Blog

Rethinking justice: Beyond punishment in sentencing

In January, Revolving Doors made a detailed submission to the Sentencing Review’s call for evidence.  This can be read here. In our submission we highlighted how a fixation on punishment appearing tough has dominated justice related policy with the result being the broken justice system we have today, culminating in the prison places crisis.

Yesterday the Independent Sentencing Review published a report finding ‘that despite an overall decrease in incidents of crime since the mid-1990s, an over-reliance on a “tough on crime” narrative and belief that longer incarceration is the only effective means of punishment has left the system overwhelmed and ineffective.’

In this blog, we explore how the emphasis on retribution has undermined public safety, perpetuated social inequalities, and why a shift toward rehabilitation isn’t just more humane, but more effective.

The Sentencing Review has been triggered by a crisis that’s been forming for years: prison overcrowding. But this isn’t just a logistical problem—it’s a symptom of a deeper issue within the justice system of England and Wales. Since 1991, the prison population has more than doubled, from around 40,000 to over 88,000 today, making it the highest per capita in Western Europe. Over the last 10 years, the average custodial sentence length for indictable offences increased from 18 months in 2013 to almost 23 months in 2024. 

This surge isn’t due to a dramatic rise in crime, but rather a shift in how we, as a country think and talk about justice. Over the past few decades, sentencing has been shaped less by evidence of what works and more by the pressure of public rhetoric: a cycle of political promises to be “tough on crime,” sensational media coverage, and a growing expectation that harsher punishment equals justice. But this fixation on retribution has not reduced crime or reoffending. Instead, it has filled our prisons, strained resources and sidelined the very thing that could make communities safer: rehabilitation.

We all recognise that accountability following offending is essential. However, a narrow punitive focus often overlooks the deeper, systemic drivers of offending, such as poverty, mental health issues, trauma, and substance abuse.  

A ‘dysfunctional and reactive cycle’

So, what caused the increase in sentence lengths?

A 2023 report from the Justice Select Committee highlighted the ‘dysfunctional and reactive cycle’ that serves as the public debate about sentencing, with a lack of public awareness about sentencing trends creating a “gap between public opinion on sentencing and actual practice“. The Committee raised concerns that most people’s understanding of sentencing is limited to what they have seen in the media – often specific high-profile cases.

The policy consequences of this negative spiral are the focus of yesterday’s report from the Sentencing Review which identifies a trend of ‘penal populism’, where successive governments have responded to a perceived hardening of public opinion on justice matters with a ‘tough on crime’ stance. Again, this approach has manifested as knee-jerk responses to rare and serious cases, creating an increasingly complex and often inconsistent sentencing landscape.

Yet amongst the confusion, some outcomes to this are all too clear: more people being sent to prison, for longer stretches of time, with fewer opportunities for rehabilitation.

The counterintuitive impact of ‘tough on crime’ legislation

I was first sentenced in 2016 and was told by my solicitor that I was likely to be punished because of a directive by the government that sentencing must include punishment. I found it interesting that for my first sentencing there was a clear political element.

– Lived experience member

An example of how this ‘tough on crime’ stance has fed into policymaking can be found in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. This set out a list of sentencing objectives – including punishment and deterrence – which had to be picked from and specified by sentencers.  Seven governments and 17 years later and the Sentencing Act 2020 took this further: previously, punishment was one of five objectives sentencers could choose from when making their decisions. The Sentencing Act made it compulsory for a punishment to be included in every sentence.

In the past it was possible for sentencers such as judges and magistrates to determine that having to go through court proceedings and the possibility of receiving a criminal record might be punishment enough. In these cases, a lower sentence such as a conditional discharge or a low community order could be given. This was much harder when a punitive element needed to be demonstrated in the actual sentence. It should be no surprise that this helped drive prison numbers further upwards.

No surprises: how harsher sentences drive up reoffending

Prison sentences do, of course, punish. They can also protect the public by incapacitating those who have offended for a time. However, it is widely recognised that longer sentences have limited deterrent effects and there is no evidence to suggest that extended sentences effectively achieve other sentencing goals such as reducing crime, promoting rehabilitation, or making amends between victim and perpetrator. Evidence shows a positive correlation in sentence increases, where an increased sentence for one crime means that other sentences grow longer too.

As sentences have increased, so has reoffending. This is not a coincidence. Harsher sentences often serve to pull people further into the justice system and make leaving cycles of crisis and crime harder.

I had a breakdown [after sentencing] because of not having support, the stigma, you feel like you’re being watched and judged. It’s tough.

– Lived experience member

At Revolving Doors we have seen the serious detrimental impact caused by the prioritisation of punishment on those in the revolving door. People whose offending is driven by unmet health and social needs including homelessness, problems with drugs and alcohol and mental health issues, have increasingly been sent to prison for crimes for which they could have previously expected a community sentence.  For some this has pulled them into the chaos of the recall system, for others it has led to the further entrenchment of their problems.

Where next?

We are glad that there is finally some recognition that the dysfunctional and poorly informed narrative around sentencing has been hugely damaging to the justice system.  It is now time to base sentencing around the evidence about what helps people turn away from crime in the long-term. 

Yesterday’s Sentencing Review report is an encouraging and bold recognition of the overarching dysfunction in our justice system, which serves neither to support victims nor rehabilitate perpetrators. Their final report later this Spring will be a once-in-a-generation opportunity to move beyond the cycle of crisis, crime and punishment – one we cannot afford to squander.

In the next part of this blog series we will explore how we end the decline in the use of Community Sentences.