"Tough on Crime" via Longer Sentences: Disproportionate Impact on the Poor?

There is, perhaps, no better place to start a blog underpinned by the notion that the law is flawed, than by starting with Tony Blair's favourite political point scoring phrase, "tough on crime". This phrase is a vote-grabbing tactic that has been deployed by almost every minister seeking to win an election in the last decade, if not longer. Take Boris Johnson for example, during his campaign to become Prime Minister, he promised to get tough on crime, most importantly, to increase the severity of sentences. That is what many politicians believe getting tough on crime means; to increase sentences to ensure that those who commit crimes, from shoplifting a Mars bar to murder, will be incarcerated until the day they die. This idea appeals to the lay person who wishes to feel safe walking down the street at night, and rightly so. However, this ideology of incarceration of low level or non-violent crimes is disproportionate.

What do I mean by disproportionate? Disproportionate is defined as "too large or too small in comparison with something else". For this article, I use 'disproportionate' to explain a negative impact of longer sentences for those who commit crimes due to their socioeconomic status. There is an argument here that the disproportionate impact on certain groups, amounts to discrimination, defined as: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people. While there is merit to this argument, I will stick to the term disproportionate in an attempt to avoid making statements that seem to accuse those in power of wilfully implementing measures that discriminate (though I am not dismissing the theory). Perhaps the Marxist theory of the ruling class abusing their powers to further themselves at the expense of the working class is relevant here, though that is a discussion of its own.

Increasing sentences for non-violent crimes disproportionately affects those who have a low socioeconomic status. I need to tread carefully here and make the distinction that not all individuals who are in poverty commit crimes; though, there is a link between those who commit low level crimes and those who suffer from poverty. Therefore, the logic of increasing sentences for low level crimes as a deterrent is flawed. By increasing sentences for those who commit low level crime, they are increasing the number of defendants taking up court time, assets and increasing the financial burden on the state to imprison them. Instead, would it not make more sense to divert the money spent on these services to provide help, whether monetarily or through a properly funded third sector, to ensure that those who need it have access to it before it is too late? My opinion is that increasing the severity of sentencing has the opposite affect of increasing crime, as the provisions are misdirected to punishment rather than prevention. If the hundreds of years of prison as an institution for punishment has taught us anything, it is that prison fails to act as a deterrent for criminals.

To conclude my first blog article, longer sentences are a tactic deployed by politicians to grab votes. As my one example has shown, the ideology of locking people up for longer is flawed. This fails to deter criminals while simultaneously wasting taxpayers money. Perhaps citizens would feel safer if the government invested its savings into funding the police force, or the justice system in general. Being "tough on crime" has a larger disproportionate impact on more than those who suffer from poverty, though I wish not to make these blogs too long and I seek to start a discussion in the comments. Therefore, I am keen to read what you think.