What should become of the two idiots who took a chainsaw to the beloved Sycamore Gap tree? Obviously it was thuggish, a pointless desecration of something that gave countless people joy, judging by the outpouring of unexpectedly deep emotion that followed. Landscapes work their way into the soul. But so does the thought of two children whose father is about to be jailed for what the judge warned would be a “lengthy period”. Though a line obviously has to be drawn, is this really the best way we can think of to punish a heartless act that nonetheless posed no danger to human life?
Now is the perfect time to wrestle with questions such as this, about whom we send to prison and why, and whether doing it differently would lead to a more humane but more effective prison system and ultimately cut crime. For this government is – shock, horror – finally about to do something liberals might actually like. Next week the justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, is due to publish a review of sentencing commissioned from one of her Tory predecessors, David Gauke, expected among other things to recommend that inmates be allowed to earn freedom after serving only a third of their sentences by good behaviour, or by engaging with work and education that will help them get jobs on release. It’s something progressives have wanted for years but which government after government has nervously backed away from, fearful of being branded soft on crime – though the inspiration was tough, Republican-governed Texas, where reoffending rates have fallen by nearly a third since similar reforms were introduced. Unfortunately, a crisis left by the last government means this one now looks as if it’s not exactly acting out of choice.
