison could be used profitably, training the inmate with appropriate and beneficial skills and preparing them for a successful return to society upon conclusion of their sentence. When they were released, they would be supported in finding new work and housing and in readjusting to life outside prison - it is amazing how powerful instituionalisation can be in harming ex-prisoner's chances of staying out of prison. However, alongside this support would come an acknowledgement that they have served their time. Employers who were willing to employ ex-prisoners with appropriate skills could be rewarded, as the costs of a tax break or the like would be much lower than the costs of re-imprisonment.

The second category comprises prisoners whose crimes are reflective of an ongoing danger to society - sexual offenders against adults and/or children, serious violence etc. In these cases, imprisonment is not just a punishment but is also a method of protecting society. These are challenging cases as they raise the question of how long someone should serve. A paedophile who is imprisoned for a couple of years but is going to be a danger to society should not be released whilst this danger exists. Obviously I realise that this raises ethical dilemmas - can we imprison people for crimes they have yet to commit, and if paedophilia is a life long disorder could those imprisoned for it ever be released? Crimes and disorders of this nature require a review of the procedures we have in place for protecting society and doing what we can to ensure that the offenders are supported in not re-offending. It is an area that requires urgent research and debate.

The other category are the people who are imprisoned for 'minor' crimes. This isn't to imply that these crimes are not wrong or don't have consequences, but rather it is a reflection in my opinion that they do not warrant a punishment of imprisonment. Rather the punishments should be ones which actually contribute to the society and/or individuals whom they have hurt by their actions. This isn't to make community service some sort of cop-out or easy way to avoid prison. Rather, these sorts of punishments should be related to the crime and actively produce results which are beneficial to the community. Punishing offenders in this way would allow them to make a positive contribution but also hopefully allow them to retain those factors which I identified earlier as being crucial to avoiding recidivism.

I am not trying to be a wild-eyed bleeding heart liberal here - prisons have a valuable function in our society and we must make sure that they are supported and developed. However, they are too full already, and continuing to get fuller - we need to change this for the good of our society. The US has over two million people incarcerated and demonstrate that this policy fails. We need to be radical and find a new direction.


Incidentally, if you would like to watch Louis' documentary you can find it at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/ - if you go to the last seven days, it is on page two of Sunday evening.

Bobbies on the beat cut crime - well duh!

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Bobbies-on-the-beat-DO.3667986.jp

I know, it seems a very self obvious title for this, but the fact is that the Scotman's report today appears to be a surprise to some.

Law and order is a topic that is causing the public distress - admittedly it is often non based on anything approaching reality and is then exaggerated by the media, but it is still a concern. The evidence with the increase in patrolling police officers in Glasgow and Edinburgh is very strong that this helps to reduce crime.

There needs to be an increase in the visibility of the police and in their connection to the community. Too often they are seen today as being detatched from the society and communities that they serve, instead being observed as merely enforcers of the state's laws - or even more relevantly, to not be seen to be enforcing anything at all. Increasing police presence in a positive consistent manner would strengthen bonds, as opposed to the regular absence, followed by a deluge in reaction to particular incidents.

Proaction rather than reaction - that is a key strand of progressive thought. With the SNP having mucked up the policing issue in Scotland, this is a key chance for Labour to regain the iniative. The false guarantee of numbers sounds good to the electorate but doesn't help the country. What we need is a commitment to changing the approach of policing, using the police's own professionalism to guide changes so that they are introduced with their support and advice rather than contrary to it. This would allow us to create a strong image in Scotland.

Of course, we'll struggle with it in the rest of the UK if we don't backdate the pay officers! But a combination of backdating and dialogue would demonstrate to the Force that it is vital and help to restore its place as a key aspect of society.