The Government probably imagined that news of its new Sentencing Act, virtually abolishing short prison sentences, would draw attention only from the usual suspects on the “hang ‘em and flog ‘em” political Right. Labour’s soft Left, on the other hand, including the influential penal reform lobby, would be delighted by such unambiguously progressive policy. The release of some 12,000 petty criminals, including prolific shoplifters, was an opportunity to demonstrate the efficacy of community-based punishment and rehabilitation. And, yes, to save the Treasury millions in spending on expensive prison places.

Then a piece of reverse synchronicity arrived in the shape of mass shoplifting in Clapham in South London, which was followed by a separate clash in Milton Keynes on Saturday evening. Such events effectively reduced the police to bystanders, offering a perfect illustration of the dangers of permissive urban policing. Even London’s milquetoast Mayor, Sadiq Khan, promised “zero tolerance” — although he has no real appetite for robust policing. Now, Labour’s Sentencing Act punches the bruise of the “broken Britain” narrative the Government so steadfastly denies.

Police officers will note that it takes a great deal of offending for a shoplifter to receive a custodial sentence. This involves multiple convictions, usually with aggravating factors such as violence. Drugs play a depressingly predictable role, but so do bad-faith decisions made by recidivists. The debate over the effectiveness of prison sentences on such behaviours splits along broadly ideological lines: Labour, having abandoned its pro-law and order working-class base, has long favoured rehabilitation and addressing the societal drivers of crime. The Sentencing Act, then, speaks to a ghost in the Labour machine — what critics would say is a baked-in weak spot on crime and criminality. No wonder, then, that Lord Timpson, long an advocate of non-custodial “punishment”, is now Prisons Minister.

The exposed flank for reformers such as Timpson, however, is a blind spot for victims. Penal reform advocates point to the long-term rehabilitative benefits of non-custodial sentences and the negative consequences of imprisonment. More comfortable with abstract and sociological arguments, they have less to say about the respite short sentences offer communities. I remember a prolific “petty” offender who immiserated the lives of anyone who encountered him. When he was finally locked up for a 12-month sentence — in reality six, due to weasel-worded sentencing policy — the sense of relief among residents on the division I patrolled was palpable. The crime rate dropped, too, as such offenders are the criminal equivalent of plague vectors. Groups such as Crush Crime estimate that 10% of criminals commit 50% of all recorded crime. Crush Crime also, incidentally, questions the effectiveness of short-term prison sentences. However, this is primarily because the sentence handed down by the courts is seldom the sentence served in custody: 50% is automatically to be “served” in the community, i.e. after release but on licence.

This weakness percolates back to policing. If criminals know they’re unlikely to ever face imprisonment, they see little incentive to stop offending. Police see little reason to arrest, either, especially in an environment where over-zealous watchdogs such as the IOPC routinely investigate officers for doing their jobs. Add City Hall’s insatiable appetite for progressive dogma, the ineffectiveness of police oversight bodies and the decimation of neighbourhood policing, and it isn’t difficult to see a witch’s brew of problems for the Metropolitan Police.

As in Democrat-controlled American cities, parts of the UK are enduring the all too predictable conclusion of the progressive criminal justice experiment. An experiment, presumably, made even more intriguing by the release of 12,000 more recidivist offenders onto Britain’s streets.