Judges Encouraged to Take Into Account Criminals’ Deprived Backgrounds
The Sentencing Council has issued new guidelines that urge judges to consider whether criminals have experienced ‘poverty’ or ‘insecure housing.’
Judges in England and Wales are now required to assess if criminals have originated from a “difficult” or “deprived” family background before delivering sentences, following a recommendation by the Sentencing Council.
In 2021, the Sentencing Council commissioned the University of Hertfordshire (UH) to conduct research into equality and diversity within the criminal justice system.
Subsequently, the Sentencing Council proposed new guidelines for all offenses stating, “Courts should recognize that different groups within the criminal justice system have faced multiple disadvantages that could influence their behavior.”
- Early experience of loss, neglect, or abuse
- Experience of discrimination
- Negative influence from peers
- Experience of being a looked-after child (in care)
- Low educational attainment
- Poverty
- Insecure housing
- Challenges regarding drug and/or alcohol misuse
When consulting stakeholders within or affected by the criminal justice system in England and Wales, around two-thirds of respondents who commented on these proposed additions broadly agreed with the proposals, though some had suggestions for modifications.
Some individuals or groups expressed “strong objections,” especially regarding the mention of poverty and inadequate housing.
Related Stories
They emphasized, “This perspective would be biased and prejudiced. There are numerous people who have encountered difficult circumstances or disadvantages but have chosen a law-abiding path while overcoming challenges. So, why should these disadvantages define an offender?”
Blue Collar Conservatives, led by Tory MP and Cabinet minister Esther McVey, criticized the guidelines as being “extremely patronizing,” particularly to law-abiding working-class communities. They highlighted that individuals from impoverished backgrounds are often the victims of crimes in such cases.
‘Low Educational Attainment and Poverty Are Not Excuses’
They argued, “Low educational attainment and poverty should not justify criminal actions.”
The group added, “Other examples are subjective; for instance, citing experience of discrimination could apply broadly or to specific cases. Understanding the extent and impact of discrimination on sentencing is challenging.”
Tory MP Philip Davies expressed his disagreement with the idea that a difficult or deprived background reduces culpability for criminal offenses. He questioned the need for such mitigating factors across all offenses.
However, the Criminal Law Solicitors’ Association supported the consideration of all relevant circumstances of the offender. They stated, “While poverty and social deprivation do not inherently lead to criminal behavior, the effects on a defendant cannot be disregarded.”
The House of Commons justice committee acknowledged that these factors are already taken into account in court proceedings. They endorsed the inclusion of new mitigating factors to ensure consistency in sentencing and enhance transparency for the public.
The Prison Reform Trust challenged a reference in the guidance to “being voluntarily intoxicated,” arguing that it implies individuals have control over their addiction.
In his response, Alex Chalk, the lord chancellor and justice secretary, criticized the guidelines as “patronizing” and potentially “inaccurate.” He emphasized that assumptions linking low income or deprivation to criminal tendencies could be misleading or biased.
Mr. Chalk said, “Additionally, many individuals from modest backgrounds have demonstrated integrity and a commitment to law-abiding behavior.” He stressed the importance of using custody as a last resort.
After reviewing feedback, the Sentencing Council decided to revise the wording and include the new factors and expanded explanations in guidelines for adult offenders across all offenses.
