Short Answer
Crime is a key issue across the political spectrum. People want to feel safe, and the Government has a responsibility to provide that safety. However, public perceptions of crime and sentencing do not always reflect the realities of the criminal justice system. The Sentencing Act 2026 seeks to address prison overcrowding partly by reducing reliance on imprisonment, but the public remains sceptical. This article examines the key sentencing reforms, how they aim to relieve pressure on prisons, and whether public opposition should be considered alongside wider misunderstandings about sentencing.
Development of the Legislation
With over 85,000 prisoners in custody in June, prisons in England and Wales are operating close to capacity. The Government expects demand for prison places to exceed supply without intervention. Increasing prison capacity would relieve some of this pressure, but even with 14,000 additional prison places planned by 2031, the Government expects further measures will be necessary. This leaves another option: reducing demand for prison places.
The Sentencing Act 2026 attempts to do this through a new Progression Model for eligible prisoners serving Standard Determinate Sentences. Rather than spending the same proportion of their sentence in prison as under the previous arrangements, eligible prisoners will spend a minimum period in custody before progressing to intensive supervision in the community. This can include regular appointments, risk assessments and monitoring of licence conditions. Prisoners can also spend longer in custody for poor behaviour. The model therefore aims to reduce pressure on prison capacity while maintaining supervision after release.
Analysis: Public Perception of the Reforms
Public opinion is strongly sceptical of the early-release elements. In August 2026, Ipsos found that 69% of Britons opposed releasing certain prisoners early to manage prison capacity. A separate YouGov poll published in September found that 61% opposed reducing the custodial portion for less serious offenders from 40–50% to one-third, while 82% opposed reducing it from two-thirds to one-half for some more serious offenders.
However, public opinion on sentencing has historically not always reflected sentencing practice. A 2022 Sentencing Academy report found that the public tended to underestimate sentence severity. Although average custodial sentences have grown longer, 56% of respondents believed prison sentences had become shorter since 1996. The same report found that 65% considered sentencing too lenient.
The researchers suggested several possible explanations for this gap, including the complexity of sentencing and release rules and media coverage that disproportionately focuses on exceptional or controversial sentences. This does not mean that current opposition to the Sentencing Act is necessarily caused by misunderstanding. However, the historical gap between perception and practice provides important context for understanding the challenge facing the reforms.
Future Outlook
The Sentencing Act highlights a difficult tension in criminal justice policy. Public confidence and safety concerns matter, but policymakers must also respond to the practical reality of a prison system with limited capacity. Building additional prisons may relieve some pressure, but the Government's projections suggest that increasing capacity alone will not resolve the problem.
The challenge is therefore not simply deciding how much punishment is enough, but ensuring that the public understands what a sentence actually involves. Earlier release under the Progression Model does not mean that an offender's sentence has ended; eligible offenders move from custody into intensive supervision and remain subject to restrictions in the community.
Greater public understanding will not necessarily produce greater support for the reforms, nor should genuine concerns about public protection be dismissed. However, informed debate requires a clear understanding of how sentencing operates in practice. As the Sentencing Act takes effect, communicating that distinction may prove almost as important as the reforms themselves.