The New Labour government, billing themselves as the “Third Way” needed to reassure the public that they would deal with criminals in a suitable way and take a hard stance against crime. This is because in general, the public and the press prefer a government who takes firm action against crime. Therefore, a continuation of their previous philosophy of tackling the causes of crime combined with a new tougher stance on crime punishment appeared to be an overarching solution and a sure-fire vote winner.
Once in power, the new Labour government had to uphold its policy promise. The official Labour website claims the party is introducing tough new laws, citing examples of its introduction of mandatory 5 year sentences for firearms possession and its new wide range of anti-social behaviour powers. However, it then leads on to explain how the party is “tackling the roots of crime” by introducing ‘early intervention’ schemes such as ‘Summer Splash’ programmes to keep young people, viewed likely to offend out of boredom, occupied in the summer months. They are also investing in rehabilitation for drug addicts and organising the intensive supervision of young offenders. From the official point of view, Labour appear to be sticking to their manifesto pledge, but the question is, in practical terms, how much impact have their policies really had?
The Labour government has spent a lot of time reforming the Youth justice system, most notably with the 1999 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act. This act has introduced tough measures, including child curfews enforceable by tagging. Welfare groups such as the National Children's Bureau and the Howard League for Penal Reform have claimed that this may have the undesired effect of alienating young people from figures of authority however. Along with these tough measures though, Labour have also introduced policies to tackle the causes of youth crime by introducing parenting orders and, with the establishment of a social exclusion unit in the Home Office, bring together social services and the police to improve urban areas and the opportunities for people within them, and therefore lessen the risk of crime. These measures take time for an effect to be seen, however, so it is hard to assess their relative success or failure.
The government has also increased police powers and has tried to abolish the right to trial by jury in some cases to ensure quicker prosecution in the Criminal Justice and Police Bill of 2001. These measures have been attacked as an erosion of civil rights. However, the government has also been looking at implementing a 10-year plan to improve education in jails and give more supervision to ex-offenders to ensure that they don’t offend again. Critics have again attacked the long-term nature of this plan, saying that by the end of the ten years, no one will remember the actual plan anymore.
From the outset it would appear that Labour have tried to stay true to their word and implement both policies that are tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. This centrist policy has received criticism from both sides of the political spectrum, however, each saying that the measures don’t go far enough. The Conservatives believe that more consideration should be given to the rights of the victim and the criminal justice system should be focussed more sharply on sentencing. Michael Howard recently criticised Labour policy on law and order, saying, “What more harmful message could we send than to say: ‘It's not your fault, it is society's fault’?” Conversely, the Liberal Democrats offer a more left wing view, claiming that Labour's "tough on the causes of crime" pledge is rhetoric. They say that the Labour government has missed the opportunity to put in place the measures needed to get to the heart of offending.
Under the Labour government, there has been a drop in crime rates, however, there has been a rise in violent crime, showing that it is generally only smaller crimes are being prevented by Labour’s policies. The time under a Labour administration so far has also seen a general rise in the prison population and tougher penalties for some crimes, showing a more right wing leaning in their policy.
Overall, the Labour government since 1997 have tried hard to implement both policies that are tough on crime AND its causes. This would appear to have had some success by the drop in crime rates. However, by trying to adopt both the right wing and the left wing stance on crime, it could be argued that the government has been trying to stretch itself too far and therefore its policies have had very little actual impact and have at times been contradictory. In conclusion, the government have been tough on crime and the causes of crime to an extent, but this has been marred by the difficulties of implementing such an overarching policy, as well as the problem that every government faces in that it can never completely eradicate crime.