Legal Opinion: The debate on prison sentencing is now on a knife edge

The call for automatic prison sentences to combat violence on our streets has become deafening in the past few weeks. But, pleads Robert Verkaik, Law Editor, politicians mustn't act until they have considered the evidence

It has become all too easy to dismiss "hang 'em and flog 'em" tabloid headlines as the rantings of editors pandering to the prejudices of the market place. The recent spate of knife crime and a perception that the police are powerless to deal with violence has widened the debate about sentencing and penal reform.

So called softer solutions to offending, the dominant ideology among those who work in the criminal justice system, are now vulnerable to less tolerant policies advocated by a reinvigorated David Cameron. On Monday, the Conservative leader called for an automatic presumption that those found guilty of an offence involving a knife should be punished with a jail term.

In a strongly worded attack on what he described as Britain's "broken society", Mr Cameron set out his party's plans to cut knife crime and deal more severely with those caught up in violence. The debate has clearly reached a pivotal point, one that is now recognised by those whose job it is to give sober apolitical advice to the judiciary as well as the government.

Yesterday the Sentencing Advisory Panel launched a major consultation to explore current thinking on the principles that should guide courts when they are sentencing offenders. Its researchers ask questions that go to the very heart of what kind of sentences merit prison. In a radical step, the consultation considers whether the vulnerabilities of women offenders should have any impact on the approach to sentencing.

At the same time the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation has published its seven-year programme into alternatives to prison. "Rethinking Crime and Punishment" invested over £4m on more than sixty research projects. The final report makes proposals about how the Government's allocation of £2.3bn earmarked for building "Titan prisons" might be spent on alternatives to prison.

Professor Andrew Ashworth, chairman of the Sentencing Advisory Panel, acknowledged yesterday that the time was right for a debate on the general principles of sentencing. "There is currently," he said, "a great deal of media and public interest in criminal offending and the sentences imposed by the courts. As a result, there are significant pressures on sentencers to ensure that justice is done and seen to be done."

Professor Ashworth said the panel's approach would be one firmly grounded on principles of fairness and proportionality. "At the heart of this consultation is the central issue: in what circumstances should an offender be given a custodial sentence?" he said.

To support the consultation the panel is commissioning independent research to identify the public's views on what factors make an offence serious and the circumstances in which an offence is sufficiently serious to warrant a custodial sentence or a community order.

The research will include both qualitative and quantitative surveys of the public and round-table discussions involving practitioners in the criminal justice system, academics and others with an interest in sentencing.

Both these timely pieces of research will help to focus the debate on criminal justice and provide politicians with the tools to do their job. They will also act as a brake on those who tend to react to populist headlines by proposing extreme solutions that fail to settle the underlying problems which lead to the breakdown of moral codes in society.

r.verkaik@independent.co.uk