Why Britain must end its use of short prison sentences

ENGLAND AND Wales lock up a lot of people—more than any European Union country. Because imprisonment keeps those who pose a danger to the public off the streets, it is popular. But an increasingly punitive approach to crime, coupled with a failure to provide enough cells and guards, means that prisons are crowded and violent. As a result, they often fail to rehabilitate criminals, even though the government says that rehabilitation is one of prison’s main aims.

Prison reform is a thankless task. Being seen as soft on criminals is no vote winner. Yet the government could take one simple step that would make prisons better. Around 60% of terms handed down every year last for anything from just a few weeks to 12 months. These short sentences achieve pitifully little, but research and common sense show that they do grave harm. It is time for some fresh thinking.

Sentences of less than a year are chiefly imposed for non-violent, low-level, repeat offenders, who lead troubled lives. Most of them have drug, alcohol or mental-health problems—sometimes they suffer from all three. Many of them cannot read or hold down a job. Short spells in prison make their lives even more chaotic.

They also make prisons harder to run. New inmates arriving for short sentences are the main conduit for smuggling drugs inside. Chaotic short-termers can unsettle those who are serving longer spells for more serious crimes. The churn created by lots of short-term prisoners is also a reason for the high turnover among prison workers.

The arguments for curbing short sentences are especially compelling for women, most of whom are guilty of minor crimes. They constitute a small share of those locked up, but their time behind bars can be extremely damaging. Women often bear the main responsibility for bringing up children. When mothers go inside, their youngsters are usually forced to move too, sometimes into foster homes or state institutions. That may be one reason why the children of imprisoned mothers are more likely to end up in the criminal-justice system themselves.

The government could vastly reduce the use of short sentences by passing legislation that sets a higher bar for imprisonment. The new approach would create a sentencing threshold. For example, shoplifting, the crime that most commonly now lands people in prison for short spells, could be prevented from carrying a custodial sentence. (This would work better than introducing a presumption against short sentences, which might result in some people being put away for longer.)

To make that happen, the alternatives to prison need to work better, too. Sentences that require work in the community already result in lower reoffending rates than short prison terms. But they could be better designed. For example, people often fail to complete the required hours of service. These need to be enforced. For that, the dysfunctional probation service, which is supposed to oversee community sentences, needs to be restored to health. Magistrates, who preside over the lower courts, could do with better training in the merits of keeping minor offenders in the community. They sometimes resort to jail because they have seen that community sentences fail badly. They do not grasp how prison fails even worse.

Most important is to mandate treatment for offenders with drug, alcohol or mental-health problems. And that is true not just for light sentences. Many long-term prisoners also need medical help. Punishment remains a crucial part of sentencing. Yet for many of those inside it is pointless, even cruel, if it does not also tackle the causes of their offending. ■