St. Anselm and the perpetuation of lex talionis

When it comes to dealing with crime no party wants to appear soft, least of all perhaps the Conservative Party. Mary Ann Sieghart in the Times has highlighted the dangers of staying too far from the path of traditional retributive principles of justice. Labour will be quick to seize on any shift in traditional Tory policy, which Sieghart characterises as “prison works”. But is there away of dealing with the causes of reoffending (and crime generally) without being branded soft? I would submit that there is. But first, to the branding. Sieghart senses a new slogan, but perhaps not the theft of “tough on the causes of crime” as she jokingly suggests. Rather the Conservative Party needs to indicate its tough approach to crime whilst highlighting the party’s ‘social conscience’. By rehashing Labour’s (technically Brown’s) “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” the Conservative Party could get its point across whilst indicating to the public that Labour is stuck in the past whereas the Conservative Party is progressive. I suggest the following:

“Tough on crime, proactive on the causes of crime”

As to dealing with the problem without appearing ‘soft’ the Conservative Party needs to take a mixed bag approach; it needs to appear tough but fair, rather than tough and uncaring. I suggest the following as an outline of such an approach (I do not pretend to be able to give a comprehensive solution in one blog entry). Take a zero-tolerance approach to the commission of crime, at any level. Reduction of red-tape for stop and search. Increased use of sniffer dogs (especially in prisons). At the same time principles of restorative justice need to be utilised at all levels of society. In prisons there needs to be a focus on prisoners coming face-to-face with the effects of their actions on their victims and victims of crime in general. At the same time there needs to be greater focus on education; obtaining trades, academic qualifications, perhaps even some form of partnership with the Open University. On top of this we need to comprehensively deal with drug use in prison. All prisoners should be helped to come off drugs. But at the same time we need to take a zero-tolerance approach to its use; as I have highlighted above sniffer-dogs should play a role, indeed the key role, in this. With the universal use of sniffer dogs on all visitors, along with random inspections of the prisons and a tough response to those found in possession of drugs (i.e. an increase in sentence) drug use in prisons can be eradicated. At the same time we need to deal with ‘aftercare’; what happens to the prisoner when they re-enters society. Prisoners should not be released homeless; halfway houses would be a start. On top of this there is a need to assist the former prisoner in finding a job, or further training etc. We need to provide post-release assistance through the use something similar to the probation service, whereby the former-prisoner meets periodically with someone with whom they can discuss their progress, problems they are facing and of course obtain advice and assistance. The vital stage where restorative principles should be applied has been left to last; in the communities across the UK where crime flourishes. Prevention is after all better than cure. We need to engage with communities to address the issues that not only allow crime to thrive but indeed promote it. To do this we need to engage with local community organisations and projects; help them to help the people they serve. We need to promote traditional family values and community spirit.

What I have suggested is merely the vaguest outline of what we need to do. We need to do much more than what I have recommended, and what we do put into practice we must implement comprehensively. However whatever we do we must agree that it is time to turn our back on St. Anselm.