Written evidence submitted by Revolving Doors (OUS0011)

 

  1. I am writing to you in your role as Chair of the Justice Select Committee, regarding the inquiry that is currently open on public opinion and understanding of sentencing. Revolving Doors has previously had our lived experience members give evidence to the Committee’s inquiry on women in prison. We are a national charity that brings lived experience, research and policy expertise together to break the cycle of crisis and crime – cycles of repeated low-level offending driven by root causes including poverty, problematic substance use, mental ill-health, and domestic violence.  

 

  1. The move toward tougher and longer sentences in the name of ‘public opinion’ is concerning, particularly given the evidence that community sentences are much more effective at addressing the root causes driving the revolving door of crisis and crime than custodial sentences. For people with more than 50 previous convictions, the odds of re-offending are 36% higher when a short sentence is given compared to a community sentence.  Whilst it might first appear that the public support harsher prison sentences for all offences, our evidence illustrates how the public view is much more nuanced.

 

  1. Polling by the respected pollsters Populus, commissioned by Revolving Doors in 2018, found that 80% of the public thought that theft of daily essentials such as food, sanitary products and nappies, necessitated by poverty, did not warrant a custodial sentence. This was true for voters across the political spectrum. Similarly, 74% of the public thought that people experiencing problematic substance and/or alcohol use issues belonged in treatment programmes instead of prison. Statistics such as this, especially during a cost-of-living crisis, and an economy and workforce still recovering from the impact of Covid-19, demonstrate that the general public has a more nuanced understanding of offending than may be presumed. It is clear that the public are aligned to what the evidence shows, that people committing low-level offences due to poverty, mental ill health, and problematic alcohol and substance use do not benefit from tougher sentences, and neither do the general public, as custodial sentences are much less effective than treatment programs at addressing these root causes.

 

  1. We would also caution sentencing being guided by public opinion when the general public are not well-informed of key processes surrounding sentencing, such as PreSentence Reports (PSRs). PSRs support sentencers to take full consideration of any mitigating circumstances into account and better understand the root causes behind the offence, leading to better sentencing recommendations that most effectively address the root causes that drove that crime, in turn reducing the risk of reoffending in future. Not only are these mitigating circumstances rarely publicised in media reporting of crime, but they are woefully underused, with many defendants unaware that they were entitled to a PSR, or worse, unaware that probation even played a role at court. The absence of a PSR, or a PSR that is rushed and carried out too late, results in women being unnecessarily separated from their children, domestic violence not being taken into account when considering the background of an offence, and addressing the drivers of offences not being incorporated into sentencing.

 

  1. Sentencing must be guided by the established evidence base and the ultimate goal of reducing reoffending. Despite this, Ministry of Justice data shows that adults released from serving a prison sentence of 12 months or less have a proven reoffending rate of 57.7%. It is vital that sentencers consider what sentence will be most effective in steering the person away from a cycle of crisis and crime, rather than being guided simply by punishment. For sentencing to be smarter, ultimately what is needed is more regular training of magistrates to be aware of the community solutions that are effective for people in the revolving door of crisis and crime, and for the ineffectiveness of prison sentences of 12 months or less to be considered. Too many people are being sent to prison to get the help they need, for example with their mental health, when cheaper and more effective community-based sentences are readily available.

 

  1. Revolving Doors would welcome a conversation between our lived experience members – many of whom have experience of multiple short prison sentences and have turned their lives around with the correct support put in place – and members of the Committee. 

 

Pavan Dhaliwal

Chief Executive  

Revolving Doors 

 

July 2022