Don’t scrimp on justice

At least 10 police forces in England and Wales have adopted “deferred prosecution” schemes whereby offenders are offered four-month rehabilitation in exchange for charges being dropped. The argument is that it holds a “sword of Damocles” over the offender’s head – they have to behave themselves to avoid prosecution – and, besides, sending someone to court is no guarantee of either a conviction or a proper sentence.

But isn’t the latter point an argument for making courts tougher, rather than punishment being replaced by rehabilitation? The case against “deferred prosecution” is that it denies victims the chance to see someone get their just deserts. A crime is a crime, and the primary duty of the state is to protect the public. Deferring a prosecution may well work in a significant number of cases, but some offenders being deferred might be accused of very serious crimes, such as assault and burglary; as well as it being unjust not to take them to court, it surely runs a bigger risk of leaving a dangerous person at large. There is also a lack of clarity. How does this fit in with cautions? How are decisions taken to defer prosecution? And what scrutiny is there of that decision? It appears to hand the police a great deal of power.

There’s always room for innovation, and the public understands that public order isn’t delivered solely by sticks but also by carrots. But the voters also have cause to be wary given recent cases of very dangerous people walking free. Our justice system – inside prisons and out – is characterised by excessive hand-wringing, political correctness and, let’s be honest, shameless attempts to save money. But law and order is one thing we cannot afford to scrimp on.