UK Prison Overcrowding

Quintillus

Resident Medieval Monk
Super Moderator
Supporter
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
9,280
So, as we probably all know by know, the UK is almost at its maximum prisoner count. Rishi started releasing prisoners 18 days early, then 35, then 70, all while trying to keep it under wraps due to the 4th of July election. Sir Keir, meanwhile, is planning to release prisoners at 40% of their sentence served rather than 50%, to give a more sustainable prison population, and to allow time to increase the capacity of the prisons.

One thing that I haven't seen addressed is, why are there more prisoners in the first place? Has the UK prisoner capacity been flat for decades while the population increased? Are more people being incarcerated? Are sentences harsher, a la mandatory minimums?

I'd also be curious to learn more about why 50% is the standard for release? Is this the standard for good behavior, similar to parole in other countries?

What I'm less interested in is whether Sir Kerir's policies are good policies. Sure, there can be a bit of that, but I don't really want this to be a UK Politics: Steir to Karmer Waters thread. I'm more curious to learn why this is a problem in the first place.
 
Thread needs more data. I'll start:

209c59c3-2d06-460f-8ebc-eb248ef2395f.png


The prison population per capita is fairly high compared to for example France and Spain (England has roughly 30% more) and Germany (England has roughly 100% more), but much lower than the USA (USA has 400% more).

First analysis: The prison population curve looks nothing like the population growth curve, so I don't think population growth is the reason. The increase 1990-2010 is quite stark, probably more than you would expect with harsher sentences (unless you know about a big campaign to increase sentence length in the 1990ies). The flat curve in the last 10 years might be the prisons operating at capacity. It does look like there was no significant expansion of the prison capacity in the last 10 years.
 
as we probably all know by know, the UK is almost at its maximum prisoner count

You have drastically overestimated something here lol
 
One thing that I haven't seen addressed is, why are there more prisoners in the first place? Has the UK prisoner capacity been flat for decades while the population increased? Are more people being incarcerated? Are sentences harsher, a la mandatory minimums?

Primarily for the reason that you have not included; there is more serious crime.
 
What is this? Praise for a tail end tory government, from you?

You really believe the official statistics released in an election year ?

And the recording of serious crime is for other reasons interesting e.g.

(i) If the police think they are unlikely to catch the criminal, then to
keep their figures good, they may downgrade its status in reports.

(ii) And the backlog at the courts means there is a lag in reporting.



There were just under 6.74 million crime offences recorded by the police in
England and Wales in 2022/23, which was the highest figure recorded since 2002/03.
 
You really believe the official statistics released in an election year ?
I believe it more than justifying the need for imprisonment based on unevidenced claims. But, alas, I'm unlikely to make any headway with this, so I'm merely just inserting context for the thread.
The latest figures from the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) showed that there were an estimated 8.5 million offences in the year ending September 2023. While the latest figures do not show a statistically significant change in total crime compared with the year ending September 2022, they do follow a long-term downward trend and more recent falls since the beginning of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, with total crime 17% lower than the year ending March 2020. Compared with the year ending September 2022, there was some variation for individual crime types:
  • fraud decreased by 13%, with notable reductions in advance fee fraud (33%) and other fraud (40%)
  • computer misuse increased by 30%, mainly because of a 36% rise in unauthorised access to personal information
  • criminal damage decreased by 21%, including a 30% fall in criminal damage to a vehicle
Note the separation between "crime" and "violent crime".

Also note that these latest statistics have no relevance to an election year :)
 
Eligible for parole after 1/3rd.


But they just stopped sending people to prison unless you injure or kill someone.

Shoplifting from supermarkets is really common. There's very little enforcement to stop them. And odds of getting caught are low.
 
Last edited:
If there is one thing we in Europe could really stand to learn from the americans it's their approach to prisons. In particular how long to imprison people for and how to treat them once inside. The way to fix overcrowding is not to free horrible criminals early and let them loose on society at large so that they can reoffend at will but to accept prison is not supposed to be a hotel that has comfortable personal space requirements and that therefore some level of discomfort for the inmates is neither unacceptable nor undesirable.
 
If there is one thing we in Europe could really stand to learn from the americans it's their approach to prisons. In particular how long to imprison people for and how to treat them once inside. The way to fix overcrowding is not to free horrible criminals early and let them loose on society at large so that they can reoffend at will but to accept prison is not supposed to be a hotel that has comfortable personal space requirements and that therefore some level of discomfort for the inmates is neither unacceptable nor undesirable.
Not that I agree in the slightest, but who's going to cover the costs for this? Prison costs are already a burden (as they are in the US) on the taxpayer.
 
The prison population per capita is fairly high compared to for example France and Spain (England has roughly 30% more) and Germany (England has roughly 100% more), but much lower than the USA (USA has 400% more).
In the interested of clarity, is the "400% more" for the USA compared to England, or France/Spain, or Germany?
 
I checked the demographic figures, and England's population is up 6.6% in the 2010s (the period for which the prison population is roughly flat), with Wales' much smaller population up by a bit over 1%. To me that suggests that if the prison population figures haven't really changed, and the crime rate was expected to remain the same, the government probably should have built a few more prisons to account for proportional increases in crime due to population growth. And that there wasn't much planning for the contingency of potential increases in crime.
I'm always skeptical of statistics that compare to years after 2019, since so much went outside of normal bounds in 2020 and 2021. But there was a chart in that article that went significantly farther back:

_133196648_hviolence_long_term-nc.png.webp


So, the number of people who require hospitalization after violent crime has fallen by roughly 50% since 2010. Which is pretty significant. That isn't all crime of course, but is one category of serious crime that seems to have fallen significantly in the past 14 years.
In the interested of clarity, is the "400% more" for the USA compared to England, or France/Spain, or Germany?
I believe that is USA compared to England. But that is my reading of the post.

You have drastically overestimated something here lol
The percent of CIvFanatics who read British news outlets? Eh, probably. But it's still one of the largest demographics here.

----

Topic: Crime in the UK

Find the most up-to-date statistics about crime in the United Kingdom
[URL="http://www.statista.com
[/URL] www.statista.com
Quoting the summary:

Between 2003/04 and 2013/14 crime levels fell across England and Wales, from just over six million offences to a low of around four million. The trend was reversed after this point with significant yearly increases after 2013/14, leading to a peak of offences in the most recent year [6.74 million - Quintillus].

The sharp increase in crimes in recent years which came after significant reductions almost certainly has multiple causes, but one of the main factors is likely the cuts to public services imposed across the UK when the government was implementing austerity measures. Crime figures began to increase just as funding for the police hit a low of 16.35 billion British pounds in 2013/14, with funding not increasing by any significant amount until 2017/18. One of the main consequences of these spending cuts was a reduction in the number of police officers after 2010.

While overall crime figures have almost reached levels not seen since the early 2000s, the number of homicides in England and Wales in 2022/23 was 602, compared with over 1,000 in 2002/03. During the same time period, the homicide rate fell from 20 per million people, to 10.1

This text provides general information. Statista assumes no liability for the information given being complete or correct.

Have to love the "we make no guarantees that this is accurate, and don't provide sources" nature of Statista - not saying it isn't correct, but it's always my last resort when doing statistical research for that reason. Usually there is a government or NGO report somewhere that backs up the data, but Statista copies the data without public citation, puts the details (93% of their statistics according to their own website) and source behind a paywall, and makes it more searchable. Which I mainly find distasteful because so much of their data is publicly available elsewhere, and it becomes harder to find from free, official sources when Statista dominates Google.

But personal not-a-fan-of-Statista aside, if that is accurate, it shows more of a mixed picture. The BBC article that Gorbles cited suggests perhaps the Tories did a good job reducing violent crime, but this data suggests that Tory policies lead to an increase in overall crime since 2014, particularly in the more recent Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, and Sunak administrations (and doesn't give enough detail to say how much of the 2003 - 2014 decrease was under Labour versus Conservative). With speculation that austerity measures and a subsequent lack of deterrence/enforcement contributed to increasing crime rates, which is a classic tough-on-crime argument for why not to decrease police funding.

It doesn't necessarily mesh with uppi's chart; notably there is no decline notable in that chart from 2003 to 2014, but rather increases in incarceration rates despite the alleged fall in crime. Not all crimes come with the same sentence, but it does muddy the waters a bit.

----

Hmmm, maybe there is informative data in that Office for National Statistics link that Gorbles posted. Wouldn't be surprised if that's where Statista pulled their data from, I've seen the equivalent for the U.S. and Spain. But yes, it would require digging into the website to find... oh, there is one summary chart that's useful:

1721090327228.png

Note that this is from the Community Survey for England and Wales, and is an estimate of the actual number of crimes committed, including those not reported to police. In other words, when asked in interviews if they have observed or been victims of crime, the response has tended towards lower crime rates since 1995 or so. Hence why the numbers are higher than the total number of offences, it's not always worth the trouble of reporting minor crimes.
 
If there is one thing we in Europe could really stand to learn from the americans it's their approach to prisons. In particular how long to imprison people for and how to treat them once inside. The way to fix overcrowding is not to free horrible criminals early and let them loose on society at large so that they can reoffend at will but to accept prison is not supposed to be a hotel that has comfortable personal space requirements and that therefore some level of discomfort for the inmates is neither unacceptable nor undesirable.

How anyone could look at the American system and think it is preferable is insanity.

Science has shown again and again, a carrot works better than a stick.
 
In the interested of clarity, is the "400% more" for the USA compared to England, or France/Spain, or Germany?

Compared to England. Compared to Germany it is more on the order of 800%

Hmmm, maybe there is informative data in that Office for National Statistics link that Gorbles posted. Wouldn't be surprised if that's where Statista pulled their data from, I've seen the equivalent for the U.S. and Spain. But yes, it would require digging into the website to find... oh, there is one summary chart that's useful:

View attachment 696963
Note that this is from the Community Survey for England and Wales, and is an estimate of the actual number of crimes committed, including those not reported to police. In other words, when asked in interviews if they have observed or been victims of crime, the response has tended towards lower crime rates since 1995 or so. Hence why the numbers are higher than the total number of offences, it's not always worth the trouble of reporting minor crimes.
So, from 1993 to 2010, estimated crime was cut to a half, but the prison population doubled? Has the police become much better at catching criminals?
 
Not that I agree in the slightest, but who's going to cover the costs for this? Prison costs are already a burden (as they are in the US) on the taxpayer.
Make them pay for it. Confiscate their assets in their entirety and use that. Afterward make them work and garnish the income. We could for example force them to work shifts in a call center. That's a suitably torturous punishment for their sins.

How anyone could look at the American system and think it is preferable is insanity.

Science has shown again and again, a carrot works better than a stick.
That depends on what you are trying to do. If you want to try and reform people than sure, the European model works well. But as far as I am concerned reform should be restricted only to people who have committed crimes which are relatively petty. And for those steep fines and community service along with some mandatory classes usually do a better job than locking them up. I mean, there is just no point putting shoplifters and jaywalkers or the occasional participant of a drunken brawl in serious prison.

And as far as serious criminals are concerned, by which I mean people who have committed violent offenses such as rape or murder or people who have ruined many people using financial fraud and the like. I think we should in fact NOT be trying to reform them as that is just plainly unjust toward their victims and society as a whole. Those are the sort of sins that can not be forgiven and thus these individuals can not be redeemed. And it is a waste of everyone's resources trying to. So just banish them from society to die in a forest or barring that lock them up and throw away the key.
 
Make them pay for it. Confiscate their assets in their entirety and use that. Afterward make them work and garnish the income. We could for example force them to work shifts in a call center. That's a suitably torturous punishment for their sins.
Oh, so a more punitive prison system, that generally punishes that don't have the money or the assets to do what you say, while the rich and famous get loopholed or lawyered out as normal.

Yeah, I don't see that as realistic, unfortunately.
 
Oh, so a more punitive prison system, that generally punishes that don't have the money or the assets to do what you say, while the rich and famous get loopholed or lawyered out as normal.

Yeah, I don't see that as realistic, unfortunately.
The only difference between the rich and poor in my scenario is that the rich would be forced to sit alone in a barren concrete prison cell 24/7 suffering in miserable quiet contemplation with the option to escape but briefly for labor where as for the rest that option would not be so optional. Both groups would still be put away for life in equally miserable minimum maintenance living conditions. And even that just because frankly we've gone too soft to do the actual cost effective solution.
 
The only difference between the rich and poor in my scenario is that the rich would be forced to sit alone in a barren concrete prison cell 24/7 suffering in miserable quiet contemplation with the option to escape but briefly for labor where as for the rest that option would not be so optional. Both groups would still be put away for life in equally miserable minimum maintenance living conditions. And even that just because frankly we've gone too soft to do the actual cost effective solution.
Your idealism fails to account for the fact that money and influence keeps rich and famous people out of jail.

Your suggestion is therefore not financially viable in objective terms, regardless of what I personally think about it (which to be clear: I don't think it's a good idea anyway).
 
Make them pay for it. Confiscate their assets in their entirety and use that. Afterward make them work and garnish the income. We could for example force them to work shifts in a call center. That's a suitably torturous punishment for their sins.
That reminds me of two historical methods of punishment. One is debtors' prisons. You can't afford the fine for your crime, you go to debtor's prison, and you are there until you can pay it. Which can be quite a long time since being in prison often has a negative effect on one's ability to earn income.

Perhaps the more accurate comparison is chain gangs. From what I hear from my older relatives, seeing chain gangs working along the highway is a memorable but far from uplifting sight - quite the opposite, in fact. They have been largely discontinued due to excessive cases of worker abuse - without any ability to quit or unionize, the prisoner-workers have no leverage over working conditions, and some of the overseers abused that. And most of the people on the chain gangs weren't repeat-serious-offenders.

Although working in call centers is less like traditional chain gangs and probably more like the other classic criminal labor pursuit - making license plates. Still, I'd certainly have some misgivings if I were to call the local Bureau of Motor Vehicles and have to hand over information such as my driver's license number to a criminal who may have been convicted for crimes such as stealing financial information.

I'm not altogether opposed to the idea of having some form of prisoner labor, but it requires careful consideration of what is fair to both the prisoner and the public. Done right, perhaps it could improve self-actualization and confidence, build skills that they can use to help secure jobs post-release, and at least partially cover expenses. I think I've read about Norway doing something like this - prisons on islands where the water serves the purpose of preventing escapes, and where the prisoners essentially run a traditional, low-machinery farm. They gain skills that they can use, have a release for their energy, do something productive, and costs are at least somewhat lowered.

It's more the tone of your suggestion that makes me skeptical. It sounds more like the Soviet gulag model than something that could reduce costs while also potentially reducing recidivism. And reducing recidivism (re-offense after release) is one of the ways to reduce the long-term prison population.
 
Back
Top Bottom