When the Tories came to power in 1979, fighting crime was high on the agenda. There was even a flirtation with the idea of restoring capital punishment, which Thatcher was understood to favour. But the landmark policy was the introduction of the so-called Short Sharp Shock regime with special detention centres imposing military-style discipline on young offenders. The idea being that a few months of terrifying brutality would put them off for life. It didn’t work. And by 1987, it was a racing certainty that the scheme would be abolished.
In 1979, Margaret Thatcher became Prime-Minister. Back in the 1970s, it’s undeniable that street crime was way more prevalent than it is today – despite the moaning you often hear. Guns and big knives are more common now but it was the prevalence of mugging, robbing, and unprovoked attacks that was quite shocking half a century ago. Often linked to football matches but also gangs that attacked individuals for any number of reasons, though fashion, race and sexuality featured highly.
However, was even more brutality the answer?
Short Sharp Shock wasn’t new
After the Second World War, a surge in street-based crime led to the setting up of youth detention centres administering rough and tough justice. But it was always a marginal part of the penal system. In the 1950s, there was just a handful of centres processing about a couple of thousand youth. Into the 1960s, and fear of societal change led to the creation of more detention centres including one for girls. Though no girl had been sent to a centre since 1968 by the time Thatcher took the reins.
By the mid-1970s, the criminal justice system was unconvinced by this kind of regime. However, the Tories – then in opposition – were moving in the opposite direction. Or, more accurately, were moving backwards. Shadow Home Secretary William “Willie” Whitelaw, an ex-guardsman himself, extolled the virtues of a short, sharp, shock regime:
“Life will be conducted at a brisk tempo…we will introduce on a regular basis, drill, parades, and inspections. Offenders will have to earn their limited privileges by good behaviour…these will be no holiday camps…”
In reality though, Whitelaw – an experienced and worldly politician – had no confidence in the regime he was about to introduce. Once in government, the Home Secretary let it be known privately to journalists that this was very much a sop to the right-wing of his own party. The Tory ultras in turn knew that Whitelaw’s heart and head weren’t really fully behind short, sharp, shock so kept up the pressure on him.
Failure was obvious
Four years after Short, Sharp, Shock was introduced, the Home Office’s Young Offender Psychology Unit issued a damning report at some length. Among those aged 14 to 16 (yes, they really were that young!), 40% had received some kind of psychiatric care before imprisonment. About 11% had a history of self-harm and 13% were illiterate. Some literally entered the detention centres with limbs broken from street fights. These were very damaged individuals.
Worse, the report found, the supposedly punitive values instilled by the detention centres actually chimed with the macho outlook of the offenders. While prison officers found the drills “boring” and “demoralising”, the offenders found them “enjoyable” and “positively attractive”. By the mid-1980s, a new Home Secretary – Leon Brittan – horrified to discover that these young criminals were having a great time, replaced military drills with mundane activity like scrubbing floors.
Brittan tried to make life even harder for offenders and the courts reacted. Magistrates, convinced that the policy wasn’t working, refused to send offenders to the detention centres. While prisons were overcrowded, short-sharp-shock centres were half-full. It was clear to those doing the sentencing in courts that this regime needed to be abolished.
Thatcher hedges her bets
Despite Thatcher’s tough talk about crime, the government had two approaches on the go in the 1980s. On the one hand, the brutal short-sharp-shock regime, but on the other was a community-based approach where young people avoided ending up behind bars. While this may seem unusually liberal for Thatcher, it had one major attraction for her: cost. Non-custodial punishment is way cheaper than putting somebody in prison.
Intermediate treatment centres ran what can best be described as therapy sessions with young offenders getting them to understand the gravity of their crimes. Normally a very petty crime like stealing a video from a rental shop. In these centres, there were even one-on-one sessions with ‘lone offenders’ who would be adversely influenced by other offenders if they were in group sessions. It was best to treat them on their own.
These Intermediate Treatment Centres kicked off in late 1984 and by 1987, it was clear that this kind of punishment was more effective than being put behind bars. Although you might not be that impressed by the figures. Re-offending amongst young ex-cons was about 70% to 80% while those going through intermediate treatment reoffended at a 60% rate.
By 1987, it was clear to the saner wing of the Tory government that short sharp shock was totally counter-productive. Not that it was ever really intended to rehabilitate offenders. The real motive was a kind of societal revenge perpetrated on criminal working-class youth by vicious Daily Mail readers. In that sense, they got what they wanted.
One interesting finding in the centres was that petty crime seemed to be a rite of passage for many young people out of which they emerged to become fairly normal citizens. But by putting them through a brutal custodial regime in their formative years, this rite of passage became firmly embedded. They were turned into lifetime criminals.
Still, successive Home Secretaries under Thatcher couldn’t quite let go of a dire concept and the treatment of young offenders today is a source of national shame. Or at least, it would be if anybody had the courage to criticise the shocking treatment of teenagers – no matter how “feral”.
