MICHAEL Howard was back on familiar political territory yesterday. As Home Secretary, he made his reputation with a no-nonsense, hard-line approach to criminals.

As Leader of the Opposition, and potential Prime Minister, he remains a keen advocate of 'zero tolerance' policing. It is a stance in tune with the thoughts of many ordinary people.

However, consistency and populism do not automatically amount to omniscience on matters of law and order.

Mr Howard's rhetoric, no doubt, has widespread appeal. But it is really too simplistic to lay so much of the responsibility for crime and anti-social behaviour at the door of liberal do-gooders and advocates of political correctness.

Crime existed long before parents stopped smacking their children and teachers stopped caning their pupils.

We have a great deal of sympathy with the 'zero tolerance' option promoted by Mr Howard. Laws exist for a reason, and to tolerate the breaking of those laws threatens the very fabric of our society.

But it is unrealistic for police officers to pursue every litter lout, every graffiti artist and every vandal.

It is preferable, through education and peer pressure, to demonstrate the repercussions of such action, and leave the police to concentrate their finite resources on more hardened and serious criminals.

And while no one doubts the necessity to have prison as the ultimate deterrent and punishment for repeat and dangerous offenders, we remain sceptical of the virtues of increasing the capacity of prisons.

The United Kingdom already has one of the biggest prison populations in the western world, with little evidence to suggest that incarceration is a decisive weapon in the fight against crime.

If, as a nation, we can find the resources to build more prisons and employ more prison officers, then we should instead divert those resources into employing more police officers.

The most efficient way to defeat and defeat criminals is to increase their fear of being caught.