Crime and punishment
Alternatives to prison
Reginald Maudling MP
Mr Dennie Briggs's recent book, In Place of Prison* is a serious study of a serious social problem. The amount of thought and research which has gone into it is impressive, and his general thesis that it is desirable to find alternatives to imprisonment as a means of dealing with criminals, is one that must command sympathy. There are, however, considerable snags, and in matters such as this, governments can only advance at a speed acceptable to public opinion. At present, with the growth of violent crime, and its alarming prevalence among the thoughtless young, the, mind of the public is more concentrated ont preventing crime and caring for the victims,' than it is on caring for the criminals. All who wish to see penal reform must bear in mind thedanger of alienating public opinion, if they wish to see their ideas becoming acceptable.
Everyone would agree that our prisons are overcrowded, and that this is a strong reason for finding alternative penalties, though it is by no means the only reason. One can speculate almost indefinitely on the reasons for the growth of violent crime. They embrace such things as the decline of religious and parental authority, the disappearance of the old disciplines of unemployment and grinding poverty, and, I believe myself, the fact that aggressive instincts that used to be released periodically in international wars, are now being released within societies. I do not think it fair to imply that the present penal system has proved a failure, because the crime rate is growing. But certainly overcrowded prisons have many disadvantages, both from the point of view of sheer humanity, and the strain upon the prison officers, and the difficulty it creates for processes of rehabilitation.
I think it is fair to say that successive governments have recognised the problem, and embarked upon substantial prison building programmes, but it is not easy in practice to carry out such programmes. There is usually a tight rein on public expenditure, and it is not easy to obtain high priority for prisons. Moreover, planning can cause considerable difficulties, as few people welcome the prospect of a new prison, however modern in design, in their immediate neighbourhood.
The Home Office have struggled manfully against these difficulties, but there has been a growing recognition of the need to reduce the proportion of offenders who receive prison sentences. When I came to introduce the Criminal Justice Bill, I had the benefit of a great deal of study and thought that had been put into the problem by people with many qualifications and with great experience. I was particularly attracted to the idea of community service as an alternative to prison, and glad to be able to make provision for its introduction in the Bill. It seemed a matter of common sense that a man who has broken the law should, in many instances, pay the penalty by working for the benefit of the community against which he had offended. He would, thereby, employ his, time usefully and constructively, to the benefit both of society and of himself. , But there were, of course, drawbacks. All new ideas in this field have to be approached cautiously if they are to gain the support of the courts and the public. Cleaily the offences involved could not be major ones, and I myself
drew a clear distinction between crimes of violence and non--violent offences, as it seemed to me that this new system was only appropriate to non-violent crimes. There were considerable practical difficulties. What sort of work should the offenders do? What supervision would be required? -What would be the, reaction of PeOple working alongside them! Would not trade unionists, for example, object if work were taken away from their members and given to other people, 4s a penalty-for their offences? All these objections had to be taken seriously, and this is why we started on a modest and experimental basis. 1 am glad to learn from Mr Briggs's book that the experiment is proving successful, and I certainly hope it will be extensively developed. But underlying all these problems, there are the greater issues of criminal responsibility and punishment in a society which is being profoundly affected by the development of science, and, in particular, by the implications of 'scientific discovery for the controlling or influen4g of human behaviour. There are two great questions. First, what is the purpose of punishment? And, second, what is the right definition of criminal responsibility? I have always believed, since I first read Plato, that the purpose of punishment is threefold. It clearly has an element of deterrence and must have regard to the need to protect society. It also clearly should be based on the desirability of rehabilitation and the attempt to restore the offender to society as a whole social being. But it has never seemed to me entirely clear that these two purposes are the whole story. As I think one philosopher pointed out, you could achieve deterrence by announcing sentences, and not, in fact, carrying them out. Would this satisfy moral requirements? And the same philosopher also pointed out that if rehabilitation, in the sense of a cure, was all that you visited upon the criminal, it was more in the nature of a blessing than a punishment. Somehow I feel that there is still truth in the instinctive reaction of the general public that there is an element of retribution in punishment, and that a bad deed deserves to be punished, as a good deed deserves to be praised.
The question of responsibility becomes more difficult, as medicine and psychology advance. As Home Secretary I was worried about one particular problem arising from the concept of diminished responsibility. How can you draw the line between a temptation that was irresistible and a temptation that was not resisted? I decided to appoint a Commission to inquire into this, and Lord Butler was good enough to undertake the chairmanship. I believe their report will be a very important document.
For the simple fact is that Concepts of morality are going to be influenced by the advance of science. It is not merely that conventions change from generation to generation. If it is possible by treatment to cure criminal tendencies, how can you distinguish between crime and illness? If a man is born with criminal tendencies which can be cured, hov,` do you distinguish between him and the man who is born with a tendency to some disease which can equally be cured?
I fear we are all neglecting some of the implications of the rapid and accelerating progress of science. The field of Criminal behaviour and treatment might prove to be one of the most significant.
Reginald Maudling, Conservative MP for Barnet since 1950, was Deputy Leader of the party 1965-72 and Home Secretary 1970-72. He is at present Shadow Foreign Secretary.
Previous page
