silverguide.site –

There are no votes in leniency for criminals, which is why oppositions demand harsher penalties and ministers acquiesce. It is a policy ratchet that can keep turning as long as there are enough cells to accommodate those who are jailed.

But spending on new prisons, or for that matter improving conditions in the dilapidated, overcrowded ones already in use, is also not a vote-winner. Most people can think of more deserving beneficiaries of public money than prisoners.

There is an argument that everyone in society benefits when incarcerated citizens are humanely treated, more likely to be rehabilitated and less likely to reoffend. It is a rare politician who asserts that view against the clamour for harshness.

As a result of these dynamics, British jails are near capacity. Cutting short custodial sentences is the only way to avert chaos in the system. The last Conservative government knew this when they called the 2024 general election. That didn’t stop them lambasting Sir Keir Starmer when he bowed to the inevitable and approved a wave of early releases. Another round was due in September. That has been pushed back a month by Andy Burnham.

It is understandable that a new prime minister doesn’t want to leap into unpopular actions so soon after taking office. Mr Burnham also has a markedly different style to his predecessor, striving for empathy where Sir Keir tried to make a virtue of unsentimental analysis.

In justice policy, the more empathic way means heeding the concerns of victims of crime and their families, who are naturally distressed by the thought of perpetrators getting off prematurely. In particular, Mr Burnham has signalled amenability to averting the earlier release of two men convicted of the manslaughter of Andrew Harper, a police officer. Mr Harper’s widow has campaigned on the issue, and senior serving officers have signed an open letter lobbying to keep the killers in jail.

The prime minister has tasked his justice secretary, Alex Norris, with finding a way to satisfy those requests. It isn’t straightforward without measures that change the terms of release more widely, such as a provision that none convicted of manslaughter is eligible, for example. Ministers cannot and should not customise rules ad hoc, for individual cases, but broader change starts to undermine the basic utility of a policy intended to free up prison places.

Mr Burnham has already said that rapists and those convicted of some child sexual abuse offences cannot be released early. That is a reasonable line to draw. But wherever the boundary falls, there will be cases that look like unmerited leniency. There will be victims of crime who feel short-changed by the justice system, which is the unavoidable outcome when the system is starved of resources.

There are obvious advantages to emotional literacy in political communication. But the prime minister is at risk of becoming trapped in a cycle of concessions, driven by empathy in individual cases, that limit his room for policy manoeuvre on a more strategic level. Mr Burnham would be better off using his talents as a communicator to advance the argument for a reformed justice system that serves the whole of society. There might not be a lot of votes in it, but prime ministers who prioritise the emotional urgency of the moment over practical policy also pay an electoral penalty.

• Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.