ABSTRACT
The surge in offending had a momentum that appeared unstoppable, incomprehensible and deeply disquieting. Crime could inflict physical pain and material loss; its presence on any scale could challenge claims about the competence and authority of the state; and the manner in which the state responded in its work of prevention, detection, adjudication and punishment could raise difficult questions about justice, fairness and propriety. Whatever stance they might privately have wished to take, and whatever policies they may have sought to promote, Home Secretaries of both parties were constrained throughout the period to convey publicly that they were aware that crime was mounting dangerously, and that they were attempting tirelessly to confront the problem. There were in public currency at least two dominant clusters of explanation to make sense of, and manage, the rise in crime, although they differed principally in nuance, language and mode of analysis rather than in substance.
