Review of the Independent Sentencing Review

An Analysis of Sentencing Practices and Policies

Introduction

The Independent Sentencing Review is a comprehensive evaluation of the sentencing practices and policies employed within the judicial system. This note, prepared by our solicitors, aims to give you an in-depth analysis of the review, highlighting key findings, recommendations, and the implications for future sentencing reforms.

Background

The need for an independent review of sentencing practices arises from concerns about the fairness, consistency, and effectiveness of sentencing in achieving justice and deterrence. Over the years, various stakeholders, including legal experts, policymakers, and advocacy groups, have raised issues regarding disparities in sentencing, the impact on communities, and the overall efficiency of the judicial system.

Since COVID, prisoners – to use one example from the judicial system – are locked up for 23 hours a day, with no education, policed by overworked and tired staff and spending their days in rat infested Victorian buildings which costs the taxpayer £51,000 per year per inmate.

The rates of re-offending are so high that the cost to the public purse is astronomical and it should be remembered that it is not just the imprisonment costs; the strain on the police, Magistrates and Crown Courts increase the cost per person.

Scope of the Review

The Independent Sentencing Review encompasses several areas, including:

• Examination of current sentencing guidelines and practices.
• Assessment of the impact of sentencing on crime rates and recidivism.
• Evaluation of the proportionality and equity of sentences.
• Consideration of alternative sentencing options.

Key Findings

The review uncovered several critical insights:

• Disparities in Sentencing: Significant disparities exist in sentencing outcomes based on race, socioeconomic status, and geographic location. These disparities highlight the need for standardised guidelines to ensure equity.

• Effectiveness of Sentences: The impact of sentencing on deterring crime and reducing recidivism is mixed. Some forms of sentencing, particularly those focusing on rehabilitation, show positive outcomes, while others, such as mandatory minimums, do not significantly deter crime.

• Proportionality: Sentences often lack proportionality, with some offences receiving disproportionately harsh penalties compared to others. This calls for a re-evaluation of sentencing guidelines to ensure fairness and justice.

Recommendations

The Independent Sentencing Review provides several recommendations to improve sentencing practices:

• Establishing Standardised Guidelines: Develop and implement standardised sentencing guidelines to reduce disparities and ensure equity across the judicial system.

• Focus on Rehabilitation: Prioritise rehabilitation-based sentencing options, which have shown to reduce recidivism and support reintegration into society. Note the positive impact had in the Netherlands and Germany who have reduced their prison population and seen a drop in re-offending.

• Proportional Sentencing: Ensure that sentences are proportionate to the severity of the offense, taking into account the circumstances and intent behind the crime.

• Alternative Sentencing: Consider alternative sentencing options, such as community service and restorative justice programs, which may be more effective in achieving long-term positive outcomes.

Implications for Future Reforms

The findings and recommendations of the Independent Sentencing Review have significant implications for future sentencing reforms. By addressing disparities, focusing on rehabilitation, and ensuring proportionality, the judicial system can move towards more equitable and effective sentencing practices. These reforms aim to enhance the overall fairness and efficiency of the judicial process, ultimately contributing to a more just society.

This means in practice, less prison and more rehabilitation. This will be seen as dangerous by many conservative opponents of reform but the past few decades has not worked.

There needs to be more focus on rehabilitation through education. The current model is not even close to acceptable, and it is hoped this review will move the Criminal Justice System to a fairer and more equitable position.