Tough no longer

T. Blair famously said that he would be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. Sadly on this, as with many things his words were impressive but the delivery poor.

A recent government study has concluded that the main causes of crime are indiscipline in school and poor parenting at home. Nothing seems to have changed here, although the government has admittedly tried a number of initiatives.

When children arrive at schools aged five with no social skills, no interest in reading and writing and some still in nappies, you know the battle on causes has been lost.

In some ways, because it is within their power, government attention to crime can only be described as weak. Part of this is because the prison service and the probation service are underfunded.

Prison sentences are getting shorter, parole easier and earlier to obtain and early releases not properly supervised, with dire consequences. Police are off the streets, and their observance of targets often lead them to attack minor crimes rather than time-consuming crimes. ASBOs have been given out to little effect, except to increase the "street cred" of those receiving them.

Now we learn that cautions are being used increasingly by the police, and even in the case of serious assault.

Since 2000 thousands of serious offenders, - those who committed burglary, mugging and violent attack, have had their wrists slapped, thus avoiding court and jail.

Between 2000 and 2008 2.2 million offenders were given cautions. Worryingly over 550,000 have been given at least two cautions, - 105,000 on three occasions and 51,000 on four occasions or more.

Last year, far from tightening things, the Home Office said that repeat cautions were acceptable so long as they were for trivial offences and with at least 2 years between offences. (Over the eight years 23,500 have received four or more cautions in a single year)


Most worrying was that reported by a Panorama programme recently, that in 2008 some 39,000 cautions were handed out to people who committed actual bodily harm.

For several years government spokespeople have claimed that people are safe to walk about, with the implication that many elderly people are acting irrationally by staying indoors out of fear. The above figures suggest that they are rational! We really do have a problem on our hands.

When you bear in mind how many "have a go"heroes have come near to prosecution, or even taken to court, for merely trying to defend themselves or others, and the vigour with which minor transgressions, such as speeding, parking and the like, are prosecuted, we clearly have not been sufficiently tough on the crimes which bring fear.