Looking back to move forward…the state of prisons and avoiding the cycle of failure… 

This blog post has been contributed by Tony Murphy, Module Convenor for Criminology.

George Santayana remarked that ‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it’.¹ We would do well to keep that in mind when thinking about criminal justice, particularly so in the context of England and Wales, where we appear to have not learnt lessons from the recent and distant past. But the point is a wider one, relevant to other jurisdictions. The state of prisons in England and Wales is a telling vignette of the wider problems I allude to, as I shall detail below. 

To start with, the present situation in England and Wales is complicated, but it is perhaps best understood in relation to a series of crises – many of which are connected to one another. A key problem with prisons, for example, is overcrowding. As of mid-November 2025, the prison population was 86,958, whereas the Ministry of Justice’s working definition of safe capacity dictates that the current capacity should not exceed 81,505.² But this is just one part of a much bigger problem. 

Public trust and confidence in the system is low. This has been impacted by recent controversies and scandals. High reoffending rates for prisoners is one thing. It is not a good look when so many prisoners go on to reoffend.³ Early release is another problem because of the message it can give to the public. This mechanism has served the purpose of easing prison capacity problems, but it looks like a ‘soft’ option, and it looks worse still when early release prisoners go on to commit crimes.  

Even worse, is the situation of prisoners being released early in error. In the recent months, we have seen incendiary examples of this, resulting in debates in Parliament and mass media coverage of the prisons’ crisis. The case of Hadush Kebatu – an illegal immigrant convicted of sexual offences, including against a child – was a perfect storm because of how it also tied into public anxieties about illegal migration and the impacts on communities. Cassia Rowland writing for the Institute of Government has described how such a case is simply reflective of the failing system.⁴  

Such things must be considered in the context of other crises, which I argue are all related in some sense. These include, among other things: 

• Staff and resource shortage for prisons.
• Inexperienced staff.
• Endemic problems of drug use.
• Violence.
• Gangs.
• Radicalisation.
• Harm and deaths within custody
• Poor prisoner mental health.
• Poor staff mental health.
• Poor prison infrastructure.
• And an over-reliance on short-term prison sentences despite the poor outcomes they lead to.

A quick perusal of any recent version of the Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile on the state of prisons demonstrates the wider point.⁵ The Prison Service is not alone. The courts, policing, and probation have been undermined by things such as backlogs in cases, structural (and sometimes overt) racism and sexism, funding issues, privatisation and so on. And something that cuts across all areas of criminal justice, its politicisation. 

It strikes me that criminal justice has for a long time been in tension between the imperatives of reform and reintegration of offenders, with the need to be tough with justice to appease political and public demands for such. What I write is not new, but rather, it is worth writing because we have still not learnt the necessary lessons. Short-sighted and often kneejerk policymaking is one danger of the latter imperative (punitivity), and the dual aspects of criminal justice are often at odds with one another. Criminological research and analysis overwhelmingly show that punitivity often gets in the way of reform. We should heed such a warning but also learn lessons from the present and the recent past, on what works (and what does not). 

We should also do more to utilize what historical criminology can give us: a set of tools and analyses for understanding and reforming criminal justice. It is not just about looking at events or patterns of the past, it can have power in allowing us to understand how we got to where we are and provide lessons on what might work now, based on the past. 

The work on penal transportation from Britain to Australia, for instance, shows us how regimes of punishment can have very different outcomes according to the extent to which such regimes are primarily focused on convict reintegration and reform, versus outward punitivity. John Braithwaite’s famous paper Crime in a Convict Republic⁶, discusses transportation in relation to processes of convict reintegration. Braithwaite demonstrates some ways in which the convict system in Australia in the final decades of the eighteenth century and first decades of the nineteenth century was marked by opportunities for reform. And indeed, a penal management regime and infrastructure which facilitated and encouraged convict reform. This was also positive for the society they lived in. 

We know that convict rehabilitation and reintegration is central to the stated ethos or guiding mission of any modern criminal justice system, or specific institution within, yet this seems to be at odds with the political and practical realities. The workings of prisons, and the broader legal and political landscapes often get in the way. At present, we send too many people to prison; we use short-term sentences too readily; and the system is inadequately resourced. 

Braithwaite’s assessment is perhaps an overly simplistic one. Work by Murphy for example,⁷ suggests that penal management of convicts in Australia evolved over time and across space. After the first few decades of transportation, laws and policies became more punitive, which took away rights from convicts and gave them fewer freedoms, resulting in generally more negative outcomes for convicts (and thus, society). Such changes were in part at least political and inspired by a desire to make the system more punitive. The system up to then had led to successful reform for many convicts, and for some, enabled them to become successful business owners and landowners. That sent out the wrong kind of message for something meant to be a dreaded punishment. The punitive changes were arguably counterproductive because they diminished chances for convict success post-sentence. 

This is a cautionary tale for modern criminal justice, and where we place true emphasis. Clearly punishment is important, and prison has an important role in managing dangerous people. However, the same punishment can be operationalised and administered in different ways, with different outcomes. The crises cited above all impact on the abilities of the Prison Service to focus on what is important and facilitate reform for the vast majority of those who pass through it – for the betterment of society. Arguably, they all link to the over-use of imprisonment and the ways in which law and order issues are so politicised. Things can improve, but it’s not easy. In short: 

• We need to be more selective in the use of imprisonment to reduce numbers and divert vulnerable or other populations whose reform would be better served via other means.  
• We need fewer people in prison. The use of short-term prison sentences should be massively scaled back. The Sentencing Bill currently going through Parliament SHOULD in theory help with this by limiting the use of such sentences. But we shall see.  
• Increase prison resources for staffing, and for prisoners to better promote rehabilitative practices and processes.  Reducing short-term sentences and diverting vulnerable people from prisons will help with this, but in the present context of financial hardship funding is a challenge.  
• Somehow try to deescalate the politicisation of law and order, especially around the use of imprisonment and how prison is experienced. This is easier said than done, but it is needed. This is the hardest thing on the list, and one which arguably underpins everything else. Leave experts and the research evidence to inform policies and practices, not political point-scoring and public and media appeasement. 

A turning point is long overdue. I am cautiously optimistic for the future. 

References

1. George Santayana, The Life of Reason, (1905) p.284. ↩︎
2. See Howard League for Penal Reform ‘Prison Watch’ online. Data for date 16^th November ↩︎
3. Data from the Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile in recent years show that most offenders reoffend. See for example the 2025 data via Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile: February 2025 | Prison Reform Trust. For short-term sentences, 62% go on to commit the same offence ↩︎
4. Cassia Rowland, ‘The mistaken release of Hadush Kebatu is a symptom of a failing system’, Institute of Government (online), 28^th October 2025, The mistaken release of Hadush Kebatu is a symptom of a failing system | Institute for Government ↩︎
5. Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile 2025, Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile: February 2025 | Prison Reform Trust ↩︎
6. John Braithwaite, ‘Crime in a Convict Republic’, the Modern Law Review, (2001), 64(1). ↩︎
7. Tony Murphy, ‘Penal Transportation from Britain to Australia, 1788 to 1868: four phases of penal administration and experimentation’, Journal on European History of Law, (2022), 12(2), pp.70-78.  ↩︎