Grayling goes Dutch
James Forsyth 7:46pm
Chris Grayling’s speech tonight to the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at KCL is an attempt to set out the intellectual underpinnings behind the Tories’ home affairs policies. To my mind, the two most interesting things in it are how Holland is influencing Grayling thinking and his reassertion of the Tory commitment to elected police commissioners.
To deal with the later first, there were murmurings in Westminster that Grayling was not keen on this idea which would transfer significant powers away from the Home Secretary. Indeed, word was that the leadership were becoming frustrated with Grayling’s failure to develop plans for how the implementation of this idea would work. But in this speech, Grayling is absolutely clear that elected police commissioners are a central plank of the Tory approach to dealing with crime. This is welcome news. Accountability to the local community will make the police concentrate on the crimes that have the worst impact on peoples’ way of life.
In home affairs debates, Holland is normally only referenced for its liberal approach to drugs. But what interests Grayling is its use of non-judicial penalties that can quickly be enforced like grounding orders. The idea is that these penalties restore the link between the offence and the punishment, demonstrate that actions have consequences while not giving people a criminal record. If this innovation travels, then these orders could be an extremely effective way of tackling anti-social behaviour.
Grayling has had a bit of a rough time of it recently with his Wire speech getting hostile reviews and his conference speech being overshadowed by his Dannatt gaffe. But if the Tories can put meat on the bones of the ideas laid out in this speech, then they will have a strong set of policies in this area to take to the electorate.
Previous
Peter From Maidstone
November 17th, 2009 8:07pm Report this commentI am not dismissing any of these ideas out of hand, but why should I not dismiss out of hand the idea that a 'grounding order' will have any effect on the sort of criminal and feral youth they would be applied to? I don't see how it is supposed to work. Are Dutch youth more polite and compliant?
Andrew larter
November 17th, 2009 8:26pm Report this commentThe Plan...
adrian drummond
November 17th, 2009 9:05pm Report this commentI often work in the Netherlands, and from what I can see, the Dutch can teach the UK a lot in more ways than one.
And to Peter from Maidstone, I'd say, yes. In general the Dutch youth are much more polite and compliant than their British counterparts.
Tanuki
November 17th, 2009 9:45pm Report this commentI'm not sure about the precise details of the Dutch criminal-justice system, but I really feel the #1 consideration for dealing with low-level crime in the UK should be compensatory justice.
Steal someone's car - you have to pay for a replacement.
Break someone's window - you pick up the cost of the 24-hour glazier service.
Mug someone - you pay for their time-off-work and medical costs.
Your 'sentence' is not complete until you've paid-back your victim's expenses.
That way, we'd make sure crime didn't pay.
JohnPage
November 17th, 2009 10:34pm Report this commentThe completely understandable Dannatt incident is forgotten outside your Westminster bubble. Get real.
lawrence greek
November 17th, 2009 11:21pm Report this commentThis is yet more nonsense from Grayling. The scum on our streets don't care if they DO get a criminal record - why should they care if they don't? Barmy.
JohnPage
November 18th, 2009 9:22am Report this commentAny Speccie journalist who wants to mention the Dannatt thingie again ever should be made to reread Dan Finkelstein's piece this morning:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article6920714.ece
Laban Tall
November 18th, 2009 10:04am Report this commentIsn't the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies run by one Richard Garside, an anti-prison activist in his previous incarnation at NACRO? And isn't it just a taxpayer-funded version of UNLOCK, the Howard League and all the other pro-criminal organisations which we hear on the Today programme every other morning? Take a look at their website.
The rhetoric has changed. We don't hear so much about how we mustn't lock up criminals because it only makes them worse. Now we hear how it makes financial sense to use non-custodial 'interventions' - or, in Enver Solomon's words 'investing in incarceration makes no economic sense'.
It was during the 1979-92 government that crime rocketed and the underclass blossomed. Not all of this was Mrs Thatcher's fault - these were also the years when the 70s sociology grads were moving up the ladder in social services and probation departments all over the UK. During that time millions of innocents became victims of crime. It was only when Michael Howard became Home Secretary that crime started to fall, after he defied the advice of the entire criminal justice establishment and increased the use of prison.
Let us hope that Chris Grayling does not intend to return us to the 80s. Financial pressures to reduce imprisonment will be massive, given the economic crisis and the fact that the costs of prison fall on the government whereas the far greater costs of crime fall mainly on the victims. Will he be tempted to go for the cheap expedient - especially when he knows that the criminal justice establishment will applaud him for so doing ?
Ian Walker
November 18th, 2009 1:45pm Report this commentThe "instant punishment" idea, while having some merit, will fall to pieces unless you address the Health 'n Safety/Compensation Culture that will undermine it.
Trivial example: drunken yobette is sick in street; yobette is ordered to clear up sick; cleaning chemicals trigger asthma attack (real or faked) in yobette. Result: massive compensation claims for criminals.
However, I'm generally in favour of using "embarassment" sanctions where the motive for the crime is peer respect - that's why ASBOs don't work (because they become a badge of honour.) Orange jumpsuits, public locations, humiliating tasks; those are deterrents that feral gangs understand.
And one final point - all crimes of violence against another person should carry a mandatory jail sentence.
Back to top