Payback plan for offenders may be worthwhile – if it works

IT IS axiomatic that the justice system of Scotland should be founded on three core principles: it must provide protection to the public; punishment for offenders; and rehabilitate those whom the courts decide to punish.

Judged against these criteria, the justice system as it is currently constituted cannot be said to be a resounding success. Crime may be at historically low levels, but the fear of crime weighs heavily on the public mind. In terms of punishment, the evidence is clear: there are some 8,000 inmates in Scotland's jails, a higher figure per head of population than most other countries.

However, it is in the area of rehabilitation that the system has clearly failed most dismally.

Yesterday, there was further evidence of this in one particularly important, and politically contentions, area of policy: official government figures reveal the alarming fact that no fewer than a third of community sentences were breached by criminals last year.

The figures do not make pleasant reading for justice secretary Kenny MacAskill, as they show that 2,113 of 6,400 offenders were reported to the courts for breaking the terms of their community sentence during 2008-9.

The number of probation orders being breached increased, and there was a high level of non-compliance with drug testing and treatment orders and supervised attendance orders.

Never slow to attack the Scottish Government, opposition parties seized on the figures, claiming that they struck a body blow to Mr MacAskill and his plans to scrap prison sentences of less than six months.

These election-inspired, knee-jerk reactions may roll, soundbite perfect, off the tongues of opposition MSPs, but they do nothing to address the underlying problems of the justice system, with which Mr MacAskill, to his credit, is attempting to deal.

In the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill, the minister is seeking to replace the current range of four orders available to the judiciary with one, all-encompassing community payback order, which could be used across a wide range of offences.

His argument, and it is a sound one, is that most sentences under six months do more harm than good, as offenders are sent to prisons, which are, in effect, universities of crime, and that the payback orders would be more effective.

However, if this radical policy is to succeed, the orders will have to be stringent, with the reparation work for communities demanded of those sentenced being commensurate with their crimes.

Equally importantly, the orders will have to be properly supervised by local authorities willing to risk the wrath of their employees, who may think offenders are taking work away from them.

Finally, it may be that there will be an increased cost to the taxpayer of this approach – the Association of Directors of Social Work has put the cost at 60 million.

But if, in the long term, it does reduce crime and thereby addresses the fundamental failure in rehabilitation, it will have been money well spent.