Prison Works and Community Sentences as a Soft Option - Essay Example

? Prison works and community sentences are a soft option 28 March Prison works and community sentences are soft options Ascriminals continue to pile up in limited prison cells, there has been an increasing clamour from the public and organisations to employ softer options for punishment (Hough et al. 2008). The public is also concerned of the tough penal sentences that are provided to minors and criminals with small offences. For them, certain kinds of criminals and crimes do not deserve tougher punishments. They recommend soft options, which some studies prove to be effective in addressing rehabilitation purposes (Bouffard and Muftic 2007; Gibbs and King 2002). Nevertheless, the public and the government remain divided on the issue of sentencing and punishments. On the one hand, there are people who believe that punishments are not as tough as they should be (Bowditch 2008). They believe that hardened and repeating criminals do not deserve mere slaps in the wrists through community sentences (Powell 1999, p.209). On the other hand, others insist that community sentences and prison works have worthy merits (Gibb 2006). They are cheaper than imprisonment and can be effective punishment alternatives on their own. Community sentences, if properly managed, can do more rehabilitation than custodial sentences (Edwards 2011). This paper explores the issue that asserts that prison works and community sentences are soft options and it also discusses dissent against soft options, especially in an era that demands stiffer penalties. This statement underscores that these soft options are only for minor crimes and not recommended in resolving penology and social problems. This paper argues prison works and community sentences are soft options, compared to custodial sentences, but they can also be effective in addressing penal issues and decreasing the social concern of recidivism, as long as they are properly and strictly managed and implemented. Community sentences Notions of probation can be traced to local court practices in the early nineteenth century, where young offenders or those guilty with small offences could be discharged or bound if a suitable person offered to take accountability for supervising future conduct (Raynor 2002: 1172). In 1876, the Church of England Temperance Society started to create an active presence in some city police courts to promote moral reform of offenders and to keep them abstained from alcohol (Raynor 2002: 1172). From the 1950s to the 1980s, probation experienced two reformulations and rethinking, with major effects on the questions tackled by probation research (Raynor 2002: 1174). Wilkins (1958) and Radzinowicz (1958) asserted that the effects of probation can be located in the “treatment model,” where for Radzinowicz (1958), probation was “a form of social service preventing further crime by a readjustment of the culprit” (Raynor 2002: 1174). Wilkins agreed that the treatment model focused more on subsequent behaviour of offenders and not issues of the criminal justice system (Raynor 2002: 1174). As the 1970s ended, the “treatment model” faced strong criticisms. Empirically, the studies of the effectiveness of penal sanctions of different forms led to negative results and the general finding that “nothing works” (Raynor 2002: 1175). There were also moral and philosophical arguments against the treatment, such as the objectification and dehumanisation of subjects and resting on the unverified claims of superior professional knowledge” (Raynor 2002: 1175). Community sentences were first enacted by law in 1907 for the “probation” of offenders (Ministry of Justice 2008: 1). They departed from the treatment agenda, because they focused on effects of systems, instead of people (Raynor 2002: 1177). During the 1980s, an emphasis on community sentencing emerged as part of crime policymaking (Charman and Savage 1999: 194). Community service and supervision orders took greater priority over prisons as ways of resolving crimes (Charman and Savage 1999: 194). The government also placed importance on crime prevention strategies to reduce crime (Charman and Savage 1999: 194). The Criminal Justice Act 1991 made the term “community sentence” to stress the demands of punishment at community levels and to restrict liberties of the criminals (Ashworth 2002: 1103). The Act states that the community sentence should not be applied, if fines and charges are enough to the seriousness of the warrant (Ashworth 2002: 1103). If the court makes a decision that the case is serious enough, it should ensure that the community order or orders are: 1) the most suitable for the offender and 2) impose controls in liberty, which are equal to the seriousness of the offence (Criminal Justice Act 1991, s 6) (Ashworth 2002: 1103). This scheme ensures that the community sentences are “proportionate”, while allowing a wide degree of choices among different community sentences to reflect the needs of the offender (Edwards 2011: 60). In many cases, a “pre-sentence” report is prepared by the Probation Service to “assist” the Court in making the right community sentences (Ashworth 2002: 1103). At present times, the requirements of community sentences enable judges and magistrates to decide the right combination of punishment, programmes and supervision (Ministry of Justice 2008: 1). They can use any mixture of twelve different requirements, each made to chastise, change, control and help the offender prevent returning to a life of crime (Ministry of Justice 2008: 1). See Table 1 for the most commonly used combinations of requirements for community orders for England and Wales from January to December 2007. Table 1: Most commonly used combinations of requirements for community orders for England and Wales from January to December 2007 Source: Ministry of Justice (2008: 2) Community sentences pertain to carrying out tasks and duties as a penalty for one’s crimes, instead of receiving a custodial sentence (Edwards 2011: 60). There are many kinds of community sentences, such as Community Rehabilitation Order (Probation Order), Community Punishment Order, Curfew Order, and Anti-social Behaviour Order. One online article argued that community sentence is not a soft option. It integrates punishment with modifying offenders' behaviour and making compensation – from time to time directly to the victim of the crime (Criminal Justice System n.d.). A community sentence can also support the offender to handle problems that might be influencing them to commit crime – like drug or alcohol abuse (Criminal Justice System n.d.). Some of the requirements obtainable with a community sentence (also recognized as a community order) include: 1. Community payback 2. Participation in any specified activities 3. Programmes aimed at changing offending behaviour 4. Prohibition from certain activities 5. Curfew 6. Barring from certain areas 7. Residence requirement 8. Mental health treatment (with consent of the offender) 9. Alcohol and drug treatment and testing (with consent of the offender) 10. Supervision (Criminal Justice System n.d.). Crook (2008) asserts that community sentencing is more effective than custodial sentences in controlling crime, especially those with short sentences. She notes that the negative perceptions of community sentencing can be blamed on the media who makes news of community sentence offenders who go back to their crimes. She says: "Young man does unpaid work in community and a course in anger management, and goes on to live law-abiding life" is not a news story "Young man does unpaid work in community, absconds with van and robs bank" is.” The media has overly created negative images of community sentences, which made them unpopular with the people. Community sentences have less recidivism rate compared to incarceration. Crook (2008) cites that “190,000-plus community sentences handed down each year are successful” and reoffending for this cohort has reduced for 13 per cent over the last five years, according to the Reoffending of Adults (2000-2005) published in the MoJ Statistical Bulletin in 9 May 2008. Crook (2008) argues that they work, because community sentences “seek to challenge and change people for the better.” She stresses that being imprisoned all day does nothing to change people from within and that spending prison time is the “real 'soft' option.” Instead of rehabilitative activities, prison cells only breed criminal gangs and hard-drug use (Crook 2008). As a result, “over two thirds of those leaving custody go on to reoffend, rising to over three quarters among under-18s” (Crook 2008). The Howard League for Penal Reform studies the different schemes of community sentence. Examples are the Newham's Y-Pac (or Young People Affected by Crime and Confidence) project (Crook 2008). This early intervention scheme aims to promote self-confidence, augment communication skills and educate ways to diminish and resolve conflict (Crook 2008). When Crook and peers visited, of the 306 young people Y-Pac had worked with following a reproach, warning or referral order, 76% had not reoffended (Crook 2008). Other community service programmes are available. They offer a wide variety and complexity that does away with the one-size-fits-all approach of custodial sentencing (Crook 2008). Community sentences provide the flexibility that will fit the specific needs of the offenders, victims, and communities (Crook 2008). Government ministers have become more interested in community sentences, because of high prison population levels, but this is not the proper justification for community sentences (Crook 2008). The governments and the public should learn more about the effectiveness of community-based solutions to crime and how they can be enhanced further (Crook 2008). Raynor (2002) argues that community sentences are soft options, because they do not directly impact liberties like prisons and they are not as punitive as fines. Instead, community sentences depend on the cooperation of offenders in accepting the requirements of a court order and frequently in the capacity of supervisors to negotiate with, motivate, and convince the offenders they are handling and the courts they are dealing with (1169). Gibb (2006) contends that prison is not the place for minor offences and juvenile delinquents. In his first speech on penal policy, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the Lord Chief Justice, community penalties were "not a soft option". These penalties can lead to 300 hours of community work, such as cleaning graffiti from buildings, fixing children's playgrounds or working on national treasures such as the restoration of Brunel's ship SS Great Britain in Bristol (Gibb 2006). "Provided the resources are allocated, I would contend that a community sentence is more likely to prevent reoffending than a prison sentence" (Gibb 2006). On the contrary, short prison sentences did not have rehabilitation, either during the sentence or after release, and Lord Phillips stresses: "Such sentences punish, but they do not tackle the underlying causes of the offending behaviour” (Gibb 2006). As for community penalties, offenders can keep their homes and jobs, which can make them more economically productive than when in prison. Lord Phillips says that rehabilitation is the key: "It costs more to keep a young man in prisons than it would cost to send him to Eton” (Gibb 2006). Drug treatment or substance abuse rehabilitation are also important, because they help offenders remove possible long-term causes of recidivism (Gibb 2006). For instance, the cause of recidivism may be stealing to pay for the drug abuse. Community sentences are effective soft options, because they offer to pay directly to their victims. The direct compensation for one’s faults is a good practice of justice. Lord Phillips says that a "properly resourced" community sentence was a "hardship" for the offender and must offer "a visible demonstration of reparation to the community in which the offence occurred" (Gibb 2006). The media also has a large role to play in decreasing the negative perceptions of community sentences. Lord Phillips says that the media has "to persuade the public that judges are soft on crime, that no prison sentence is long enough and that a sentence which does not involve imprisonment is no sentence at all. The only purposes of sentencing which they recognise are punishment and deterrence; rehabilitation does not enter the picture” (Gibb 2006). These articles underscore the importance of community sentence to reducing recidivism. They may be considered as soft options, because they do not restrict liberty entirely or fine offenders. Still, they can educate offenders about the punishments for minor offenses and how they have to repay through community works. Furthermore, community sentences can be “harder,” if they are stricter. This will be discussed in the succeeding section. Prison works For the past centuries, many changes have happened and modified how people view punishment for offenders who had transgressed the law (Blair 2000: 11). Thinking on penology swung between humanitarianism and hardship, from John Howard of the 1770’s to Michael Howard of the 1990’s (Blair 2000: 11). The twentieth century had originally deemed the rehabilitative model of ‘treating’ offenders as successful, until the ‘nothing works’ phenomenon of the 1970’s (Ashworth 2002). This influenced many aspects of the criminal justice system, chiefly prisons and probation (Blair 2000: 11). Martinson (1974) breaks the foundations of penal rehabilitation with his analysis of the futility of prison programmes (Easton 2008). While this study was later demonstrated to have rigorous expectations, it reflected the conservative cynicism of criminologists at that time (Blair 2000: 11). It became intolerable to see the social world “akin to a laboratory and the tools of the social scientist akin to those of the hard scientist” (Harris 1997). Offenders do not respond to the same intervention in the same way, and consequently, the outcome of the interaction between programme and individual response needed to be distinguished as dependent on a number of variables (Blair 2000: 11). The Martinson document gave researchers the drive to establish that some interventions could work constantly with some offenders (Bayliss 2003). Prison works refers to rehabilitative efforts inside prison, such as counselling and psychiatric work (Wash 2006). Some livelihood and training programs inside prison can also termed as prison works. Community work is also seen as prison work but is discussed separately in this paper. Authors argued that prison works are effective in rehabilitating criminals, because it responds to their other human needs (Wash 2006). When they need psychological help or counselling, prison works can provide that. Furthermore, prison works can also help them be trained for livelihood and employment purposes, so that they would no longer feel the economic need to repeat crimes (McCollum 1999). Bayliss (2003) examines the importance of prison education. The majority of driving force of education shows Government policies of post-compulsory education with its importance on accreditation of learning that seek to advance the employability of ex-convicts for economic prosperity (DfES 2002). Education in prison, however, is generally perceived as a form of social control; a characteristic which Coffield (1999) contends can be seen as part of “general lifelong learning.” The main purpose for promoting prison education is to reduce recidivism (Bayliss 2003). There are numerous social and economic influences connected with re-offending to separate one factor, but putting this responsibility on prison education may prompt its extraction if recidivism is not diminished (Bayliss 2003). There should be greater discussion of its wider benefits, such as those expressed by the Council of Europe Report (1989), which stressed that prisons were “humanised through prison education.” Through learning in prison, small and increasing changes in behaviour and attitudes may take place (Council of Europe Report 1989). If education would be properly integrated into prison workers, greater benefits may be reaped. Inmates should be encouraged to continue education after their discharge to become all-time learners would necessitate, among other things, a revolution in teaching methods (Bayliss 2003). The pressure on teaching certain topics as effectively as likely would change towards creating an environment that excites self-determined learning (Alheit and Dausien 2002). There are also changes needed in prison education that are related to enhancing community links (Bayliss 2003). In the Nordic countries, for instance, the prisoner is still seen as part of the community with all its repercussions (Warner 2000). In one Dutch prison, all inmates are allowed free movement within the prison during the day so that they are individually responsible for following education and training programmes, or for arriving at work on time (SEU 1999. 2002). It is possible to follow these precedents: What's needed in Britain are prisons based on the minimum appropriate level of security combined with maximum community involvement; institutions whose walls are, in the jargon, permeable, and which maximise staff-prisoner interaction; whose values are open democratic' and inclusive (Shaw 2000: 158). This requires a paradigm shift in penology that needs a new discourse other than the present dominance of security and control (Bayliss 2003). It would also involve a change from the influence of the North American cognitive-behavioural programmes to an incorporated approach to education in prison which includes both formal and informal learning (Bayliss 2003). These issues require larger stakeholder participation that includes offenders and communities (Bayliss 2003). Against soft options Others argued that soft options would not work on hardened and repeating criminals. Bowditch (2008) expresses this opposition, in relation to the debate on increasing community sentencing launched by the Scottish Prison Commission. Recommendations of using fluorescent bibs to make offenders more noticeable have been taken to be against criminal's human rights (Bowditch 2008).The commission, under the leadership of former first minister Henry McLeish, conducted studies that lasted nine months and it investigated the country's penal system and has provided twenty-three recommendations which would decrease Scotland's stuffed prison population by a third (Bowditch 2008). One of the main recommendations is to remove prison sentences of less than six months (Bowditch 2008). And many of them will be replaced by community sentences. Community sentencing has, in premise, much benefit. It is noble to find offenders giving back to the community that they have harmed (Bowditch 2008). Community sentences can merge concepts of punishment and rehabilitation (Bowditch 2008). Those who can finish community work can develop confidence and a sense of community (Crook 2008). Custodial sentencing, however, can be a “destructive, costly form of punishment, community sentencing, at its best, is constructive and cost-effective” (Bowditch 2008). The recidivism rate for those serving a community sentence is shown to be lower than for those who have served a jail sentence (Bouffard and Muftic 2007; Gibbs and King 2002). Community sentences have been more and more provided, especially as courts remain inundated with cases (Bouffard and Muftic 2007; Gibbs and King 2002). Aside from the understandable cost savings, the public continues to see non-custodial sentences as a "soft option,” because they are (Raynor 2002: 1177). A statement from the National Audit Office earlier this year states that one in 10 offenders on community service orders missed punishment just by claiming they had overslept or got the date mistakenly – “a fiddle, not a muddle” (Bowditch 2008). Those who declared they were ill were not mandated to give a doctor's note (Bowditch 2008). More than half were on waiting lists six weeks before even beginning their punishment (Bowditch 2008). A third of community sentences were not finished and the NAO had evidence that they diminish recidivism to be weak (Bowditch 2008). McLeish's response is to toughen up community sentences (Bowditch 2008). There is a need to toughen monitoring and evaluation standards and practices (Bouffard and Muftic 2007; Gibbs and King 2002). Offenders need reliable supervisors, who can provide counselling and refer them to services that the former need, such as psychiatric help or drug rehabilitation. Furthermore, Bowditch (2008) argues that “the judiciary is considered overly punitive at present.” The biggest flaw of the McLeish report is that it assaults the problem from the wrong conclusion. It aims to lessen the number of prisoners to an average population of 5,000, from a present 8,000. But the main focus is not numbers, but individuals (Bowditch 2008). For instance, Scotland incarcerates many more prisoners than its Scandinavian neighbours but Scotland has the highest rate of drug addiction in Europe (Bowditch 2008). Only 2% of adults are addicted to heroin but drug addicts are accountable for 70% of all crime in Glasgow (Bowditch 2008). Many of the offenders in the Scottish prisons are repeat offenders, majority have been through the community sentencing programme with the constancy of “rain in Airdrie” (Bowditch 2008). The main recommendation is not to be “rough” on criminals, but to be tough on the causes of crime (Bowditch 2008). Some of the causes of crime are poverty and substance abuse. The government has been called to revamp community sentences in England and Wales to put the stress on intensive physical labour. A survey by right-leaning think tank Policy Exchange stresses that 60% of 2,000 people surveyed thought the sentences were "soft" or "weak" (Bowditch 2008). The think tank said community sentences were faulty and should be replaced by more disciplinary "work orders” (Bowditch 2008). The Ministry of Justice states that proposals would be published very soon (Bowditch 2008). The Policy Exchange says in a report that “the community payback scheme - the toughest type of order - often involved charity shop work and serving tea at luncheon clubs” (Bowditch 2008). Report author Robert Kaye notes that community sentences should focus on punishments and must be "radically reformed to improve compliance and reduce reoffending” (Bowditch 2008). He says: "Evidence shows that orders with a clear punishment element have lower reoffending rates” (Bowditch 2008). Community sentences should have hard work that benefits communities, such as cleaning graffiti (Bowditch 2008). And some offenders would be tagged and have to work five days a week, with benefits removed, if they do not follow their work demands (Bowditch 2008). Community and prison works must then be toughened to make them more effective in reducing crime. Conclusion Prison works and community sentences provide numerous benefits to vital stakeholders, but they are not perfect. They still need to be polished further to respond to the different demands of victims and the specific rehabilitation needs of offenders. When prison works and community sentences are stricter, they can hardly be seen as soft options by criminals, but they are still softer compared to other punishments. Furthermore, there is clamour for community sentences and prison works to be clearer and more flexible, where different options can fit the offense and offender/community/victim needs. Stakeholders should have clear goals and outcomes for these works, so that they will be designed for maximum efficiency and effectiveness. Reference List Alheit, P. and Dausien, B. (2002) 'The "double face" of lifelong learning: Two analytical perspectives on a "silent revolution"', Studies in the Education on Adults, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp 3-22. Ashworth, A. (2002) ‘29: Sentencing,’ Oxford Handbook of Criminology, pp.1076-1112. Bayliss, P. (2003) ‘Learning behind bars: time to liberate prison education,’ Studies in the Education of Adults, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp.157-172. Blair, C. (2000) ‘Prisons and probation,’ Review of the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland, Available at: http://www.nio.gov.uk/report_no.6_-_prisons__and__probation.pdf (accessed 25. Mar. 2011). Bouffard, J.A. and Muftic, L.R. (2007) ‘The effectiveness of community service sentences compared to traditional fines for low-level offenders,’ Prison Journal, Vol. 87, No. 2, pp.171-194. Bowditch, G. (2008) ‘Get tough, not duff on criminals,’ Sunday Times, The, July 6. Charman, S. and Savage, S.P. (1999) ‘The new politics of law and order: labour, crime and justice,’ in New Labour, new welfare state?: the "Third Way" in British social policy. Powell, M.A. UK: Biblios. Coad, P. (1999) ‘Prison sentences,’ Contemporary Review, Vol. 274, No. 1596, pp.13-18. Coffield, F. (1999) 'Introduction: Lifelong learning as a new form of social control?', in F Coffield (ed), Why's the Beer Always Stronger up North? - Studies of Lifelong Learning in Europe, Bristol: The Policy Press. Council of Europe. (1989) Committee of Ministers to Member States on Education in Prison, Recommendation 89. Criminal Justice System. (no date) ‘Understanding sentencing,’ Available at: http://lcjb.cjsonline.gov.uk/London/3079.html (accessed 25. Mar. 2011). Crook, F. (2008) ‘Frances Crook: When prison fails, community sentencing can work,’ The Independent, August 20, Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/frances-crook-when-prison-fails-community-sentencing-can-work-902855.html (accessed 25. Mar. 2011). Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2002) Success for all: reforming further education and training, London: DfES. Easton, S. (2008) ‘Constructing citizenship: making room for prisoners' rights,’ Journal of Social Welfare & Family Law, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp.127-146. Edwards, I. (2011) ‘Referral orders after the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008,’ Journal of Criminal Law, Vol. 75, No. 1, pp. 45-69. Gibb, F. (2006) ‘Prison is not the right place for minor criminals,’ Times, The (United Kingdom), May 11. Gibbs, A. and King, D. (2002) ‘Alternatives to custody in the New Zealand criminal justice system: current features and future prospects,’ Social Policy & Administration, Vol. 36, No. 4, 392-407. Harris, R. (1997) ‘International co-operation in probation’, in R. Ville, U. Zvekic, and J. Klaus, eds., Promoting Probation Internationally. United Nations Publication 58: Rome/London. Hough, J. M., Allen, R., Allen, R., and Solomon, E. (2008) Tackling prison overcrowding: build more prisons? Sentence fewer offenders? UK: The Policy Press. McCollum, S.G. (1999) ‘The vital connection: a job,’ Corrections Today, 61 (6), 120-126. Ministry of Justice. (2008) ‘Community sentencing –reducing reoffending, changing lives, Available at: http://www.london-probation.org.uk/PDF/Resourcecentre_Community%20Sentencing%20Report%20%28English%29_jul08.pdf (accessed 25. Mar. 2011). Nash, M. and Ryan, M. (2003) ‘Modernizing and joining-up government: the case of the prison and probation services,’ Contemporary Politics, 9 (2), 157-169. Raynor, P. (2002) ‘31: Community penalties,’ Oxford Handbook of Criminology, pp.1168-1205. Reoffending of Adults 2000-2005, MoJ Statistical Bulletin, 9 May 2008. Shaw, S. (2000) 'Prison architecture and the politics of reform', in L Fairweather and S McConville (eds), Prison architecture: policy, design and experience, Oxford: Architectural Press. Social Exclusion Unit (SEU). (1999) Bringing britain together: a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal, London: SEU. SEU. (2002) Reducing Re-offending by ex-prisoners, London: Social Exclusion Unit/Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Warner, K. (2000) ‘Re-evaluating the Council of Europe's Publication: education in prison,’ European Prison Education Conference, Malta, 1-5 Nov, pp. 1-9. Wash, T. (2006) ‘Is corrections correcting? an examination of prisoner rehabilitation policy and practice in Queensland’ Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 39 (1), 109-133. Read More