On Tuesday, after months of consultation, the government unveiled its new criminal justice legislation. The media storm surrounding some of the proposals, the way the communication took place and the reaction of the opposition were all disappointing to reformers, experts and practitioners, but the overall picture is more complicated than we might have read in the tabloids.

The biggest controversy has been around increasing sentence discounts for people pleading guilty form the 33% brought in by the Labour Government to 50%. The tabloid press and some politicians have focussed on one specific group of offenders in their reaction - people who have committed rape. Political point scoring aside, the government could have pre-empted that backlash by paying more attention to the detail - both in terms of content and presentation.

It could have been better managed had they been very clear about which very serious violent offences would be exempt. As it is, the government backtracked and what could have been a progressive aspect of the legislation was lost.

One must look beneath the surface to understand why the original proposal made sense. Over the last 15 years sentences have been getting longer, so in reality, rather than just saving money, this could be seen as a somewhat blunt attempt to re-dress the balance towards more sensible sentence lengths.

The problem is that history teaches us that tinkering with sentencing and early release (including variants of it - such as amnesties) do not solve penal crises. The way to prevent a US- or 1990s Russia-type hyperincarceration catastrophe is through re-examining the fundamentals of how society reacts to the problems of crime and anti-social behaviour - whom do we choose to criminalise, whom do we progress through the system towards custody, what other solutions are available to us for solving both criminogenic and actual needs of those who offend?

We do have some answers. An approach which the Young Foundation has developed in partnership with the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities and other partners in the Greater Manchester Area does precisely that. The answer is not throwing money (no longer even there) at locking up more and more people for longer. It is rather a coherent approach - which identifies transition points through which people pass in their journey through the criminal justice system and where escalation and waste are most likely to occur. It should then address this through early intervention, prevention, diversion, de-escalation, problem solving justice and managing the transition out of custody. In that order.

Not all of the proposed progressive changes have been abandoned. One good proposal is that all children held on remand will have to be treated as 'looked after' - this is good news as it places a statutory duty on agencies to protect rather than penalise children when they are at their most vulnerable and volatile. The review of the use and application of indeterminate sentences is also welcome, not least because of their detrimental impact on the possibility for rehabilitation and unnecessarily broad remit. Both indicate the government's desire to move beyond hyperincarceration and towards a more honest problem solving approach. Not all has been lost.

However what has been most striking about the whole process is that despite the government's apparent recognition that they need to seek the public's permission to implement such changes they are completely ill-prepared to do so - not knowing how to communicate the changes in a way which will allow the the public to understand and support them. There is a lot of research out there on public opinion and building up public confidence, and effective communication. But what has been missing in this debate is any serious mention of evidence or efficacy which is trustworthy, comprehensible and independent.

The best way to communicate this is through the voice and expertise of practitioners and this has been the voice which has been missing. Politicians might posture, experts be indignant and the tabloid press bluster but the public quite rightly is dismissive of much of this. But people will listen to practitioners who live and work in their communities and who are often the voice of reason and common sense in these debates. Our work to develop the UK Centre for Justice Innovation has set this as a goal - that policemen, probation officers, prison staff, YOT workers, magistrates and others are able to share their own knowledge and expertise in driving a saner, sensible and helpful debate, one which results in positive change and improved public safety. Perhaps in future if practitioners have a stronger voice, the public will be more willing to grant permission for progressive changes.

More on the Young Foundation's work on Justice Innovation.