Is it time for a rethink on the way criminal justice reformers do criminal justice reform?
Government plans to shake-up sentencing, due out next month, are expected to include a further toughening of community sentences and a Texas-style “earned progression model” for prisoners. A number of reformers, rightly in my view, worry that the shake-up could make the prisons and wider criminal justice crisis worse, not better.
We explored the pros, and the many cons, of recent Texas prisons policy in July, in a special event with US sentencing and prisons expert Michele Deitch.
Beyond the specifics of the earned progression model, and the wisdom of following the lead of high-incarceration jurisdictions like Texas, I do wonder whether our current approach to discussing, and advocating for, prison and wider criminal justice reform, is working.
One of the problems, I think, is that reformers have tended to approach the public and politicians like visiting missionaries: intent on converting them to their way of thinking. “If we could just share these facts with you”, the message seems to be, “then you’ll understand why you are wrong, and why we are right”.
I parody somewhat of course, but only somewhat. For all sorts of reasons, a missionary approach is probably not going to be very successful, if it ever was.
As we enter what is looking like a period of heightened populist demands for tough policies and tough action – linked in part to claims and concerns about immigration – it would be as well for criminal justice reformers to reflect on their current approaches.
In particular, reform organisations should get better at reflecting on why it might be that so many members of the public appear open to what reformers might consider to be punitive or counter-productive policies, and why so many politicians champion them.
They should be spending more time thinking afresh about what policies are needed in response to the coming challenge, and less time worrying about how they might better communicate long-standing policy commitments that, to be frank, do not have traction with the public or politicians.
Listening empathetically, being on receive, as well as broadcast, is crucial. Smart and bold, yes. But also self-critical and less patronising with those who disagree.
It would also be helpful if ministers got over themselves somewhat, and accepted that a vibrant, independent criminal justice reform sector, confident about telling them things they do not want to hear, is a strength and a resource to draw on.
In a parliamentary democracy such as the UK, it is easy for power to become deaf to critical challenge, treating it as an irritation or sign of disloyalty. This is why it is important that the voice of the reform sector is confident and bold, but also self-critical and open to fresh thinking.
