Drawing on over 60 in-depth interviews with key policymakers, the research project analysed the creation, contestation, amendment and abolition of the Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence, spanning both Labour (2001-2010) and Conservative-led (2010-2015) governments. The IPP sentence stands as one of the most striking examples of the expansion of preventive sentencing. The research sought to investigate the beliefs, traditions and political processes that underpinned these developments, and to consider the wider lessons for academic and policymaker audiences.
The research conducted by Dr Harry Annison found that policymaking around the IPP sentence was characterised by four challenges.The introduction of the IPP sentence was predicated on the assumption that systems for risk assessment and management were sufficiently developed to support this future-oriented preventive sentence. However, respondents consistently noted the lack of expert involvement in the IPP policymaking process. Also, in spite of the constant reference to public opinion by policymakers, members of the public were not involved in the ongoing processes regarding the creation, nor the implementation of the IPP. Thirdly, the tabloid media were experienced as a powerful force, channelling the policymaking process and constraining policy choice. And finally, the problem of policymaking being done in silos and with considerable distance between policymaking groups.
In sum, the research concludes that we are faced with a situation of ‘illusory democratization’. Whereby the public is a constant reference point for policymakers, a loss of public confidence in the penal system is a constant concern and there is a perceived need to pursue policy outcomes that satisfy public demand. However, this is a story in which there are no forums in which sustained deliberation between publics and policymakers can occur.
The research findings suggest that there may be considerable value in facilitating discussions amongst policy participants, focusing upon the beliefs, traditions and practices that are prevalent in relevant organisations.
Penal Policymaking: A collaborative symposium | April 2016
To address these challenges and gaps in policymaking the research team organised a policy symposium hosted by the Institute for Government in April 2016. This initiative, co-funded by the ESRC and the Political Studies Association ( PSA ), facilitated deliberation and engagement between stakeholders in support of policy reform. The symposium comprised the following sessions:
Session 1: ‘Developing Sentencing and Penal Policy’
Discussion was stimulated by Dr Harry Annison’s (Law and ICJR, Southampton) key findings from his detailed analysis of the creation, contestation, amendment and (prospective) abolition of the Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence. His monograph Dangerous Politics was published by Oxford University Press in October 2015; a briefing paper has also been published and can be accessed here.
Session 2: ‘Practitioners, Policymakers and Penal Policy’
Discussion was prompted by Mark Telford’s (Law and ICJR, Southampton) analysis of youth justice policymaking and the role of practitioners. Details of relevant publications can be found here .
Session 3: ‘Localism, Markets and Criminal Justice Police’
Professor Ian Loader (Oxford University) reflected on his substantial research in the areas of localism, political ideologies and private security. Dr Gwen Robinson (Sheffield University) reflected on her empirical analysis of the effect and implications for probation staff of the Transforming Rehabilitation programme, and the resulting lessons for policymaking.
A summary report of the symposium can be found here .
Attendees included senior policy participants representing police, probation, prisons, sentencers and central government. Organizations included the Ministry of Justice, Parole Board, Justice Committee, Law Commission, National Audit Office, and a range of researchers, service user groups, penal reform groups and voluntary sector representatives. The event was held under the Chatham House Rule.
The lead convener was Dr Harry Annison; the event was co-convened by Mark Telford and Dr John Boswell (Politics, Southampton). Harry Annison commented that, “we are delighted that this initiative has been met with such enthusiasm by the full range of potential participants. We look forward to taking forwards ideas for further research and collaboration with those in attendance.” Requests for further information should be directed to Dr Harry Annison, [email protected].