Beyond short prison sentences
Over the long weekend, government sources stated that a Sentencing Bill, to be introduced when parliament resumes in September, will largely do away with short prison sentences of 12 months or less. It’s not an outright abolition - they will still be able to be given in ‘exceptional circumstances’, such as in instances of domestic abuse - but it signals a win from the years of advocacy and campaigning of organisations who have long called for ineffective and disruptive short sentences to be abolished.
Short prison sentences of 12 months or less have held so much focus due to how high the reoffending rates are, how costly they are compared to community alternatives, and how disruptive they can be for people trying to make changes in their lives - serving to push them further into cycles of crisis. As of 2023, the reoffending rate for adults released from prison sentences of 12 months or less was 62.4%, compared to the overall proven reoffending rate of 28%. The average cost of housing someone in prison for a year is approximately £53,801 per prisoner, whereas the average cost of an additional person on probation court order caseload, (for both community orders and suspended sentence orders) is approximately £3150, and tailored support delivered by Women’s Centres costs between £1200-£4000. Short prison sentences disproportionately impact women - over half of prison sentences given to women in 2022 were for 6 months or less.
These sentences may seem ‘short’, but they are periodically long enough to turn people’s lives upside down and set them several stages back from efforts to get their lives back on track: housing and employment is often lost, benefits are stopped and need to be reapplied for, and women can and do lose their children - many of them falling into a care system that is not fit for purpose and traumatises children. Whatever ‘support’ they may be able to access in prison is hampered by the shortness of the sentence: in a prison regime that is understaffed, overcrowded, and lacking in purposeful activity, mental health support, drug and alcohol treatment and resettlement support is difficult to access - let alone support with education and employment. People are then released unprepared, issues unaddressed, back to square one, possibly homeless, without a job, family ties damaged, and the trauma of imprisonment now forever present. No wonder the reoffending rate is so high. Where’s the rehabilitation in that?
With all of that in mind, it’s a welcome announcement that the Government is finally leaving short sentences behind, and it’s been a long time coming. Back in 2019, David Gauke, the Justice Secretary at the time, spoke of the ‘very strong case’ for abolishing short prison sentences. He was described as ‘bonkers’ by some of his colleagues, and resigned a few months later. His chairing of the Independent Sentencing Review 6 years later, of which many of recommendations arose and are anticipated to appear in the upcoming Sentencing Bill, seems to vindicate his position.
But now is not the time to relax and celebrate a much-needed policy win. Halting the use of short prison sentences cannot be a success based on legislation alone. For reoffending rates to come down and for the move to be meaningful, short sentences need to be replaced by innovative, supportive community sentences. The media line at the moment seems to be that the community sentences will be ‘tough’, but what’s the point in anything being ‘tough’ if it doesn’t work to actually reduce reoffending? Community alternatives need to be sustainably invested in - and the reinvestment of the costs of imprisoning someone for a year into community alternatives needs to be made immediately, ring-fenced, and visible year on year. Waiting times for mental health and drug and alcohol treatment requirements need to be slashed, and there needs to be serious consideration given to the longer-term outcomes of community sentences. Unpaid work is mentioned a lot - but how can we use community alternatives to give people qualifications and employment experience that they want, and will actually use? When we’re considering drug and alcohol treatment, how tailored is that treatment to the person? Can we employ harm reduction models that don’t punish people for using, and instead work to improve and stabilise people’s lives, working with that person rather than against them? We know that rigid treatment orders can cause people to disengage and reoffend, and we need to look at tailoring community solutions to work for individual people, rather than trying to force people into one-size-fits-all models that don’t take their experiences and circumstances into account.
This is a journey that the judiciary needs to be taken on too. In Scotland, a presumption against short prison sentences has been in place since 2011. Despite the presumption, the vast majority of prison sentences given in Scotland are for 12 months or less. This is partly due to the discretion given to sheriffs, who are directed to consider available community options in each case. With a lack of funding for community sentences, disjointed services, and in turn a lack of confidence in community sentences, the presumption has failed to persuade the judiciary to properly implement it. The wording of the legislation may have played a part here, but it demonstrates the importance of sentencer confidence in the effectiveness of alternatives to short prison sentences.
For this change to be effective, the real work starts now. The government needs to channel funding and resource into both statutory and voluntary services providing community support to people in contact with the criminal justice system, and those services need to be designed with and tailored to the people they serve. Stopping short sentences will not be a silver bullet, but long-term political and economic investment in the justice system and genuine innovation in sentencing options can turn the tide on reoffending.
