Sentencing and Penal Policy Commission - call for evidence: analysis of responses

1. Introduction

Background

The independent Sentencing and Penal Policy Commission was established in February 2025 to consider how imprisonment and community-based interventions are used in Scotland and ensure that it has a sustainable prison population.^[4] The Commission will make recommendations for improvements to sentencing and penal policy, and in how offending behaviour can be dealt with the underlying aim of ensuring less crime, fewer victims, and safer communities.

The Commission launched a call for evidence, which was open from 15 April to 25 May 2025. The call for evidence contained four open questions which aimed to gather written evidence on the Commission’s initial areas of focus in line with the Terms of Reference.

• Q1 - What changes could be made to community sentences and other alternatives to prison to reduce crime, protect victims, and create safer communities?
• Q2 - In your view, what are the priority issues affecting bail and remand? In Scotland, what needs to change and why?
• Q3 - In your view, what are the priority issues affecting release from prison custody? In Scotland, what needs to change and why?
• Q4 - Are there any recommendations from the McLeish Commission or subsequent reports by other bodies that haven't been put into action yet but could still be beneficial?

Alongside learning from other engagement activity being undertaken by the Commission, the analysis of call for evidence responses will inform the Commission’s final report and recommendations to Scottish Ministers, which will be presented before the end of 2025.

Public consultations and calls for evidence invite everyone to express their views; individuals and organisations interested in the topic are more likely to respond than those without a direct or known interest. This self-selection means the views of respondents do not necessarily represent the views of the entire population, or of those interested in the topic.

Respondent profile

In total, 101 responses to the call for evidence were received. Most were submitted via the online consultation platform Citizen Space. The Commission added those received in an alternative format, such as an email or PDF document, to Citizen Space to be included in the analysis.

The call for evidence received 48 responses from individuals, and 53 responses were from organisations. To aid analysis, organisations were grouped by the nature of their work. Table 1 shows the number of each type of respondent.

Of the 48 individuals who responded, 19 answered only Q3 of the call for evidence and provided near identical responses. These responses typically outlined the respondent's personal experience of knowing someone currently serving a long-term standard determinate prison sentence in Scotland. Then, using identical wording, they described the key issues and suggested changes.

None of those 19 respondents gave permission for their responses to be published, meaning this report does not include any quotes from these responses. However, all 19 have been included in the analysis of responses to Q3. Key points are noted at the start of Chapter 5: Release from custody, and details are included throughout the chapter.

Analysis approach

The Lines Between was commissioned to provide a robust, independent analysis of the responses to the call for evidence. The main purpose of the analysis is to understand the full range of views expressed. This report, therefore, provides a thematic analysis of responses based on the analysis approach outlined below.

Qualitative analysis identifies the key themes in responses to each question. The research team developed a draft coding framework based on a review of the call for evidence questions and a sample of responses. If additional themes emerged during the coding process, new codes were created.

When reviewing the qualitative analysis, we would ask the reader to consider the following:

• Reflecting the number and knowledge of respondents, it is impossible to detail every response in this report. Some respondents, especially organisations, shared lengthy submissions reflecting their specific subject matter expertise. Elements of these responses are referenced where possible. Full responses to the call for evidence, where permission for publication was granted, can be found on the Sentencing and Penal Policy Commission website.
• Not all respondents answered each question, and those who did provided varying levels of detail. The proportion of respondents who answered is noted at the start of the analysis of responses to each question.
• In a small number of instances where a response received via email or in a PDF document contained information that did not align with specific questions, analysts exercised judgement about the most relevant place to include this material for analysis purposes.
• Similarly, some views and themes were repeatedly raised at multiple questions, regardless of the specific focus of the question. These views are all included in this report, but analysts exercised judgement about the most relevant place to include each theme to avoid repetition. The most prevalent can be found in Chapter 2: Overarching themes.
• Where appropriate, quotes from a range of the 101 call for evidence responses are included to illustrate key points and provide useful examples, insights and contextual information. In some instances, these quotes are long, but they have been included to ensure the detail and complexity of the points raised are reflected accurately.

Weight of opinion

This report presents the themes identified in responses from most to least commonly mentioned. All themes, including views shared by small numbers of respondents, are covered; a view expressed by a very small number of participants is not given less weight than more general comments shared by a majority.

Similarly, all responses have an equal weighting in this analysis. We recognise this means a response from an individual has the same weight as the response from an organisation which may represent many members, but this approach ensures all views are presented.

Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions does not permit the quantification of results. However, to assist the reader in interpreting the findings, a framework is used to convey the most to least commonly identified themes in responses to each question:

• Many respondents, 30 or more respondents, a prevalent theme.
• Several respondents, between 20 and 29 respondents, a recurring theme.
• Some respondents, between 10 and 19 respondents, another theme.
• A few/a small number, fewer than nine respondents, a less commonly mentioned theme.
• Two/one respondents; a singular view identified in only one or two responses.

This framework is used solely to present the prevalence of themes within call for evidence responses. This does not necessarily represent the importance of a theme, given the subjective nature of attributing importance and the self-selection of call for evidence respondents.