Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid) 11 May 2022
The cabinet secretary said that there must be no tolerance of misogyny in our justice system. The reports this week were sickening, and I put on record that no one with misogynistic attitudes should have any part whatever in our justice system.
Justice is complex. In my view, the system serves three fundamental functions: to provide security to our communities and people, to reform behaviour and to facilitate payback to communities. Above all, it must be trusted.
This is not simple. It is not about binary choices. Frankly, no one is helped if we discuss the matter in the language of Daily Mail headlines. No progress is made by suggesting that the Government is prioritising criminals’ rights over those of victims. No progress is made by claiming that ever-increasing sentences are the fix for our justice system. However, I say to the Government that progress is not made by uttering glib phrases or hiding behind the idea of being progressive. Progress is not made if people think that a presumption against short sentences means that we have a progressive justice system—we do not.
Likewise, it is not helpful to have an auction around police numbers. It is not just about the numbers. Any serving police officer who is asked about the 17,234 figure will say that they hate it, because it is not about numbers; it is about investment in the system that lies behind those numbers and that helps officers to do their work. In the establishment of Police Scotland, there was a complete failure to put those things in place.
If increasing sentences and putting more and more people away worked, the United States of America would be crime free. I think that all members know that it is not. It is also based on the false rationalisation of thinking that criminals go around wondering how long they might get in prison for a particular crime and making choices based on that. That is utter nonsense. That is not how people think and it is not how criminals think, so it is an utterly false and bunk choice.
Audrey Nicoll described Jamie Greene’s motion as a slew of non-contextualised numbers, which is correct, because he and other Conservatives presented numbers but provided no analysis of what they sought to do about it.