THE government has had a go—in fact several—at reforming prisons and policing. Now it’s the turn of the courts. David Cameron and his team have been inspired by the way the normally slow-coach criminal-justice system dealt with last August’s riots. Some have taken note of experiments in America, such as the Hope programme in Hawaii, which seem to show that quick and predictable response to crime is more effective in preventing its recurrence than the threat of delayed, draconian punishment. Today Nick Herbert, the minister for policing and criminal justice, launched plans for transforming a criminal-justice set-up which, at some £20 billion ($31 billion) a year, he calls one of the most expensive in the world, "from an unco-ordinated and fragmented system into a seamless and efficient service." Above all, the goal is meting out swift and sure justice.

A lot is already going on in this space, including consultations on probation and community sentencing, Crown Court pilots on fast-tracking guilty pleas, other pilots testing the efficacy of Neighbourhood Justice Panels, increased use of video links in trials and so forth. The main thrust of today’s white paper, aside from a slug of useful stuff on upgrading technology, is putting more zip into lay magistrates. They are encouraged to sit longer hours and on the weekends. Individual magistrates may be permitted to hear cases on their own and in more accessible places, such as community centres. They are also urged to volunteer to serve on neighbourhood panels, with a view to engaging more with their communities. The subtext of some of these changes is surely that the lay magistracy will no longer be confined to people who can afford not to have a day job. One ultimate goal, perhaps, is to replace a swathe of today’s dedicated but grey-haired volunteers with more streetwise types.

There is little to object to in proposals to make the court system function more efficiently and draw closer to their communities, and if it can all be made cheaper in the bargain, so much the better. But there are caveats. Many fear that in the rush to justice defendants’ rights will be overlooked. Mr Herbert insists that they will not, and Mr Herbert is an honourable man. Justice, like revenge, may be a dish that is best served cold, however. Courts sitting night and day after the riots handed out some quite harsh sentences in the heat of the moment, even considering how many of the perpetrators were repeat offenders. That may alleviate the feelings of outraged shop-owners (and, admittedly, many others) but it will do little to increase confidence in the system among the communities most likely to have had their young sentenced. One lesson of the Bradford riots of 2001, for example, is that those in the Asian community who fingered the law-breakers among them at the time are less likely to co-operate with the police now because the sentences handed down were much tougher than expected.

In any event, the biggest force for transformation is still to come. In November new Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) will be elected, one for each police- force area in England and Wales outside London. Almost all the debate about these controversial figures has centred on their role in hauling Dixon of Dock Green over the coals and very little on how they may pull together the many strands of criminal justice. Already pots of money are winging their way PCC-wards, including victim-support funds. Changes that have been quietly revving up are about to become turbocharged.