Posted on 12/22/2002 4:16:12 PM PST by TC Rider
Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, has decreed that burglars should go to jail only in the most extreme circumstances.
First-time domestic burglars and even offenders who most people would consider serious will never be jailed under new guidelines.
Lord Woolf's job is to inject consistency into sentencing but the principal reason behind these latest directions is that the prisons are so full that the Government and the judicial authorities are desperate to cut the numbers.
This matters more to Lord Woolf than to most senior judges because he was the author of a seminal report on prison conditions in 1990 after the Strangeways riot. He attributed much of the tension to overcrowding.
When Lord Woolf wrote his report the prison population was about 45,000. Today it is above 70,000 and is projected to rise to between 80,000 and 110,000 by the end of the decade. Since Labour took office in 1997, the prison population has risen by 10,000.
But something else has happened while the prison numbers have been rising - the crime rate has been falling. Although violent crime has risen, burglary has fallen by 45 per cent since 1993.
Although a burglar may be appearing in court for the first time, it is unlikely to be his first burglary, especially as so few are caught. In parts of London under 10 per cent of burglaries are solved.
So, a "first-time" burglar may in reality be a multiple offender. Furthermore, the sentencing directive does not only apply to first-time offenders.
Repeat burglars causing damage and trauma who would normally expect at least 18 months will also get a community punishment unless there are compelling reasons for sending them to jail.
In setting guidance, Lord Woolf said public confidence in the criminal justice system was only one of the considerations. Among the others were the cost of different sentences and their relative effectiveness in reducing crime.
He suggested that community sentences may be a better alternative both to keep burglars out of jail and to encourage their rehabilitation. The argument is that short custodial sentences do nothing to prevent reoffending.
But neither do community penalties. There is no evidence that they are effective. In fact, the recidivism rates for both prison and non-custodial punishments are about the same.
At least when an offender is in prison, he is not carrying out his crimes. Those who believe that prison does not cut crime must consider evidence that suggests there is a link.
Between 1981 and 1995, the number of burglars jailed in the UK fell from 7.8 for every 1,000 offenders to 2.2. Over the same period, the rate of break-ins more than doubled from 40.9 in every 1,000 homes to 82.9.
This is a trend that has been apparent since the 1950s, when prison began to be used less frequently. Fifty years ago, a burglar was five times more likely to go to jail than now.
Similar evidence is available from America. For robbery, burglary, car theft and assault, increasing the risk of imprisonment has produced a fall in offences.
The incarceration rate in America is the highest in the world but the crime rate, especially for property offences, is now below Britain's - though American burglars are further deterred by the risk of being shot by the householder.
Many in the hugely influential penal reform lobby would restrict prison for violent offences only but, as Lord Woolf acknowledged, burglary can have as traumatic an impact on its victims as any assault.
Lord Woolf's principal concern is the size of the prison population, which he feels is responsible for high reconviction rates. While community sentences may be better for keeping offenders from a path of crime, this is only true if they are properly funded.
Politicians have talked tough on crime but they have not provided the money to build new jails. As one leading policeman said yesterday, the judicial system is now being driven by the number of available cells. That is unlikely to improve public confidence in the process that Lord Woolf seeks to uphold.
Imagine that.
Further evidence of the continued decline of UK to the Sociocrats.
On a recent trip we saw signs and posters everywhere warning citizens to watch their belongings. Posters all over the public transportation cautioned the citizens against verbally or physically abusing the minorities, imigrants, females, gender questioning, etc.
No warnings at all to the thiefs, miscreants, etc.
I pity the fool who breaks into my house.
Okay, so first time (they were caught) burgulars won't go to jail, but a home owner who shoots one will?
That makes allot of sense.
also, when you see someone breaking into your house, how are you supposed to know he's just a burgular who's (ostensibly) only after money, as opposed to a murderer or rapist?
This is clearly unfair, and there is a group who would gladly adopt this kind of thinking for the US.
Could they be, dare I say, Democrats?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.