Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ifcommunitypenaltiesreallyworked,thenthegovernmentwouldsurelyhaveno
hesitationinpromotinggreateruseoftheminsentencing.Discuss.(Tripos,2013)
As demand for prison space exceeds supply, and the cost implications of sending
offenders into custody are more closely scrutinised, there has arisen a need to assess
alternatives to incarceration, especially to short term prison terms. One of these
alternatives is the provision for community penalties, which is being explored with
much seriousness by recent governments. Community sentences allow offenders to
undertake rehabilitative programs and work in the community whilst under the
supervision of the Probation Service. Former Justice Secretary Ken Clarke advocated
community sentences as an attractive alternative to short-term custody, stating that it
is virtually impossible to do anything productive with offenders on short prison
sentences. This is in direct opposition to Michael Howards 1993 declaration that
prison works. In this essay I will argue that, broadly speaking, in the search for what
works, community penalties can serve as an effective sentencing option, but this is
not to say that the government will have no hesitation in promoting greater use of
them in sentences. A sceptical, but arguably correct, view of how government
functions centres on desire to achieve re-election above a serious attempt to improve
all aspects of society. If this means eschewing promotion of community penalties in
order to appear tough on crime and appease the voting population, then we may
have to wait for community penalties to take their effect in the community itself,
shaping public perceptions for the positive before they are no longer seen as a soft,
or easy alternative to custody, and they are finally promoted and implemented
properly by the government.
To assess whether community penalties work, we must establish their aims in order to
analyse whether these can be fulfilled. As regards treatment of the offenders
themselves, there is clearly a punitive element to them, restricting the offenders
liberty through a number of requirements, such as unpaid work, participation in
specified activities, prohibition from certain activities, curfews, residence requirement,
and supervision. Another key principle and aim of community sentences is to reduce
reoffending and rehabilitate the offender. There are programmes which aim to change
offending behaviour treat mental health, drug, and alcohol problems. These
programmes address the causes of crime and show victims that offenders are
encouraged and supported to manage their own problems. However, community
penalties have come under some criticism from those who argue that it is difficult to
find a balance between onerous conditions and avoidance of breaches, to the extent
that it is unclear what the true aim of these penalties is. Despite this criticism, I think
we can say that on an offender level, community sentences are designed both to
punish and rehabilitate, with the ultimate target of reducing reoffending. On a national
policy level, the aims of community penalties are three-fold: preventing further crime,
which I have already touched upon when considering the aim to reduce reoffending;
providing an effective alternative to the economic and spatial problems with short
term custody for minor offenders; and establishing a link between the community and
the offender to change the social viewpoint towards offenders.
All of these aims are admirable and would no doubt benefit society as a whole, so I
move on now to an assessment of how successful community penalties are in
achieving these goals: simply, do they work? Beginning with the effects on the