You're listening to a programme from BBC Radio 4.

Good evening. Perhaps it's the ultimate moral measure of any society, what it defines as crimes and how it treats those who commit them.

Not harshly enough, says our embattled government, and not coincidentally, a clear majority of voters, according to the opinion polls.

So this week's Queen's speech promised that

those convicted of serious crimes involving sex or violence should spend longer in jail, not

qualify, for instance, to be considered for parole after serving half their sentence. It was

the centrepiece of a raft of measures that gave legislative substance to the Home Secretary

of Priti Patel's threat to strike terror into criminals criminals and that, as she put it, we are coming after you.

Critics have pointed out that we already incarcerate proportionately more people in more crowded prisons than any other country in Europe.

They see inconsistency in talking of a crackdown on crime when courts have been mothballs and judges sent on leave to save money.

They question the utility of long sentences.

The re-offending rates are shockingly high.

The deeper moral issue, of course, is what is prison for, and where to strike the balance between retribution,

protecting the public and rehabilitating the offender,

between standing for the victim and understanding the criminal.

Most difficult of all may be, how far, if at all, should the moral responsibility for an individual's wrongdoing

be affected by his or her background and circumstance?

Crime and punishment.

Amaromé's tonight.

The panel, Anne McHalevoy, senior editor at The Economist,

Mona Siddiqui, Professor of Islamic and Inter-Religious Studies at Edinburgh University,

the chief executive of the RSA, Matthew Taylor,

...