Politicians and Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) in the UK, including Dorset, often avoid addressing the root causes of acquisitive crimes such as shoplifting, theft, and burglary. Instead, they focus on targeting offenders. This approach is driven by a combination of political, cultural, and systemic factors. By examining initiatives like Dorset Police’s participation in Safer Business Action Week, the broader cultural and political contexts in which they operate, and contrasting these with alternative models like those found in the Netherlands and Norway, we can better understand why policymakers often prioritise punitive measures over preventative ones.
The Political Appeal of Punitive Responses
At the heart of this issue is the political landscape, where crime and justice policies are shaped by electoral pressures. For many politicians, especially in Britain and the US, advocating for harsher punishments is a strategic decision designed to appeal to voters who want to see immediate action. Crime is an emotive issue, and the electorate often equates longer prison sentences with strong leadership. As Dutch journalist Renate van der Zee observes, politicians in these countries frequently promote tougher sentencing as part of a “law and order” agenda. This stance allows them to project an image of decisiveness and strength, especially in the face of media coverage that highlights rising crime rates or repeat offenders.
The tendency to focus on offenders is particularly visible in operations like Dorset Police’s Safer Business Action Week, which aims to tackle business and retail crime by increasing patrols, targeting prolific offenders, and engaging with businesses. Inspector Dan Cullen and PCC David Sidwick are vocal about the need to target those who “cause the most harm to businesses” and reduce the number of high-harm offenders, as seen through operations such as Operation Shopkeeper and Operation Spotter. This offender-centric approach aligns with public expectations of immediate results, particularly in high-visibility sectors like retail, where crimes such as shoplifting are tangible and costly.
However, while such initiatives are effective in the short term, they do little to address the underlying causes of acquisitive crimes. The focus remains squarely on catching and prosecuting offenders, rather than examining the social and economic factors such as poverty, addiction, or mental health issues, that often drive individuals to commit these crimes.
The Reluctance to Address Root Causes
One key reason why politicians and PCCs are hesitant to tackle the root causes of acquisitive crime is that doing so requires long-term investment in areas outside the immediate remit of the criminal justice system. Addressing issues like poverty, unemployment, mental health, or substance abuse involves significant collaboration between social services, healthcare providers, educational institutions, and local government agencies. This level of coordination is both complex and costly, and its results are often slow to materialise.
In contrast, a strategy focused on increasing arrests, securing convictions, and imprisoning offenders yields more immediate and visible outcomes. This is particularly appealing in the context of short electoral cycles, where politicians are keen to demonstrate quick results to secure public approval. For PCCs like David Sidwick, whose role is directly tied to the safety of local communities, targeting prolific offenders is a tangible way of showing commitment to reducing crime.
The Dutch Approach: A Different Perspective
In stark contrast to the UK and US, the Netherlands takes a fundamentally different approach to crime and punishment, as outlined by Renate van der Zee, writing in The Guardian. The Dutch culture, influenced by the excesses of the Nazi occupation during World War II, is historically averse to long prison sentences. Dutch judges are more inclined to impose community service or suspended sentences for lesser offences like theft, a practice that has proven to be both cost-effective and successful in reducing reoffending. Research consistently shows that individuals who serve shorter sentences or engage in community-based rehabilitation are less likely to reoffend than those subjected to lengthy prison terms.
This approach is reflected in the fact that the Netherlands has consistently maintained a lower proportion of its population in prison compared to the UK and US. The Dutch system emphasises rehabilitation over punishment, which contrasts sharply with the punitive focus in Britain, where offenders are more likely to receive long sentences for relatively minor offences. As van der Zee notes, long sentences place enormous pressure on the prison system and divert resources that could be better spent on prevention and reintegration programs.
Yet, despite its more lenient sentencing practices, the Netherlands remains a safe country. The perception that a lower prison population leads to higher crime rates is not borne out by the Dutch experience. Dutch citizens still feel safe walking the streets at night, even as their prisons empty. This challenges the assumption, often held by politicians in Britain and the US, that a reduction in prison populations will lead to increased crime. Instead, the Dutch experience suggests that fewer people in prison can coexist with a safer society, provided that there are effective social support and rehabilitation programs in place.
The Norwegian Model: Reintegration as the Key
Norway offers another powerful example of how a focus on rehabilitation and reintegration can reduce crime without resorting to harsh punitive measures. Norwegian prisons, as van der Zee highlights, are small and designed to simulate normal life as much as possible. This allows inmates to remain connected to society, making it easier for them to reintegrate upon release.
In contrast, the British system, with its overcrowded prisons and emphasis on long sentences, often leaves individuals alienated and ill-prepared for life outside. Many offenders, having spent years locked up for 22 hours a day, reoffend shortly after their release because the transition to normal life is abrupt and unsupported. By focusing on rehabilitation rather than punishment, Norway has succeeded in creating a system where reoffending rates are significantly lower than in countries like Britain or the US.
Economic Costs and Social Benefits
The Dutch and Norwegian approaches not only demonstrate that focusing on the causes of crime can lead to safer societies, but they also offer economic advantages. Long sentences are expensive. Maintaining large prison populations places an enormous financial burden on governments. By contrast, investing in community-based alternatives, prevention, and reintegration programs is far more cost-effective. As van der Zee points out, the money spent on incarcerating individuals for minor offences could be better used to fund prevention programs that address the root causes of crime, such as education, housing, or mental health services.
This argument is especially relevant in light of the acquisitive crimes targeted by initiatives like Safer Business Action Week in Dorset. Crimes such as shoplifting and theft are often committed out of necessity, driven by poverty, addiction, or lack of opportunity. Addressing these underlying issues through social interventions could significantly reduce the incidence of these crimes. However, this requires a shift in political priorities from punishing offenders to preventing crime before it occurs; a shift that many politicians are reluctant to make.
The Way Forward: Shifting the Focus
To reduce acquisitive crime effectively, policymakers must adopt a more holistic approach that tackles both the symptoms and the causes of crime. While targeting prolific offenders, as Dorset Police and PCC David Sidwick have done, may yield short-term reductions in crime, it is not a sustainable long-term solution. Instead, the focus should shift towards prevention and rehabilitation, using models like those found in the Netherlands and Norway as inspiration.
Addressing the root causes of crime, whether it be through tackling poverty, improving access to mental health services, or providing better support for addiction recovery, requires significant investment and political will. However, as the Dutch and Norwegian experiences show, this approach can lead to safer societies with fewer people behind bars. Moreover, it is more cost-effective in the long run, allowing governments to divert resources from maintaining overcrowded prison systems to funding the social programs that can prevent crime from occurring in the first place.
Politicians and PCCs in the UK, driven by electoral pressures and a culture that values immediate, visible results, often prefer to target offenders rather than addressing the root causes of acquisitive crime. This approach, while politically expedient, does little to break the cycle of crime and reoffending. By contrast, the experiences of the Netherlands and Norway offer a compelling alternative, where a focus on rehabilitation, prevention, and social support has led to lower prison populations and safer societies.
Initiatives like Safer Business Action Week, while valuable in the short term, are limited by their focus on offender-based interventions. To truly reduce acquisitive crime, policymakers must take a broader view, addressing the social and economic conditions that drive individuals to commit these crimes in the first place. Only by shifting the focus from punishment to prevention can we hope to create a safer, more just society for all.
KEEP US ALIVE and join us in helping to bring reality and decency back by SUBSCRIBING to our Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQ1Ll1ylCg8U19AhNl-NoTg AND SUPPORTING US where you can: Award Winning Independent Citizen Media Needs Your Help. PLEASE SUPPORT US FOR JUST £2 A MONTH https://dorseteye.com/donate/
