Tough on crime, Tough on the causes of crime.

[Lonnie]

In 1997, this was one of Labours main selling points. I've posted this, in the light of a news Item, where a chap was murdered by a youth who had been let out of prison early, and his friends.

I'd like to know if any of you think that this has been a successful policy, and if so, without quoting goverment figures, why you think that?, Thanks.

[Lonnie]

10, I did check, before I posted, but to be fair, i'll re-check, and if i'm wrong, i'll apologise, don't think I am, but i'll check.

[shaneystar2]

Hate to disagree but....
The great rallying cry of New Labour on entering office in 1997 was that they would be "tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime".
Like most Labour rallying cries it has ended in tears.

[Lonnie]

I've checked, and this is the actual quote from the 1997 Labour Manifesto.

On Crime. We believe in personal responsibility, and in punishing crime, but also in tackling its underlying causes, so, tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime, different from the Labour approach of the past, and the Tory policy of today.

If you'd like the link, let me know.

[Lonnie]

Thanks shaneystar2, I wonder, now thats out the way, if anyone would like to actually answer my original question.

[kempie]

I see no evidence of the policy having been implemented...

I shall also digress from the question by suggesting that the cause of 10CS' confusion may be that when Michael Howard became Home Secretary in 1993 with the Tory policy of "Back to Basics - Law and Order" he was being faced across the despatch box by the Shadow Home Secretary (Mr. T. Blair) who coined the now infamous soundbite "Tough on crime..." during a radio interview of that year.

[dyli795]

Thankyou for the histryonics everyone.

Anyway, to the initial question. Let me quote somthing from my local newspaper to put things in perspective. An individual stole a van , tryed to ram a police car during the subsequent chase, running red lights, mounting pavements, endangering life and limb, finaly crashed into a tree, ran for it and was finaly caught by a police dog. And a good thing too I hope you'll agree. So far so good... yep, so far. Let's read on for the rest of the story. The same individual, it turns out has served 18 months for killing a child in a road "accident". Now this time 'round he's got another 18 months for his latest escapades. Is this the best the judicial system can come up with? What the heck are they scared of? So 18 months from now he might be coming to a road near you. What more proof are they waiting for? He should have a lifetime ban, even for his own good! and stuck away, out of the way, for thirty years or so wouldn't do any harm I can think of. The realy troubling thing is, stories like this are in the local papers up and down the land all the time,

[Toureman]

You don't believe anything parties say to bolster themselves up, do you?

[maxi29]

The UK sends more people to prison than any other western European country. In fact, there are very few countries in the world who send more people to prison than we do.
Since the Labour government came into power, the prison population has risen from about 60,000 to just over 77,000 - a rise of nearly a third.

As this has not been in response to a rise in crime: the number of people found guilty of any crime during this period remains static.

I'd certainly say that Labour has lived up to its promise of being tough on crime - the figures seem to suggest it. Just last week, our local newspaper reported that a local homeless man who broke in to church for shelter had been jailed for 9 months - a sentence almost Victorian in its savagery. Little evidence there that Labour has been tough on the causes of crime.

[Dolly1308]

maxi29 have you not thought maybe the local homeless man broke into the Church knowing he would get caught and be sent to prison where he he would be given clothing,a roof over his head ,food 3 times a day and not have to do a days work for it ? Also get to watch TV etc.etc.

[PhilBy]

With so many do gooders and so called human rights how can anyone be tough on anything??

[brachiopod]

Since the Judiciary is wholly separate from Government (whether Tory, Labour or Monster raving Loony), how can any one party be "tough on crime" in terms of sentencing, parole or rehabilitation?

Apart from knee-jerk laws introduced at a drop-of-a-tabloid-newspaper, (The original PTA, the Dangerous Dogs Act, the current dogs' dinner of a Terrorism Act etc....), party government has naff-all to do with sentencing.
Just like you see posts on here that ask "how could the police let out such-and-such murderer / killer / mugger etc. from prison?" How? probably because it's nothing to do with the police beyond presenting the suspect and evidence to court -that's why !! Technically, the Home Secretary does have a say over every prisoner released on license, but in all realism, apart from a few high-profile (ie vote-damaging) cases - this 'veto' is relinquished.

Now, resourcing of the police is a government issue - and that is the only way they can be "tough" on crime