Many theories but no answer to the violence

It produced a substantial report with a relatively sparing set of 27 recommendations concerned with enforcement, prevention and rehabilitation. This was based largely on evidence from a range of people in five British cities that have a disproportionate share of violent offences involving guns and knives.

Most of the "witnesses" seen by the commission fell firmly into four categories and it was a huge challenge to produce some sensible, and rational, policy guidelines from their evidence.

First, there were the champions: former sporting heroes or successful entrepreneurs giving something back. Each had their own pet theory and charitable initiative, projects that only command respect, but whose transferability was always in doubt. They rested on the charisma and commitment of their founders.

Second, there were the criminals: the former crooks who had turned a corner. They also had their own pet theories but the additional advantage, they claimed, was their privileged access to the murky world of gang, gun and knife culture. Only they could really understand; only they could turn things around. My question here is whether or not they still command credibility now that they have switched sides. Maybe, but sometimes those who have done so are more despised than those seeking to intervene who have never been there in the first place.

Third, there were the constables. Invariably, they had a strategy, one that was "appropriate and proportionate", and within the boundaries of the law and ethical concerns. It all sounded fine, but I usually ended up not really understanding anything about what was really going on (the exception perhaps was the Liverpool model of "total policing"). These jargon-ridden cops were not the more refreshing realists I am more accustomed to working with.

Finally, there were the casualties - paralysed victims and bereaved parents. Their calm, and sometimes forgiveness, was often quite extraordinary, though most took the opportunity to remind us that they are now all serving a life sentence. Their stories took a huge emotional toll on the commission, but it is not a basis on which to construct policy. Ultimately, while I personally learned and gained a lot from the process, I am not sure whether our witnesses made me any wiser - in terms of developing effective action - than I was before.

Howard Williamson is professor of European youth policy at the University of Glamorgan, and a member of the Youth Justice Board. Email howard.williamson@haymarket.com.