Clarke's choice is right. Emphasis is wrong

There is no clear-cut answer to dealing with the growing prison population. But whilst the more extreme right-wingers call for tougher sentencing and more prison places, most who have digested the evidence realise it would be in the best interests of the nation to target the causes of crime.

Deep down, I hope that Ken Clarke has reached the same conclusions. Though I suspect that his keynote speech outlining less short-term prison sentences was borne more out of a desire to cut his budget than a sudden change in his view of human nature. If the Secretary of State really intends to back voluntary rehabilitation groups and make community sentencing more effective, than these aspects should have been the emphasis of his speech. Magistrates clearly only send non-violent criminals to jail as a last resort, suggesting that it isn't the prison system that is not working, but that the community sentencing is not tough enough and the support networks for rehabilitation not strong enough, to turn previous 'bad eggs' into 'good eggs'.

Clarke has opened himself to criticism by announcing this change of policy in a cuts environment, meaning that critics can roundly sound off that "he's only doing it to save money spent on prisons." But if he doesn't complement the savings of less people going to jail with an even greater investment in community sentence, rehabilitation programmes and mental health support, then the shift will actually cost the tax payer more money. Police and court cases are expensive. He would have got far more credit for talking of INVESTMENT in these projects to attempt to solve the causes of minor crimes. I just hope that his choice of emphasising reduced prison numbers is his long-term aspiration from good policy, rather than a policy in itself.