Double Dissertation in Law, 'The Political Significance of Criminal Sentencing'
-
Upload
callum-hughes -
Category
Documents
-
view
56 -
download
0
Transcript of Double Dissertation in Law, 'The Political Significance of Criminal Sentencing'
The Political Significance of Criminal Sentencing in the UK – Why so Important?A dissertation submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the BA degree in Law and Politics
Author: Callum Hughes 12008312 Word Count: 9,998
2014/15Keele University
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation has been made possible by the continued support of academic staff at
Keele University Law School, family members and friends.
In particular, I wish to take this opportunity to express my deepest and most sincere thanks
to my supervisor Dr Sotirios Santatzoglou for his excellent guidance, advice and patience on
all aspects of research and writing. His shared enthusiasm and commitment to this work
simply cannot be underestimated and his cordial approach to my learning has ensured that
the writing of this dissertation be a pleasurable and enlightening experience. He has
conveyed a true spirit of adventure and energy to this work and an excitement in regard to
teaching. For this I am immeasurably grateful. In addition, I would like to thank my personal
tutor Dr Lara McMurtry for allowing me to discuss my ideas in relation to forming my
dissertation question and her unbroken support thereafter.
I place on record also my most heartfelt thanks to my mother, father and sisters for their
continued love and support throughout. Their kind words and constructive comments have
resembled a constant pillar of encouragement, reassurance and optimism. Their continuous
showings of affection have contributed greatly to the instillation of confidence that has
provided the very foundation on which to complete this paper to the best of my abilities.
Finally, but no less affectionately, I express my most sincere thanks to my friends both at
Keele University and elsewhere for their endless companionship and love throughout my
three years of study at Keele University. Their names are too numerous to mention in full,
but particular thanks is expressed to Zach Lloyd, Shaun Bethell, William Coningsby-Brown,
Alistair Benham, Amy Brodie, George Kagezi, Saif Ghori and Levi Salt. Their friendships have
no parallel.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 1 | P a g e
ABSTRACT
It was January of 1993 when a then untried shadow home secretary by the name of Tony
Blair published an article in the New Statesman entitled ‘Why Crime is a Socialist Issue’. In a
determined show of resolve against the Tory who became home secretary that year, Michael
Howard, Blair recognised that a firm approach to crime was not some preoccupation of the
Tory right but the very essence of the centre ground. By unravelling Howard’s famous ‘prison
works’ slogan, Blair emphasized that being tough on crime was a policy for the many, not
the few. New Labour won the next 3 elections.
This dissertation investigates the inherently political process whereby questions previously
confined to judicial and academic spheres have become enmeshed in conventional lines of
political discourse since 1979. This paper accentuates these developments, termed the
politicization of criminal justice, and examines the significance of diverging theories of justice
as necessary foundations upon which legislation, sentencing rationales and criminal justice
policy are produced. This work concludes that disagreements about the objectives of criminal
justice and how these objectives ought to be pursued are an inevitable consequence of the
similarly charged political environment that surrounds the underlying theories of justice.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 2 | P a g e
Contents
Chapter 1 - The Politicization of Criminal JusticeIntroduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………….3
1.0 The development of criminal justice as political argumentation………………..5
2.0 The unprincipled legislative production under the politicization of criminal justice………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…14
3.0 Sentencing: the wisdom of courts and the political indifference…..............18
Chapter 2 - Political argumentation, theories of justice and sentencingIntroduction………………………………………………………………………………………………….26
1.0 Imperfect theories of justice……………………………………………………………………26
2.0 Utilitarian theories of justice: a critique of just deserts and a theory itself……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..30
3.0 New Labour, new approach: cherry picking and the veil of legitimacy…….37
Concluding remarks……………………………………………………………………………………..40
Bibliography…………..…………………………………………………………………………………….42
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 3 | P a g e
Introduction“The very emergence of criminal law is historically a political phenomenon. Because of
the interests of particular social segments, criminal law was created: it has continued
to operate in various social contexts for the benefit of diverse and shifting interests,
including the interests of the state itself”1.
The above extract serves to demonstrate the implicit connection between the criminal law
and the political sphere. It is for these reasons that the criminal law is often considered to
be an extension of government and central to the moral character of the state2. It seeks to
define codes of behaviour and exercise social control in the face of wrongdoing, making
possible the operation of accepted forms of discipline and legitimating the right to punish.
The development of criminal law has taught criminal lawyers that the history of their
discipline is not necessarily the unfolding of reason through the development of doctrine or
a simple progression from a barbaric past towards an enlightened present3 – the criminal
law remains a means by and through which power is exercised or legitimated to deal with
modern forms of criminality.
We have become accustomed in the administration of justice to the well-established
principle that every citizen shall be equal before the law regardless of race, caste, gender,
religion, or sexual orientation4 that the casual observer may be forgiven for constructing an
apolitical, fixed view of the criminal law, as if there exists a shared code of conduct law-
abiding citizens aspire to equally and the criminal law is expected to uphold. Similarly, it is
1 Quinney (1970) p.44 (emphasis added).2 For further discussion, see Devlin (1959) chapters 1 and 2.3 Dubber and Farmer (2007) p.2.4 For a classical view, see A.V. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, in E.S.S Wade (eds.) (1959) p.193. For a more contemporary view, see Hepple (2014) particularly at ch.1, and Gibson (2014) p.xii.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 4 | P a g e
often accepted that the objectives of the criminal law are well established, and the ways in
which politicians are expected to pursue these objectives well known. Among other
purposes, this paper is intended to show that when considered in the context of the
dynamic political environment, we find that no such consensus exists.
If we consider the primary purpose of the criminal law to uphold justice, we must remember
that such a concept is notoriously difficult to define and is the focus of great volumes of
philosophical literature. We must also remember that ideas about justice have been utilized
by parties across the ideological spectrum to embody party aspirations and legitimize policy
decisions. From a political point of view then, justice, and the institutions entrusted with
upholding it, is considered a necessary component of a moral society. With this in mind, it is
unsurprising that the sentencing stage of the criminal trial “is what concerns citizens most
(whether they fully understand its implications or not) and takes place against a background
of high public interest, media content and political jousting”5. Moreover, to consider the
possibility that one definition of justice be agreed upon is already a flawed undertaking as
every argument that rests upon this principle will be subject to objection by any reader
whose ideas about justice are located in an alternative framework6. The politicization of
crime and the role of the media have attracted the attention of a number of criminologists.
However, little academic attention has been given so far to the interplay between the
criminal theories of justice and the political sphere. This paper will address, firstly, the
politicization of criminal justice, and secondly, the ways in which theories of justice may
enable this politicization.
5 Gibson and Cavadino (2008) p.124.6 Easton and Piper (2012), p.6
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 5 | P a g e
Chapter 1: The politicisation of criminal
justice
Introduction
Since the 1979 general election, criminal justice has ceased to be a bipartisan matter that
may be left to professionals - it has become a prominent issue in electoral competition. In
contrast to the pre-Thatcher period, a highly political environment now surrounds all
aspects of criminal justice so that every decision is taken in the glare of publicity and
political contention. By shifting questions about criminal justice into conventional lines of
public discourse, policy measures are now constructed in ways that appear to value political
advantage over the views of experts and evidence of research. This chapter will analyse how
successive governments have politicized criminal justice. The apparently unprincipled nature
of criminal justice policy will be discussed, and the non-responsiveness of politicians to the
opinions of experts will be outlined.
1.0 The development of criminal justice as political argumentation:
1.1 ‘Law and Order’
The latter decades of the twentieth century saw the development of a new government
approach towards the punishment of offenders in which “the welfare concerns of the
‘rehabilitative ideal’ gave way to more punitive sentiments that were associated with
retribution”7. Indeed, the 1979 election may be seen as marking “the end of the post-war
7 Joyce (2013) p.281.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 6 | P a g e
consensus approach to law and order”8. It is unsurprising therefore that issues of criminal
justice were instrumental in Thatcher’s winning campaign according to polls monitoring
shifts in public opinion9. Thatcher wasted no time in attributing the increases in crime of the
late 1970’s to Callaghan’s Labour government, while also emphasizing that Labour’s
promised future expenditure on criminal justice would have a significant impact on crime
levels10. Thatcher’s attack on Labour’s handling of criminal justice created a new dimension
to politics where questions about crime became embroiled in political discourse and
electoral bashing.
Thatcher’s rhetoric in the lead up to the 1979 election perfectly encapsulated this new
desire to associate issues of crime with issues of governance. She promised to reverse the
softness on crime that she attributed to Labour by boosting ‘the resources and powers’ of
the police to ‘prevent and clear up’ crime, to ‘toughen’ penal policy and protect law-abiding
citizens from lawlessness11. At a 1985 press conference, Thatcher boasted “never have you
ever heard me say that we must economise on law and order”. At the same conference,
Thatcher affirmed in relation to the Conservative’s pledge to increase spending on the
Metropolitan police force that “the tax payer would wish it”12. While Labour criticised the
Conservatives for widening social divisions and aggravating the root causes of crime that lay
in social inequality and deprivation, Thatcher attacked Labour for being soft on crime, for
being submissive against rising crime levels, of too readily being influenced by trade
8 Dunbar and Langdon (1998) p.100.9 Butler and Kavanagh (1980).10 Newman (1995) p.173.11 Reiner (2007), p.120.12 Full text of the conference available at http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106113. To conclude this conference, Thatcher was asked to deliver her final message for drug smugglers following
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 7 | P a g e
unionism (which was intrinsically associated with disorder) and of failing to develop any
short term solutions to bolster public protection13.
1.2 ‘Prison Works’
Thatcher’s law and order rhetoric provided the perfect opportunity for Michael Howard to
develop his own stern approach to criminal justice having been appointed Home Secretary
in 1993. Howard intensified Thatcher’s law and order approach to such an extent that policy
outputs were now unmistakably associated with adopting an even more austere approach
to crime – Howard’s rhetoric at the 1993 Conservative Party conference, the introduction of
a range of measures including the curtailment of the right of silence and major changes to
the law on disclosure of evidence fused together to form a new discourse that not only
politicized questions about criminal justice, but popularized them14. In short, Howard made
issues about criminal justice more accessible by utilizing emotional rhetoric that provoked a
passionate response from voters, epitomized most famously by the slogan ‘prison works’15.
In Howard’s quest to gain support for his approach, he successfully propagated issues of
crime policy so as to galvanize the public desire for a zero tolerance stance being upheld.
Most notably, Howard’s utilizing of the ‘prison works’ rationale meant showing a complete
disregard for the relevant provisions in the 1991 Criminal Justice Act that failed to accord
with the change of direction in policy. The most significant of these transformations
concerned the overarching view of the 1991 Act that the use of imprisonment be restricted
to cases where the court believed a custodial sentence to be the only appropriate sentence
13 Punch (2007) p.23.14 Ashworth p.990, cited in Maguire, Morgan and Reiner (eds.) (2007).15 Gerber and Jackson (2013). It is certainly true that the late 70’s and early 80’s have been regularly cited by academics as the period that saw the first significant rise in political dissidence over issues such as policy accountability and restricted parole eligibility for serious offenders.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 8 | P a g e
given the violent and/or sexual nature of the crime16. In regards to the length of sentence,
Howard’s ‘prison works’ rationale also meant overhauling Section 2(1) of the Act, which
provided that the sentence length be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, or
combination of the offence with other offences17. The statute also made clear however that
sentences may be lengthened so far as is necessary where the offence in question is violent
or sexual in nature subject to the statutory maximum term for the offence. Thus, while
retribution seems to be the predominant underlying principle to the 1991 Act given that the
sentence length cannot be shortened (since the Act only refers to the seriousness of the
offence, which seems to be independent of offender characteristics), this principle failed to
satisfy Howard’s desire for a more deterrent-based approach to the use of imprisonment.
To secure maximum political advantage, Howard insisted that incarceration be used to a
much greater extent to deter offenders and bring about a reduction in crime generally. It is
unsurprising therefore that the 1993 Criminal Justice Act reversed a number of elements of
the earlier legislation. The most significant of these changes concerned;
The criteria for justifying the use of custodial sentences . The courts could now
consider the combined seriousness of any number of offences rather than being
restricted to no more than two offences as outlined in the 1991 Act, and;
The role of an offender’s previous record . The 1993 Act provisioned that the courts
may take into account any previous conviction and any failure to respond to a
previous sentence in considering the seriousness of the offence18.
16 S1(2).17 Section 2(2a) and 2(2b). The particular use of the term ‘commensurate’ has convinced some authors that the 1991 Act was influenced to a great extent by the ‘just deserts’ approach to criminal sentencing, discussed later. This approach, argue Gerber and Jackson (n.12), appealed to the political right by emphasizing proportionality of punishment and a limit on judicial and administrative discretion.18 Newburn (1995) p.123.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 9 | P a g e
According to one Home Office civil servant, the government’s change of policies on criminal
justice under Howard was the most sudden and the most radical which had ever taken place
in the area of public policy19. The sharp acceleration of change under Howard’s approach
culminated in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 which sought further to
introduce stricter measures on the administration of justice e.g. increasing grounds for
refusing bail and allowing inferences to be drawn from the right of silence. The Act is in
many ways a perfect encapsulation of how Howard took Thatcher’s law and order
foundation and transformed her approach to produce legislation and policy outcomes that
were, firstly, altogether more authoritarian in nature, and secondly, geared entirely towards
gaining political advantage rather than a genuine desire to provide greater public
protection.
1.3 New Labour: ‘out-toughing’ the Conservatives?
The appointment of Jack Straw as shadow home secretary in 1994 was a firm demonstration
that New Labour were willing to go to considerable lengths to dispel the notion that the
Conservatives be considered the ‘tough on crime’ party20. Indeed, as McLaughlin et al. note;
“…Straw fed and exploited the debate about the crime crisis by highlighting the need
to implement NYPD-style ‘zero tolerance’ policing strategies to tackle what he
described as an ‘epidemic’ of low-level disorder, incivility and anti-social behaviour”.21
Perhaps New Labour’s greatest achievement during their first term in government was to
have forged a ‘Third Way’22 law and order position that challenged the previously held
19 Gibson et. al (1994) p.84.20 Downes (1998). See also Downes and Morgan (2012).21 (2001) p.304.22 By ‘Third Way’ is meant an ideological approach to policy making that seeks to reconcile right wing approaches to economics with left wing approaches to social policy. For further discussion, see Driver and Martell (2000). For Blair’s full speech at the 1998 Labour Party Conference in which he denounced himself as a
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 10 | P a g e
notion that social democratic parties were by definition ‘soft on crime’. Following Blair’s
famous ‘tough on crime’ speech at the 1995 Labour party conference in which he urged his
audience not to mistake tough on crime policies as the ‘moral values of the Tory right’23,
Blair recognized that “people have felt they have to choose between punishment and
prevention, between, if you like, personal and social responsibility”24. By emphasizing that
the Tory approach to criminal justice overlooked the causes of crime, Blair skilfully
propagated that the only way forward for criminal justice was to address the causes of
crime while maintaining a strict approach to punishment. ‘Tough on crime, tough on the
causes of crime’ perfectly encapsulated the need for a greater sense of perspective than the
deterrent-based framework offered by the Tories. Blair’s greatest accomplishment here
however was that his new slogan not only paved the way for a firmer stance on criminal
justice in the form of policy measures and legislation, but in his emphasis on the ‘underlying
causes of crime’ that lay in social inequality and relative deprivation, Blair managed to
promote these views without ever being accused of authoritarianism. His approach to
criminal justice had, in a sense, created a publicly accepted manifesto – there was little
sense that Blair’s continuous calls for a tougher approach to criminal justice were in any way
detached from the electorate.
However, to accept without questioning that New Labour’s time in government be
considered a period of harsher punishments for offenders may be foolhardy. Indeed, while
New Labour called loudly for greater toughness with some offenders, particularly persistent
and young offenders for whom the Anti-Social Behaviour Order was introduced in 1998,
firm supporter of the ‘Third Way’, see http://www.lgcplus.com/tony-blairs-speech-to-the-labour-party-conference-full-text/1448734.article23 Full text available at http://www.britishpoliticalspeech.org/speech-archive.htm?speech=201. 24 Excerpt from a BBC interview with Jonathan Dimbleby on 04/04/1993. Full interview transcript available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/otr/intext92-93/Blair4.7.93.html.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 11 | P a g e
ministers were careful not to associate themselves with the ‘prison works’ mantra of
Howard and thus voiced opinions against the use of imprisonment for minor non-violent
crime25. Such measures seem to stand contrary to, for example, the introduction of
imprisonment for public protection under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. This sentence was
imposed on any adult offender who committed any serious offence provided the courts
were of the opinion that the offender in question posed a serious risk to members of the
public of serious harm. This mandatory sentence however was used to a far greater extent
than initially envisaged and threatened to add thousands to the soaring prison population26.
This sentence has since been abolished altogether following the Legal Aid, Sentencing and
Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, s123.
New Labour’s approach to criminal justice was characterized by being selective in policy
decisions and punitive ethics. The seemingly unprincipled nature of New Labour’s approach
raises the question whether or not the criminal law is a lost cause. As Ashworth points out,
from the point of view of governments the answer is clearly in the negative – crime policy
provides a discursive space in which politicians jostle for electoral advantage. But from any
principled viewpoint, it is undoubtedly true that there are a number of issues – of how the
criminal law ought to function, of when it should be engaged, of its purposes and its
objectives – which are simply not being considered in the vast majority of cases27.
Sanders has commented that New Labour’s multi-task approach to criminal justice,
embodied by a desire to, on one hand, ‘out-tough’ the Conservatives on crime, while on the
other, caution against increasing the already marked prison population, could be discerned
25 Cavadino and Dignan (2007) p.117.26 Cavadino, Dignan and Mair (2013) p.105.27 Ashworth (2000) p.1.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 12 | P a g e
as early as the Crime and Disorder Act 199828. He argues that this statute contained ideas of
‘criminology of the other’, of which the most important elements were;
A tightening of anti-terrorism laws , embodied mostly in the Terrorism Act 2005.
Harshening of penal policy for serious offences , embodied mostly by the minimum
tariffs for murder as set out by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the increasingly
cautious risk-based policies for allowing prisoner release on licence.
Increased police powers . Powers to stop and search, arrest and detain in a police
station all significantly increased under New Labour, while all-new powers in relation
to mass surveillance and data gathering were also introduced. Sanders has also
argued that changes to the law of evidence, particularly on hearsay, bad character
and double jeopardy in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 undermine the rights of
suspects29.
Understood as the complete demonization of serious and repeat offenders, it may be
argued that criminology of ‘the other’ represents the hallmark of a deeply authoritarian
state. However, where authoritarianism concentrates political power in an executive not
responsible to, or representative of, the people, New Labour’s emphasis on tackling crime at
the root causes (which involved great focus on youth offending30) with the view to reducing
crime generally resonated perfectly with the electorate31.
Perhaps it is this ideological shift therefore that most adheres to the ‘new’ in New Labour32.
The underlying point here however is that New Labour’s success in politicizing issues of
28 Cited in Silvestri (2011) (eds.) p. 12.29 ibid p.13.30 See Newburn (1998) and Smith (2003).31 Lavalette and Mooney (1999).32 p.13.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 13 | P a g e
crime, and particularly those that threatened ‘social security’33, as issues that demanded the
attention of the electorate were carried out under the guise of ‘public protection’ –
criminology of ‘the other’ was seldom associated with authoritarianism and thus New
Labour succeeded in playing the crime card for maximum electoral advantage.
All this interest in criminal justice has led to the mass production of policy and legislation
organized entirely towards gaining political ascendancy. Questions about criminal justice
now rank alongside the economy, the NHS and immigration as primary battlegrounds for
electoral competition - Prime Minister David Cameron has promised a “tough, but
intelligent” approach to crime and pledges “bold, unprecedented action” against
miscarriages of justice34; opposition leader Ed Miliband has stated that while Labour should
not try to “out-right the right on crime”35, a “smart” approach to crime policy must take
priority over any political desire to sound the toughest36; UKIP’s approach is a particularly
symbolic one given that Nigel Farage has utilized Thatcher’s law and order rhetoric on crime
policy, stating that UKIP’s stance on crime ought not to be fixated around legal principles
but identifying the threat from “troublemakers and outcasts” and addressing these
concerns37. The fixation with crime policy is by no means restricted to the largest parties
either – Liberty GB, a minority far-right party founded on strong anti-EU sentiments
proposes a criminal justice system where the criminal “should fear the consequences of
their behaviour”38; the Socialist Labour Party boasts that its crime policies “would wipe out
the basic causes of violence and crime”39, while Britain First promises to “make prisons a 33 For further discussion on New Labour’s emphasis on ‘social security’ and welfare reform, see Brewer, Clark and Wakefield (2002).34 The Guardian, 22nd October 2012.35 The Guardian, 8th July 2010.36 BBC News, 8th May 2014.37 Newman, The Justice Gap, 2014.38 Liberty GB, ‘Ten Point Plan to Save Britain’, (emphasis added). Available at http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/about-libertygb/ten-point-plan.39 The Socialist Labour Party, ‘Justice’. Available at http://www.socialist-labour-party.org.uk/justice.html.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 14 | P a g e
place of hard labour rather than cosy holiday camps”, restore capital punishment for
paedophiles, terrorists and murderers, and make greater use of national service for habitual
offenders40. It is clear from the universality of approaches to criminal justice that these
issues now occupy an increasingly noteworthy space at the heart of political discourse. Less
clear however are the underlying principles behind the politicization of criminal justice and
the ways in which they operate. It is to this point that our attention now turns.
2.0 The unprincipled legislative production under the politicization of
criminal justice
2.1 All at sea: shifting criminal justice legislation and policy outcomes
The politicization of criminal justice owes itself primarily to the swift acceleration of change
from 1979 to the present day. A good starting point here may be found in the legislative
jungle that now surrounds the sheer number of Criminal Justice Acts (including several
variations) passed over the last three decades – see the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act
1981, Criminal Justice Acts passed in 1982, 1987, 1988, 1991, 1993, and 2003, the Criminal
Justice and Public Order Act 1994, the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998,
the Criminal Justice (International Co-Operation) (Amendment) Act 1998, the Crime and
Disorder Act 1998, the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, the Criminal Justice and
Police Act 2001 and the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. These Acts, which were
once viewed as landmark legislative reforms for policymakers, and the frequency with which
they were enacted, not only suggest an increasing public and parliamentary preoccupation
with criminal justice, but more significantly, an increasing readiness to associate issues of
crime with issues of government.
40 Britain First, ‘Policies’. Available at https://www.britainfirst.org/policies-2/.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 15 | P a g e
The rate at which Criminal Justice Acts were passed was matched only by the rate at which
policies were enacted and subsequently abolished. This seemingly unprincipled approach
was by no means restricted to a single period of government - it may be noted as a
consistent feature of criminal justice policy stemming from Thatcher to New Labour. The
‘short sharp shock’ detention centres for example, introduced by the 1982 Act which
reinvigorated the borstal system, were abolished in 1988 when detention centres were
merged with the wider network of young offender institutions41. As mentioned, Howard’s
appointment as Home Secretary saw core provisions of the 1991 Criminal Justice Act
reversed by the 1993 Act42. And under New Labour, electronic tagging was introduced,
abolished, and subsequently re-introduced following the implementation of the Home
Detention Curfew43. The rapid introduction of privately managed prisons is another
example44: the Green Paper Private Sector Involvement in the Remand System45suggested
that remand prisons be contracted out to the private sector; a decade later, the UK had six
privately operated prisons in full operation, with plans to construct an additional five. Such
developments stand in contrast to the recent work of the Prison Officers’ Association, which
campaigns along with various reform groups against privatization46.
Similarly inconsistent trends may be noted in the legal sphere too - on issues of criminal
sentencing, for example, it is clear that as the bank of case law and sentencing guidelines
continues to grow, so does the problem of outdated and inaccurate guidelines that fail to
accord with shifts in public opinion, leading to a lack of consistency, clarity and
41 Muncie, cited in Goldson (eds.) (2008) p.136.42 Wilson, cited in Ryan, Savage and Wall (eds.) (2001) p.125.43 Nellis, cited in Jewkes and Bennett (eds.) (2008) p.83.44 For a helpful analysis of the history and development of private prisons in the UK, see Panchamia (2012).45 Home Office (1988).46 n. 42.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 16 | P a g e
predictability47. All this activity, and the short time in which it occurred, underlined the
process whereby issues about criminal justice usually left to academics, judges, and penal
reformers now demanded the attention of the public.
2.2 New Labour and the significance of ‘justice’
While ‘tough on crime’ approaches to penal policy tend to manifest the criminal law as an
instrument of oppression48, of far greater concern is the underlying process whereby those
involved in this highly politicized debate produce often conflicting ideas about justice. It is
important to emphasize that these outputs inform public opinion and shape policy
decisions, while also go some way to explaining why the questions ‘why punish?’ and ‘how
much?’ have been located within political and social theories for which the relationship
between the state and the criminal offender is the defining concern49.
New Labour’s clear preoccupation with justice may be understood from a number of Home
Office publications produced during this period. Perhaps most significantly, ‘narrowing the
justice gap’ was frequently cited as a key strand of New Labour’s penal policy in the White
Paper Justice for All50. As Clark has noted:
“Justice for All is guided by a single clear priority – to rebalance the criminal justice
system in favour of the victim and the community so as to reduce crime and bring
offenders to justice”51.
47 Wasik (2014).48 Lanham, cited in Lanham, Bartal, Evans and Wood (eds.) (2006) chapter 1B. Full PDF available for download at http://www.federationpress.com.au/pdf/lanham%20ch1b.pdf.49 Wasik (1998) p.103.50 (2002) Cm 5563. London, The Stationery Office.51 Clark, cited in Cape (eds.) (2004) p.21.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 17 | P a g e
This fixation with ‘rebalancing’ the criminal justice system and ‘bringing offenders to justice’
provided a key policy platform for New Labour. Beyond the Crime and Disorder Act, New
Labour sought to implement elements of the controversial Crime (Sentences) Act 1997,
including the provisions regarding automatic life sentences for a second conviction for a
serious sexual or violent offence, mandatory minimum sentences of seven years for a third
class-A drug trafficking conviction, and the abolition of consent requirements for certain
community penalties52. This culminated in the passing of the Domestic Violence, Crime and
Victims Act 2004. This legislation primarily concerned legal protection and assistance to
victims of crime, particularly those who had suffered from domestic violence. By expanding
the provision of trials without a jury for such cases and introducing new rules relating to the
offence of causing the death of a child or vulnerable adult, this legislation suggests an
increased willingness to establish a criminal justice system that stood up for victims.
The Home Office’s rhetoric under New Labour clearly demonstrated these ideas in practice -
it described its role as ‘supporting the efficient and effective delivery of justice’53 and
delivering justice ‘with fairer sentencing and fewer occasions when the system seems to let
the offender off the hook’54. Rebalancing the Criminal Justice System in favour of the Law-
abiding Majority55 may be considered particularly significant here as this paper set out three
particular areas of reform New Labour vowed to address, the first of which was defined as
“measures that aim to give greater emphasis to the interests of the victim, not just in the
provision of services and access to compensation, but also in the decision-making of the
Parole Board”56.
52 Brownlee (1998) p.314-315.53 Working Together to Protect the Public: The Home Office Strategy 2008-11, (2008). London, Home Office.54 Rebalancing the Criminal Justice System in favour of the Law-abiding Majority: Reducing Reoffending and Protecting the Public, (2006). London, Home Office.55 ibid.56 Genders and Player (2007) p.2.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 18 | P a g e
It must be remembered however that what is construed as just treatment will depend
entirely on the theory of justice adopted57. Justice embodies notions of equality and fairness
to both offenders and victims, and striking a balance between these conflicting interests lies
at the heart of the justice system. Thus what is construed as just treatment from a
retributivist standpoint may be perceived as unjust from a utilitarian standpoint, and vice
versa. Preventive detention, for example, may be defended as justifiable treatment on the
grounds that the interests of wider society be given priority over individual rights, but this
approach raises questions for retributivists. We will return to some of these questions in the
following chapter, but it is sufficient here to note that disagreements surrounding criminal
justice policy ought to be considered the result of similarly intense debates around
conflicting theories of justice58.
3.0 Sentencing: the wisdom of courts and the political indifference
Perhaps the most significant feature of punishment is that it rests upon a moral foundation.
This means that while it is true that a person’s ideas about what constitutes just treatment
may be expressed by referring to a variety of justice principles (such as fairness, equality,
consistency or need), there is an assumption that justice ‘just exists’ – it operates almost on
a metaphysical level and only becomes an explicit feature of human interaction when it is
clear that these principles are not met. Sentencing, therefore, operates independently of
political concern – its focus is purely on restoring a sense of justice when the actions of one
have, or have attempted to, impact negatively and unlawfully on another. It is for these
reasons that questions about justice occupy not only a noteworthy space at the heart of the
57 Various theories of justice are explored on the following pages. It is sufficient here simply to note the scale of this debate e.g. for a liberal concept of justice see Rawls (1971); for a discussion of feminist theories of justice see Daly (1994); for a ‘redressive’ approach, see Gold (2014).58 Buckler and Dolowitz (2005) p.303.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 19 | P a g e
criminal justice system, but also at the heart of any well-managed society. The judiciary is
expected to operate independently of the executive and those who engage in it, but
perhaps more significant is the observation that sentencing on criminal matters
undoubtedly provokes passionate and emotive responses from the public that are often
difficult or impossible to articulate in rational terms.
Returning to the question about the wisdom of courts in sentencing, while the relevant case
law has been clear about the rationales of sentencing and the relevant factors that ought to
be considered when deciding the appropriate sentence, it may be said that these ideas tend
not to resonate adequately with the electoral objectives of the politician whose task it is to
exploit issues of criminal justice for political advantage. Decisions such as that in Kefford59,
for example, where the offender’s sentence was reduced on appeal from 12 months
imprisonment to 4 months on the grounds that any prison sentence must be considered in
light of the overcrowded prison system and that any custodial term must be no longer than
is absolutely necessary to meet the penal purpose of the sentence, are of zero value to
politicians as they fail to accord with their ‘tough on crime’ rhetoric. Within policy spheres,
justice is presented as if it is almost tangible60. Thus a disconnection has emerged between
the political class and the judiciary where the former purposefully overlook the opinions of
the latter in favour of a more politically-attractive rationale.
This has not however restricted the judiciary from making general pronouncements on
sentencing policy that demand the attention of MPs. In Begum Bibi61, Lord Lane CJ urged
judges to give shorter sentences for less serious types of offence, and a similar message was
59 [2002] EWCA Crim 519.60 Blake, Sheldon and Williams (2010), chapters 5 and 6.61 [1980] 2 Cr App R (S) 177.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 20 | P a g e
delivered by Rose LJ in Ollerenshaw62, where it was emphasized that the sentence imposed
should be no longer than is necessary to meet the penal purpose which the court believes to
be most appropriate. Put concisely, the court emphasized that in cases of short periods of
custody, there are cases where 6 months imprisonment may serve the penal purpose
equally as well as 9, or 2 months may be just as effective as 4. The court also emphasized in
relation to prison overcrowding that such an approach was no less valid than the one
adopted in Begum Bibi. Furthermore, Lord Phillips CJ in Seed and Stark63 urged restraint in
the use of imprisonment in cases where public protection is not the foremost
consideration64, and emphasized that the effectiveness of prison regimes in light of issues
surrounding overcrowding is likely to be diluted. By this Lord Phillips meant that the
effectiveness of prison would become less constructive and more punitive. While it is true
that determining what legal effects flow from these decisions is difficult, it is certainly true
that such judgements are intended to mobilize a policy response. Such authority of course
remains in the hands of politicians, but the above case law does at least serve to
demonstrate that the judiciary’s role in providing informal sources of sentencing policy
ought not to be underestimated65.
Speaking three decades ago, Lord Chief Justice Lane commented that “sentencing consists in
trying to reconcile a number of totally irreconcilable facets”66. In noting the “maze of
legislation” faced by judges on sentencing, Lord Lane rather controversially called for the
prosecution counsel to “play a part in the sentencing process by directing the judge to such
62 [1999] 1 Cr App R (S) 65.63 [2007] EWCA 254.64 p.440.65 Newburn (2007).66 HL Deb, vol. 486, col. 1295.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 21 | P a g e
statutory provisions as may guide him in his sentencing task”67. Lord Lane’s comments
illustrate the point previously that even where professional experts are concerned, the
sheer number of variables that are now required to be reconciled when deciding the
appropriate sentence, including previous convictions, previous responses to sentences,
offender characteristics, offender motives, and concerns about prison overcrowding will
continue to grow year by year as public figures take an even greater interest in this area.
These constantly-shifting discursive spaces where new ideas interact make the task of
achieving ‘real justice’ increasingly difficult. It is also worth remembering that sentencing is
merely one part of a much larger process in which the decisions of other individuals in the
administration of justice affect political and judicial outputs. Indeed, Garland has suggested
that this observation be considered more widely:
“The major cultural themes which appear in penality – conceptions of justice, of crime,
religious forms, attitudes towards age, race, class, gender, and so on – did not develop
independently there, nor do they stand on their own as isolated beliefs. Like all cultural
elements they are enmeshed in wide belief systems and mentalities, deriving their
sense and credibility from their ability to resonate with established ways of thinking
and understanding”68.
The politicization of criminal justice therefore has transformed the roles of the judiciary into
interpreters and implementers of justice – they have little influence on constructing new
ideas about what constitutes just treatment as these questions have been relocated firmly
on the policy agenda. Garland enhances this view in a later work:
67 ibid.68 Garland (1990), p.211.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 22 | P a g e
“Criminal justice is now less autonomous than it was three decades ago, and more
forcefully directed from the outside. Criminal justice actors and agencies are now less
capable of directing their own fate and shaping their own policies and decisions”.69
The underlying point here is that when the interaction between the executive and the
judiciary on criminal sentencing is considered within its appropriate political context,
sentencing transforms from a question about justice to a question about governance. The
increasingly charged political landscape that now surrounds questions about criminal
sentencing is so volatile that changes which are heralded this year are often discarded the
following year. Indeed, as Wasik puts it;
“Sentencing levels are ‘talked-up’ by politicians who portray the public as instantly
punitive, although numerous research studies have shown that this is not the case at
all”.70
It must also be borne in mind that the sentencing hearing will be the final, and the most
visible, stage of the criminal procedure before the offender may be subject to the sanctions
of the state and considered a criminal. Thus the sentencing stage may be considered the
most ‘interactive’ stage of the criminal process and the culmination of the justice system’s
work: it is the point where the case becomes not only about the offender and the state, but
the offender and the expression of social values.
It is important therefore that sentencing be seen “within the context of the whole criminal
justice process, not as part of a preoccupation with penalties or as a demonstration of a
69 Garland (2001) p.172.70 (2004) p.1.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 23 | P a g e
government ‘tough on crime’”71. Indeed, as Mary Tuck, the former head of the Home Office
Research and Planning Unit commented in an interview with Lord Longford;
“While the ‘official line’ is that length of sentences ought to be reduced, there [will]
always be the temptation in parliament for individual members – or even parties - to
bid up sentence lengths to show they were really tough on crime. It would become a
sort of auction of punitiveness”.72
Tuck’s remark captures succinctly the interplay between the judiciary and the executive.
While it is a basic constitutional principle that law-making be done by the latter and
interpreted by the former, the political desire to utilize questions about criminal justice for
political gain has led to greater central control over those who deliver sentences. This
development is punctuated by carefully drafted legislation that imposes limits on judicial
action - the implementation of minimum terms for certain types of offence and the
restricting of conditions for release on licence are just two examples of this. Furthermore,
while little reference has been made so far to the Sentencing Guidelines Council, it is
significant that the relationship between this body and the Secretary of State was
established in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, where it is given that where the Council has
prepared or revised any sentencing guidelines, it must consult, ‘such other persons as the
Council feels appropriate’73. In practical terms, ‘such other persons’ undoubtedly refers to
individuals outside of the judiciary – those with experience of policing, criminal prosecution,
criminal defence, and the welfare of victims of crime seem to be the relevant parties to
which this provision is addressed. Thus it is inaccurate to say that the activities and functions
of the judiciary are restricted only by MPs – it is clear from the above observations that the
71 James and Raine (1998) p.2872 Cited in Longford (1991) p.47.73 S 170(8)(b)(iii).
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 24 | P a g e
network of individuals who seek to diminish the influence of judges on criminal justice
extends far beyond those who sit in the House of Commons.
Concluding comments
This chapter has provided an overview of the ways in which criminal justice have been
utilized by politicians for the purposes of securing electoral gain. The origins of this process
have been traced to the early Thatcher period, while Michael Howard’s term as Home
Secretary in the early 1990’s and New Labour’s sustained emphasis on criminal justice that
propelled Tony Blair to Labour’s landslide victory at the 1997 general election have been
cited as pivotal periods for this politicization. A number of themes have been identified,
including the development of criminal justice as political argumentation, New Labour’s
preoccupation with conceptions of justice and the reluctance of the executive to follow the
opinions of the judiciary.
It is clear however that these observations are far from complete – little attention has been
given so far to opposing theories of justice and whether they provide the groundwork for
the politicization of the aims of criminal justice and the ways in which governments ought to
go about achieving these aims74. As we will see, sentencing encompasses a whole range of
competing and often conflicting ideas that invite the attention of both policymakers and
sentencers. The following chapter will address these ideas.
74 O’Malley (2010), ch.1.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 25 | P a g e
Chapter 2: Political argumentation,
theories of justice and sentencing
Introduction
This chapter will argue that the lack of a universally applicable theory of justice has
produced fertile ground for the growth of political involvement in sentencing. While it has
been established on the previous pages that heightened political interest in matters about
criminal justice may be explained by an increasing desire to exploit these questions for
electoral advantage, it would be foolish to suggest that this explanation does not rest upon
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 26 | P a g e
a number of other factors – for example, the great expansion of the mass media. More
significant for the purposes of this paper however are the theories of justice that underlie
criminal justice policy. This chapter will proceed firstly by providing an overview of two
prominent theories of justice and their political implications. The intention is to show that
both theories are imperfect: that is, they are objectionable on at least one significant count.
The chapter will proceed by emphasizing the usefulness of utilitarian theories of justice and
the ways in which these theories are exercised so as to underlie criminal justice policy.
1.0 Imperfect theories of justice
1.1 Just Deserts
The Criminal Justice Act 1991 proposed a non-utilitarian framework based on the
seriousness of the offence committed and the proportionality principle in determining the
appropriate criminal sentence75. This is the ‘just deserts’ approach. Andrew von Hirsch, in
his influential book ‘Doing Justice’ (1976), claims that such an approach embodies perfectly
the criminal law’s principle of fairness – that the offender’s punishment constitutes a
justified and proportionate reaction to his wrongdoing76.
Doing Justice emerged as a result of 4 years of investigation carried out by the Committee
for the Study of Incarceration, which von Hirsch himself directed. The Committee
acknowledged that the primary objective in its research was to integrate the thoughts of
‘the philosopher, historian, economist, political scientist, sociologist, psychoanalyst and
75 Henham (1999), p.173. The just deserts approach is expressed succinctly in the Old Testament: “When a man causes a disfigurement in his neighbour… it shall be done to him, fracture by fracture, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” (Exodus 21:24).76 Ibid p.174. This is particularly true in relation to S1(2)(a) of the 1991 Act, which provides that a custodial sentence can only be justified if the offence (or the combination of the offence and one or several associated offences) is so serious that a custodial sentence is construed as the only appropriate verdict available to the judge.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 27 | P a g e
lawyer into a unitary whole’77. Desert theory, the Committee insisted, addresses both the
question of why punishment is justified, as well as the question how much punishment is
justified.
Just deserts is a retributivist theory of punishment, thus it focuses only on the transgression
as the basis for imposing criminality. This rather basic function lies at the heart of this
approach, though advocates of the just deserts model also emphasize the importance of
due process, determinate sentences and the removal of judicial discretion in sentencing
practice. There are two points in particular that demand our attention here.
Firstly, there is a constant tension between discretion in sentencing and the rule of law.
Academics would argue that sentencers ought to have sufficient discretion in taking into
consideration the peculiar facts of individual cases, but this argument stands contrary to the
rule of law, which in this context means that judicial decisions be taken by reference to
standards declared in advance.78 As Ashworth rightly points out, there is an important
distinction between saying that judges be given a wide margin of discretion in deciding the
appropriate sentence and suggesting that judges be given a completely unrestricted license
to choose which rationale of sentencing to adopt79.
Secondly, the removal of judicial discretion means that clear differences in offender
motivation bear no moral or legal significance whatsoever. It follows that tragic cases such
as that of Frances Inglis, where the mother of a severely disabled 22-year-old had her life
sentence upheld despite her saying she had “no choice” but to mercifully end her son’s life
and did so “with love in her heart”, are no different to a cold-blooded act of murder80. The
77 p.xv78 Raz (1979) ch.11.79 Ashworth (2010) p.76.80 [2010] EWCA Crim 2637.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 28 | P a g e
removal of judicial discretion therefore restricts the ability of the court to impose a just
sentence based on a careful consideration of the facts. Similarly, when sent to prison, one
offender may embrace the rehabilitative process to a greater extent than may be true for
another offender. Such realities undoubtedly exist among offenders, yet in undermining
judicial discretion, these concerns are entirely neglected, thereby labelling the just deserts
approach ethically and morally questionable.
A significant aspect of von Hirsch’s theory is that a commitment to understanding
sentencing practice ought to be considered a critical component of a theory of justice. The
proportionality principle, therefore, is presented as an almost inviolable requirement.
However, the severity of any sentence may only be made proportionate if levels of
seriousness can be distinguished, which is problematic. As Husak puts it, “the judgement
that one crime is more or less serious than a very different crime seems much like dealing
with apples and oranges”81. This gives rise to the single most convincing critique of desert
theory, termed the problem of incommensurables.
The problem of incommensurables lies predominately in desert theory’s assumption that
there exists a universally-shared notion of fairness82. Fairness ought not to be confused with
ideas of justice or morality, though social theories have often interconnected these
concepts. Thus, in theory at least, a sentencing policy based on a common understanding of
fairness (the just desert model) ought to produce legal outcomes that will be received
81 Cited in Ashworth and Wasik (eds.) (1998) p.189.82 This is debatable in itself. Consider, for example, the offence of attempted murder – The justification for criminalising such an offence, despite the fact that the accused has been unsuccessful in carrying out the act, lies in the notion that the accused’s mens rea (that is, his intention to kill) warrants the intervention of the state. Such observations can be made for all inchoate offences. Where such ambiguities exist, the judge must exercise his discretion in determining the ‘just desert’ sentence – this is difficult however when no physical harm has been caused.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 29 | P a g e
positively by members of the public every time (because they will adhere to the same
notions of fairness as those involved in sentencing).
As Hough and Roberts argue however, there is little evidence that sentences are so well
received83. In fact, their conclusions point in the opposite direction: sentences are much too
lenient and judges are ‘out of touch’84. In short, sentencers find themselves in a crisis of
public confidence, a conclusion that severely challenges the apparent propriety of the just
deserts approach.
2.0 Utilitarian theories of justice: a critique of just deserts and a
theory itself
2.1 The need for a utilitarian approach
It may be said that the just deserts model not only lacks a convincing foundation, but also
fails to provide any form of desirable rationale to be utilized by policymakers. Thus the just
deserts model is of little or no value to political actors because it fails to provide a platform
to inform crime policy. Politicians desire an alternative approach to sentencing, one that not
only addresses the offender in question, but also brings with it an additional idea that will be
applicable to all matters of criminality and may be utilized for furthering a particular
ideological view. Following this, our attention now turns to utilitarian theories of justice.
Utilitarian theories of justice may be considered to fall into 4 categories: deterrence,
rehabilitation, incapacitation and restorative justice. All of these approaches “seek to
achieve some social benefit through the application of punishments”85. What the ‘social
83 Attitudes to Punishment: Findings from the British Crime Survey, Home Office Research Study 179, London: Home Office.84 Ibid p.19.85 Roberts and Gebotys (1989), p.388.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 30 | P a g e
benefit’ is in any case will depend on the version of utilitarian theory adopted. Put
succinctly, utilitarian theories seek to achieve a good and proper criminal sentence for
offenders not only for the purpose of sanctioning them, but also for the sake of pursuing an
additional desirable function.
Each utilitarian theory of justice has a considerable philosophical background and
penological context which cannot be set out here. Thus focus will be maintained on the
version that most closely aligns with the objectives of politicians and may be considered the
most apparent in providing the foundation upon which policy measures have taken form:
deterrence.
2.2 Deterrence and its political significance
According to the White Paper that underlay the 1991 Criminal Justice Act, deterrence is a
principle with much immediate appeal86: “most law abiding citizens… would be deterred by
the shame of a criminal conviction or the possibility of a severe penalty”87. Note that
deterrence theory assumes that crime (or the decision to commit a crime) is a rational
choice88. Advocates of deterrence theory claim that such an approach not only deters
offenders from committing a crime, but also that it deters those who are merely considering
committing a crime.
There is a wealth of evidence marked in English case law to suggest that the courts are by no
means unaware of the influential role ideas about deterrence have had and continue to
have on underlying crime policy. The decisions in Cunningham89, Povey90, Celaire and
86 Home Office (1990), Crime, Justice, and Protecting the Public, Cm. 965. London: HMSO, p.6.87 Ibid.88 This is crucial to the failings of deterrence theory, discussed below.89 [1993] Crim LR 149.90 [2008] EWCA Crim 1261.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 31 | P a g e
Poulton91, Oosthuizen92, Gareth Welleans93 and Hussain94 are all notable indicators95. This
was clarified further in R v Blackshaw96, where Lord Judge commented:
“There is an overwhelming obligation on sentencing courts to do what they can to
ensure the protection of the public… This is an imperative… [The] imposition of severe
sentences, intended to provide both punishment and deterrence, must follow… They
must be punished accordingly, and the sentences should be designed to deter others
from similar criminal activity.”97
To justify sentencing in terms of the sentencing outcome in this way is in stark contrast to
the just deserts framework, where emphasis is purely on ensuring that a just outcome is
achieved. It is by translating the former of these approaches to sentencing into policy
outputs that Michael Howard justified his ‘prison works’ slogan. It follows that the readiness
of the state to incarcerate offenders will deter them from committing a criminal offence,
thereby bringing about a reduction in crime generally and casting a favourable light on the
Conservative party.
Indeed, in a 1996 interview, when asked if ‘locking up a villain is based on the logic that he
can’t be committing any crime while he’s in jail’, Howard replied “Yes. I put the protection
of the public on the top of my priorities list”98. This form of ‘public protection’ may be
advanced as a general sentencing purpose in alignment with the Criminal Justice Act 200399.91 [2002] EWCA Crim 2487.92 [2005] EWCA Crim 1978.93 [2008] EWHC 109 (QB)94 (Mohammad) [2005] EWCA Crim 1866.95 It is worth noting however that while bringing about a reduction in crime has been frequently cited by the courts as the primary justification for applying a deterrence-based rationale to sentencing, deterrence may also be used for ‘securing the protection of the public’. This was particularly significant in Povey at para 4.96 [2011] EWCA 2312.97 At para 4 (emphasis added).98 Excerpt from a BBC interview with Jon Humphrys on 14/04/1996 (emphasis added). Full text available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/otr/intext95-96/Howard14.4.96.html.99 S 142(1)(d).
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 32 | P a g e
2.3 Deterrence and its imperfections
There are two underlying assumptions of deterrence theory that must be borne in mind in
light of the observations made on the previous pages. The first of these concerns rational
choice, while the second concerns the way in which deterrence theory operates in practice.
During a speech at the Conservative Political Centre on 29th January 1996, Prime Minister
John Major commented “crime is a choice whether its burglary by a young tearaway or
sophisticated financial crime”100. In this sense, every member of the public is assumed to be
a potential criminal – all that distinguishes offenders from potential offenders is the ability
of the latter to restrain from criminal action in the face of an opportunity. It follows that the
act of restraining from crime, or the act of refusing the opportunity to engage in a crime by
exercising self-control, can only exist on the condition that severe enough punishments are
in place to deter individuals from committing a criminal offence. In practice, this means that
it is not the gravity of the crime but the propensity to reoffend which should be the main
determinant of the sentence. Supporters of deterrence theory therefore believe, or are at
least willing to assume, that the potential benefits of committing a crime are not only
immediately visible, but also attainable, for the potential offender101.
The second important implication for thinking about deterrence theory is that it can only
operate within the mind of a potential offender. This means that the deterrent effect of a
criminal sentence may only operate (if at all) if the offender knows the severity of the
probable sentence, takes this into account when deciding whether or not to commit the
offence, believe that there is a reasonable chance that he/she will be caught, believe that
he/she will be charged and subsequently sentenced (perhaps even with reasonable
100 Full text available at http://www.johnmajor.co.uk/page831.html101 Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990).
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 33 | P a g e
knowledge about what the sentence is likely to be in light of his/her criminal record and the
particular circumstances of the case), and therefore refrains from committing the offence
with all of this in mind102. Clearly, to suggest that a potential criminal takes such
considerations into account when deciding whether or not to commit a criminal offence is
unrealistic. The dilemma is not made any more straightforward when turned on its head
either. The only possible explanation offered by deterrence theory for law-abiding citizens
obeying the law is that they fear the criminal sanction – no consideration is given to the
notion that the vast majority of people obey the law because they consider it to be
legitimate,103 or they realize that obeying the law tends to bring about greater social and
economic advantages both for themselves and others, particularly for independent
businessmen and women.
With these observations in mind, it may be said that while deterrence theory is, on the face
of it at least, an attractive one for policymakers, there are two fundamental flaws to this
approach. It is to these imperfections that we must briefly turn.
Criticisms of deterrence theory primarily fixate around the inherent difficulty in arriving at
any convincing enough conclusion based on empirical evidence. Put succinctly, there is
simply no evidence that it works104. There is no compelling evidence that the enforcement of
the death penalty, for example, deters offenders from homicide105. This has been well
documented both within the UK and US context106. This is due largely to the fact that any
102 Bottoms (2004) p.65.103 This is exactly the conclusion proposed by Tyler (2006).104 Tonry (2004) p.34.105 See the voluminous work carried out by Amnesty International (available at http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/the-death-penalty-and-deterrence) for an introduction. Generally speaking however, it is worth noting that debates surrounding capital punishment dominate political, social and legal discourse in America to this day, particularly in the traditionally-Republican southern states where conservative approaches to crime and law enforcement have historically dominated.106 Hood and Hoyle (2008) ch.9. See Also Ashworth (2010) p.78.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 34 | P a g e
study of the alleged effectiveness of deterrence-based criminal sanctions must prove
beyond doubt that it is the fear of the legal penalty that is the particular factor that led to
avoidance of the conduct in question as opposed to any other reason107. Furthermore, it
seems that few offenders are aware of how severe the penalty for a particular crime is – in
other words, deterrence fails to prevent people from committing a crime not because
criminal sentences are too lenient, but because the vast majority of offenders are simply not
aware of what the legal sanction for committing the offence is, how serious it is, or how
their previous criminal record or the particular circumstances of their offence will impact
upon how they are treated by the courts108.
Furthermore, the Home Office itself has recognised that “it is unrealistic to construct
sentencing arrangements on the assumption that most offenders will weigh up the
possibilities in advance and base their conduct on rational calculation”109. In a later
publication, another Home Office report noted that “it is the prospect of getting caught that
has deterrence value, rather than alterations to the ‘going rate’ for severity of sentences…
The evidence suggests that any new sentencing framework should make no new
assumptions about deterrence”110.
2.4 Deterrence: A reflection
Despite the above concerns and the considerable authority to suggest that there is little
evidence to support the notion that criminals and potential criminals are deterred from
crime by harsh criminal sentences, far more significant, particularly for policymakers, is that
107 Paternoster (2010).108 Riley (1985).109 n.25.110 Home Office (2001), Making Punishments Work. (Report of a Review of the Sentencing Framework for England and Wales, commonly referred to as the Halliday report ).
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 35 | P a g e
deterrence theory sets out the foundations for a particular type of sentencing policy, and
thus, a particular type of approach to criminal justice – punish the crime, not the criminal.
This is an attractive approach for those in the policymaking sphere. By voicing support for
policy measures that include doing away with indeterminate and indefinite sentences,
reducing the grounds on which prisoners may seek early release on licence and upholding
minimum term tariffs for particular offences, the job of the politician is made relatively
simple: uphold these values at all costs, recognize that a firm approach to criminal justice is
required in order to reduce crime, and such an approach will resonate with the electorate.
For the politician, the fact that there is a great deal of evidence to challenge the apparent
proficiency and effectiveness of deterrence is irrelevant as long as adopting a deterrence-
based approach enables policymakers to present themselves as the individual who cares
most deeply about the ways in which the law ought to go about reducing it. It is for these
reasons that the just deserts approach has fallen out of favour with the contemporary
political sphere and is now reserved primarily for practitioners and academics, while
deterrence-based approaches have become key policy tools.
However, we saw earlier how New Labour successfully propagated issues about crime to
issues about governance by adopting an even more ‘tough on crime’ policy than the one
offered by Howard. We also saw that despite the continuation of policy that some may have
considered to resemble an authoritarian regime, New Labour’s greatest triumph in
implementing these measures was to do so in such a way that they were interpreted as
measures aimed purely at protecting the public rather than a means of furthering the state’s
control over the mass population. In other words, New Labour’s rafts of new crime
initiatives and measures aimed at improving social security were perceived to be
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 36 | P a g e
legitimate111. This explains why New Labour’s approach was effective in galvanizing public
support for Tony Blair’s 3 successful election campaigns. Left unanswered however is the
question of how – How did New Labour succeed in legitimizing such a vast expansion of the
criminal law without ever being accused of authoritarianism? The final section of this paper
is intended to address this question in full.
3.0 New Labour, new approach: cherry picking and the veil of
legitimacy
The apparent ‘special relationship’ Prime Minister Blair established with U.S President Bill
Clinton has so far gone unmentioned. The extent to which New Labour were influenced by
Clinton’s politics and electoral tactics is a topic worthy of a separate paper, thus it is
sufficient here to note that Labour in the early 1990’s saw its weak anti-crime credentials as
an electoral handicap and resolved to adopt Clinton’s approach to crime policy: never let
the conservatives get to your right112. For Clinton, this meant passing landmark legislation in
1994 that extended the death penalty to a further 60 federal crimes. For New Labour, this
meant voicing support for the repressive provisions in the 1993 Criminal Justice Act and
endorsing the changes in law to the right to silence of an accused person and the expansion
of police powers following the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994113. Such
approaches, alongside the expansion of legislation as outlined in the previous chapter,
covered the ‘tough on crime’ element of New Labour’s quest to occupy the middle ground
in British politics. What followed however provided the foundation for New Labour’s
success: Blair realised that the Tory preoccupation with incarceration and deterrence had
111 This observation ought perhaps to be considered even more significant in the light of Tyler’s work (n.103)112 Downes and Morgan (2002).113 Tonry (2003) p.20.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 37 | P a g e
entirely neglected a societal desire to see a more welfare-based approach to criminal justice
based on the needs of victims and the law-abiding majority. In other words, by Howard
fixating exclusively around policy outputs designed entirely to deter potential offenders
from crime through the assurance of tough punishment, Blair figured that the Tories had
missed a trick. By emphasizing one while simultaneously pursuing the other, Blair skilfully
brandished New Labour as the party that would achieve both.
By emphasizing the need for an alternative and more inclusive approach to criminal policy,
Blair spelt out the importance of “breaking the either/or choices that characterized the law
and order debate of the ‘old’ left and the ‘new’ right”114. In a series of speeches and position
papers, Blair espoused the communitarian values of mutual obligation, self-discipline and
individual responsibility115 and committed to prioritizing the needs of victims and law-
abiding citizens, as if marking the already well established distinction between criminals and
non-criminals. As Raine and Wilson note, by committing New Labour to tackling the root
causes of crime and those affected by it, Blair succeeded in establishing a new moral base
that would work in harmony with the humanitarian and communitarian values traditionally
associated with criminal justice116. Blair also succeeded in redefining the role and function of
criminal justice as a regulatory state institution with a greater emphasis on crime
prevention, rehabilitation and the wider setting of social policy, rather than a mere set of
services. As James and Raine point out, these developments signified an all new outlook on
crime policy that resembled a radically different approach to that of the Conservative party,
whose policies resembled a short-term answer rather than a long-term solution to an
increasing societal concern117.114 McLaughlin, Muncie and Hughes (n.21) p.303.115 Hughes (1996).116 Raine and Wilson (1997).117 ibid p.93.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 38 | P a g e
By fusing a ‘tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’ approach to crime policy while
simultaneously emphasizing the societal desire to see greater measures taken to bring
about a reduction in crime generally, New Labour’s approach to criminal justice
encapsulates a complex theory of justice: the criminal process was now expanded to such
an extent that while the sheer volume of legislation passed under New Labour points firmly
in the direction of an authoritarian criminal justice system, the establishment of a wide
range of crime partnerships and local authorities whose task it was to pursue the
rehabilitation of offenders via non-penitentiary means points in the opposite direction.
These developments may be summarised as an increase in bureaucracy. They may also be
summarised as an extension of the authority of the state. The result of these measures
however was to entrench discourses of crime control premised upon communitarian
notions of how to create law-abiding citizens and mould law-abiding communities – this, in
short, is the societal benefit New Labour pursued in criminal justice policy. While bringing
about a reduction in crime ought rightfully to be considered New Labour’s primary
objective, the way in which they set about achieving this goal (that is, by emphasizing the
need to address the underlying causes of crime rather than focusing entirely on a short-term
solution) paved the way for a rapidly-expanding criminal justice system that at no point was
considered illegitimate. Unlike Howard’s ‘prison works’ approach, New Labour understood
the imperfection of the theories of justice as well as the multiplicity of choices they offered,
especially the utilitarian range of options. In this way, New Labour kept satisfying the
various sides of public opinion and the media spectrum in making criminal justice a political
issue.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 39 | P a g e
Concluding remarks
This paper has provided an overview of the politics of criminal justice policy from 1979 to
the end of the New Labour government and sought to uncover the ways in which political
actors have manipulated questions surrounding criminal justice for political gain. It has been
maintained that since Thatcher’s landmark victory at the 1979 general election that
symbolized the death of any academic or governmental consensus about approaches to
crime policy, questions surrounding criminal justice have become so embroiled in political
debate that they now rank alongside the most prominent of political issues as footballs in
electoral competition. Reasons for the political preoccupation with justice and the ways in
which governments are expected to uphold this particularly elusive concept have been
discussed with a specific emphasis on the activities of the New Labour government, which
has been punctuated by an inconsistent and seemingly unprincipled approach to criminal
justice exemplified by a great expansion in criminal justice legislation and a noteworthy
broadening of criminal justice policy. Following this, ‘tough on crime’ approaches, many of
which have resembled either a partial or complete disregard for the opinions of the
judiciary, have been explored within the context of their usefulness to political actors with
particular reference to Michael Howard’s ‘prison works’ ideas and overhaul of the 1991
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 40 | P a g e
Criminal Justice Act. Taken as a whole, this process has been termed the politicization of
criminal justice.
In light of these observations, this paper has provided an overview of the just deserts model
of criminal sentencing and outlined the desire, from a policymaking perspective, for an
alternative approach. Deterrence has been singled out as a utilitarian theory of great
political value because it provides fertile ground for the furthering of ‘tough on crime’
policies in criminal justice. These observations have suggested that the political jousting that
surrounds criminal justice may be traced to the imperfect theories of justice that underpin
these policies. Thus it may be said that ideas about what constitutes just and fair treatment
in the punishment of offenders operate in a similarly charged and highly politicized
environment unique to specific governments at specific times in political discourse118.
Indeed, while a ‘great sense of injustice’ was cited by the Woolf Report (1991) as the main
contributory factor to the Strangeways prison riots of 1990, it is unclear how this conclusion
was intended to mobilize a policy response119. This conclusion, while suggesting that the
involvement of the political sphere is a necessary precondition for arriving at a primary
rationale for underpinning criminal justice policy, also suggests that there is considerable
uncertainty in relation to how this is intended to give rise to a change in approach.
The main objective of this paper however has been to provide a solid foundation on which
further research may be conducted on the relatively unexplored question of how disparities
in policy approaches to criminal justice may be considered by-products of the underlying
conflict between imperfect theories of justice. This paper has sought to fuse together
philosophical ideas about what constitutes justice, how these ideas inform the criminal law,
118 Loader and Sparks (2011).119 The Woolf report was nevertheless seen by penal reformers as marking the climax of their influence over the penal policy-making process, with a total of 65 groups catalogued as having given evidence.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 41 | P a g e
and finally, how these laws translate into changes in government policy. In short, it is hoped
that this paper has provided an appropriate starting point for learning further about the
politics and theory of law.
BibliographyAMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, , The Death Penalty and Deterrence [Homepage of USA],
[Online]. Available: http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-
penalty-facts/the-death-penalty-and-deterrence [28/12, 2014].
ASHWORTH, A., 2010. Sentencing and Criminal Justice. 5th edn. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
ASHWORTH, A., 2007. Sentencing. In: M. MAGUIRE, R. MORGAN and R. REINER, eds, The
Oxford Handbook of Criminology. 4th edn. New York: Oxford University Press.
ASHWORTH, A., 2000. Is the Criminal Law a Lost Cause? Law Quarterly Review, 116(Apr), pp.
225-256.
BBC NEWS, 08/05, 2014-last update, Ed Miliband 'sympathetic' to tougher Knife Crime
Sentences. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27319980 [14/04, 2015].
BLAKE, C., SHELDON, B. and WILLIAMS, P., 2010. Policing and Criminal Justice. Exeter:
Learning Matters.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 42 | P a g e
BOTTOMS, A., 2004. Empricial Research Relevant to Sentencing Frameworks. In: A.
BOTTOMS, S. REX and G. ROBINSON, eds, Alternatives to Prison: Options for an insecure
society. Cullompton: Willian Publishing, pp. 59-83.
BREWER, M., CLARK, T. and WAKEFIELD, M., 2002. Social Security Under New Labour: What
did the Third Way mean for Welfare Reform? Fiscal Studies, 23(4), pp. 505-537.
BRITAIN FIRST, 05/03, 2015-last update, Britain First Policies.
Available: https://www.britainfirst.org/policies-2/ [14/04, 14/04].
BROWNLEE, I., 1998. New Labour - New Penology? Punitive Rhetoric and the Limits of
Managerialism in Criminal Justice Policy. Journal of Law and Society, 25(3), pp. 313-335.
BUCKLER, S. and DOLOWITZ, D., 2005. Theorizing the Third Way: New Labour and Social
Justice. Journal of Political Ideologies, 5(3), pp. 301-320.
BUTLER, D. and KAVANAGH, D., 1980. The British General Election of 1979. London:
Macmillan.
CAVADINO, P. and DIGNAN, J., 2007. The Penal System: An Introduction. 4th edn. London:
SAGE Publications.
CAVADINO, P., DIGNAN, J. and MAIR, G., 2013. The Penal System: An Introduction. 5th edn.
London: SAGE Publishing.
CLARK, P., 2004. Redressing the Balance: The Criminal Justice Bill 2002. In: E. CAPE,
ed, Reconcilable Rights? Analysing the Tension between Victims and Offenders. London:
Legal Action Group, pp. 19-21.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 43 | P a g e
DALY, K., 1994. Gender, Crime and Punishment. United States of America: Yale University
Press.
DEVLIN, P., 1959. The Enforcement of Morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
DICEY, A.V., 1959. Its Nature and General Applications. In: E.C.S. WADE, ed, Introduction to
the Study of the Law of the Constitution. 10th edn. Great Britain: Macmillan, pp. 183-193.
DOWNES, D., 1998. Toughing it Out: From Labour Opposition to Labour Government. Policy
Studies, 19(3/4), pp. 191-198.
DOWNES, D. and MORGAN, R., 2012. Overtaking on the Left? The Politics of Law and Order
in the 'Big Society'. In: M. MAGUIRE, R. MORGAN and R. REINER, eds, The Oxfood Handbook
of Criminology. 5th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 182-184.
DOWNES, D. and MORGAN, R., 2002. The Skeletons in the Cupboard: The Politics of Law and
Order at the turn of the Millennium. In: M. MAGUIRE, R. MORGAN and R. REINER, eds, The
Oxford Handbook of Criminology. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, .
DRIVER, S. and MARTELL, L., 2000. Left, Right and the Third Way. The Policy Press, 28(2), pp.
147-161.
DUBBER, M. and FARMER, L., 2007. Introduction: Regarding Criminal Law Historically. In: M.
DUBBER and L. FARMER, eds, Modern Histories of Crime and Punishment. United States of
America: Stanford University Press.
DUNBAR, I. and LANGDON, A., 1998. Tough Justice: Sentencing and Penal Policies in the
1990s. London: Blackstone Press.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 44 | P a g e
EASTON, S. and PIPER, C., 2012. Sentencing and Punishment: The Quest for Justice. 3rd edn.
Great Britain: Oxford University Press.
GARLAND, D., 2001. The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary
Society. United States of America: Oxford University Press.
GARLAND, D., 1990. Punishment and Modern Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
GENDERS, E. and PLAYER, E., 2007. The Commercial Context of Criminal Justice: Prison
privatization and the perversion of purpose. Criminal Law Review, 7(Jul), pp. 513-529.
GERBER, M. and JACKSON, J., 2013. Retribution as Revenge and Retribution as Just
Deserts. Social Justice Research, (26), pp. 61-80.
GIBSON, B., 2014. Criminal Justice: A Beginner's Guide. Hampshire: Waterside Press.
GIBSON, B. and CAVADINO, P., 2008. The Criminal Justice System: An Introduction. 3rd edn.
Hampshire: Waterside Press.
GIBSON, B., CAVADINO, P., ASHWORTH, A. and HARDING, J., 1994. Criminal Justice in
Transition. Winchester: Waterside Press.
GOLD, A., 2014. A Theory of Redressive Justice. University of Toronto Press, 64, pp. 159-205.
GOTTFREDSON, M. and HIRSCHI, T., 1990. A General Theory of Crime. USA: Stanford
University Press.
HENHAM, R., 1999. Dangerousness and Sentencing Policy in Great Britain. Policy
Studies, 20(3), pp. 173-185.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 45 | P a g e
HEPPLE, B., 2014. Equality: The Legal Framework. 2nd edn. United Kingdom: Hart Publishing.
HOME OFFICE, 2008. Working Together to Protect the Public: The Home Office Strategy
2008-11 . London: Home Office.
HOME OFFICE, 2007. No More Excuses: A New Approach to Tackling Youth Crime in England
and Wales. cm 3809 edn. London: HMSO.
HOME OFFICE, 2006. Rebalancing the Criminal Justice System in favour of the Law-abiding
Majority: Reducing Reoffending and Protecting the Public. London: Home Office.
HOME OFFICE, 2002. Justice for All. The Stationery Office: London.
HOME OFFICE, 2001. Making Punishments Work. London: Home Office Communication
Directorate: .
HOME OFFICE, 1990. Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public. London HMSO: .
HOME OFFICE, 1988. Private Sector Involvement in the Remand System. London: Home
Office.
HOOD, R. and HOYLE, C., 2008. The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective. 4th edn.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
HUGHES, G., 1996. Communitarianism and Law and Order. Critical Social Policy, 16(4), pp.
17-41.
JAMES, A. and RAINE, J., 1998. The New Politics of Criminal Justice. New York: Addison
Wesley Longman Inc.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 46 | P a g e
JOYCE, P., 2013. Criminal Justice: An Introduction. 2nd edn. USA: Routledge.
LANHAM, D., 2006. The Purposes of Criminal Law. In: D. LANHAM, B. BARTAL, R. EVANS and
D. WOOD, eds, Criminal Laws in Australia. Australia: Federation Press, pp. Chapter 1B.
LAVALETTE, M. and MOONEY, G., 1999. New Labour, New Moralism: The Welfare Politics
and ideology of New Labour under Blair. International Socialism Journal, 2(85), pp. 27-47.
LIBERTY GB, 15/07, 2013-last update, The Liberty GB Ten Point Plan to Save Britain.
Available: http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/about-libertygb/ten-point-plan [14/04,
2015].
LOADER, I. and SPARKS, R., 2011. Public Criminology? Abingdon: Routledge.
LORD LONGFORD, 1991. Punishment and the Punished. London: Chapmans Publishers.
MAJOR, J., , John Major's Speech to the 1996 Conservative Political Centre [Homepage of
Conservative Political Centre], [Online].
Available: http://www.johnmajor.co.uk/page831.html [27/12, 2014].
MCLAUGHLIN, E., MUNCIE, J. and HUGHES, G., 2001. The Permanent Revolution: New
Labour, New Public Management and the Modernization of Criminal Justice. Criminal Justice
SAGE Publications, 1(3), pp. 301.
MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, 2013. Story of the Prison Population: 1993-2012 England and
Wales: London.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 47 | P a g e
MTF, Press Conference visiting Customs and Excise at Heathrow [Homepage of Margaret
Thatcher Foundation], [Online].
Available: http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106113 [04/11, 2015].
MUNCIE, J., Detention Centres. In: B. GOLDSON, ed, Dictionary of Youth Justice. USA: Willian
Publishing, pp. 136.
NELLIS, M., Electronic Monitoring. In: Y. JEWKES and J. BENNETT, eds, Dictionary of Prisons
and Punishment. USA: Willian Publishing, pp. 82-83.
NEWBURN, T., 2007. "Tough on Crime": Penal Policy in England and Wales. Crime and
Justice, 36(1), pp. 425.
NEWBURN, T., 1998. Tackling Youth Crime and Reforming Youth Justice: the Origins and
Nature of 'New Labour' Policy. Policy Studies, 19(3/4), pp. 199-212.
NEWBURN, T., 1995. Crime and Criminal Justice Policy. New York: Longman Publishing.
NEWMAN, D., 30/05, 2014-last update, On the UKIP-ification of Criminal Justice Policy
[Homepage of The Justice Gap], [Online]. Available: http://thejusticegap.com/2014/05/ukip-
ification-justice/ [14/04, 2015].
O'MALLEY, P., 2010. Crime and Risk (Compact Criminology). London: SAGE Publications.
PANCHAMIA, N., 2012. Competition in Prisons. London: Institute for Government.
PATERNOSTER, R., 2010. How much do we really know about criminal deterrence? The
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 100(3), pp. 765-823.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 48 | P a g e
PUNCH, M., 2007. Zero Tolerance Policing (Researching Criminal Justice Series). Bristol:
Policy Press Publishing.
QUINNEY, R., 1970. The Social Reality of Crime. United States of America: Little, Brown and
Company.
RAINE, J. and WILSON, M., 1997. Beyond Managerialism in Criminal Justice. The Howard
Journal, 36(1), pp. 80-95.
RAWLS, J., 1971. A Theory of Justice. Great Britain: Oxford University Press.
RAZ, J., 1979. The Authority of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
REINER, R., 2007. An Honest Citizen's Guide to Crime and Control. Cambridge: Polity Press.
RILEY, D., 1985. Drinking Drivers: The Limits to Deterrence. Howard Journal of Criminal
Justice, 24(4), pp. 241-256.
ROBERTS, J. and GEBOTYS, R., 1989. The Purposes of Sentencing: Public Support for
Competing Aims. Behavioural Sciences and the Law, 7(3), pp. 387-388.
SANDERS, A., 2011. What was New Labour thinking? New Labour's approach to Criminal
Justice. In: A. SILVESTRI, ed, Lessons for the Coalition: an end of term report for New Labour
and Criminal Justice. London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, pp. 12.
SMITH, D., 2003. New Labour and Youth Justice. Children and Society, 17(3), pp. 226-235.
THE GUARDIAN, 22/10, 2012-last update, David Cameron's 'tough, but intelligent' initiative
on crime runs into trouble.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 49 | P a g e
Available: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/oct/22/david-cameron-crime-
initiative-trouble[14/04, 2015].
THE SOCIALIST LABOUR PARTY, Justice.
Available: http://www.socialist-labour-party.org.uk/justice.html [14/04, 2015].
TONRY, M., 2004. Punishment and Politics: Evidence and Emulation in the making of English
Crime Control Policy. Devon: Willian Publishing.
TONRY, M., 2003. Evidence, elections and ideology in the making of criminal justice policy.
In: M. TONRY, ed, Confronting Crime: Crime Control Policy under New Labour. Cullompton:
Willian Publishing, pp. 1-20.
TYLER, T., 2006. Why People Obey the Law. USA: Princeton University Press.
WASIK, M., 2014. Sentencing - The Last 10 Years. Criminal Law Review, 7, pp. 477-491.
WASIK, M., 2004. Going Around in Circles? Reflections on fifty years of change in
Sentencing. Criminal Law Review, (Apr), pp. 253-265.
WASIK, M., 1998. Crime Seriousness and the Offender-Victim Relationship in Sentencing. In:
A. ASHWORTH and M. WASIK, eds, Fundamentals of Sentencing Theory. United States of
America: Oxford University Press, pp. 103.
WILSON, C., 2001. Networking and the Lobby for Penal Reform: Conflict and Consensus. In:
M. RYAN, S. SAVAGE and D. WALL, eds, Policy Networks in Criminal Justice. Basingstoke:
Palgrave, pp. 122-125.
Student No. 12008312 LAW-30083 50 | P a g e
WINTOUR, P., 08/07, 2010-last update, Ed Miliband backs Kenneth Clarke over shorter jail
terms [Homepage of The Guardian], [Online].
Available: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/jul/08/ed-miliband-prison-and-
probation [14/04, 2015].