The Concept of Sentencing and PostSentence Supervision - Essay Example

Controlling Dangerous Offenders via Sentencing and Post - Sentence Supervision: A Critical Evaluation Introduction Sentencing and post - sentence supervision are currently viewed as one of the most effective measures for controlling dangerous offenders and protecting the public. Consequently longer sentences are being meted out to violent offenders. The law also demands that convicted criminals be supervised by the Parole Board as long as it is necessary. It is the general belief that such punitive steps need to be taken in order to counter the rising rates of crime and to preserve public safety. This has had the result of severe and longer sentences being awarded to convicted criminals who are deemed dangerous and conversely a decrease in the use of parole has been witnessed.1 On the surface these measures seem adequate to deter future and repeat offenders, ensure the safety of the public and to allay the fears of the populace. However a deeper study of the issue reveals there is little scientific evidence to support the perceived effectiveness of these measures. In fact harsher sentences and more stringent parole requirements tend to defeat the very purposes they are supposed to serve. Thus a critical evaluation of sentencing and post - sentence supervision as measures to control dangerous offenders helps provide a comprehensive analysis of their use and the detrimental effects they are likely to have in the criminological process. The Rationale behind the Use of Sentencing and Post - Sentence Supervision Initially the acute need for sentencing and post - sentence supervision was felt following the occurrence of certain horrific crimes like the James Bulger, Sarah Payne cases and similar killings. These terrible crimes sent shockwaves rippling through the nation and led to a huge outcry from the impassioned populace. The media played its part in fuelling public outrage and there was a clamour for severe punishments to be handed out to the perpetrators of such heinous crimes. In the aftermath of these killings, the political climate favoured the inclusion of legal provisions to control dangerous offenders by the use of longer sentences and supervision. Such steps served as an opiate to public passions. Unfortunately these measures have not been implemented on the basis of sound scientific study, rather as Tonry points out they reflect a "reduced tolerance of risks in 'late modern society', punitive public attitudes and the cynicism of a political class that chooses to pander to public fears and primitive passions".2 Another reason for the employment of stricter sentencing and supervision was the belief that it would carry out some of the aims of the criminal justice system. For instance it was believed that sentencing and supervision by means of parole officers would serve as a method of crime prevention. It would serve a dual purpose of dealing harshly with dangerous offenders while reducing the risk of reoffending. Theoretically this premise appears to be sound, unfortunately as Ashworth puts it, " it does not follow from any of this that increases in sentence levels will bring about increases in general crime prevention". 3 Dangerous Offenders and the Law Measures for controlling dangerous offenders are outlined under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. When convicted of a 'serious offence', the offender may be condemned to life imprisonment, imprisonment for public protection or extended sentences. Serious offences refer to specified crimes (mentioned under this law) that are usually violent or sexual in nature. Life sentences are imposed on murderers and offenders who have already been convicted for a serious offence. In the words of Hungerford - Welch, "Under s 225(2), if the offence is punishable with life imprisonment and the court considers that the seriousness of the offence (or of the offence and one or more offences associated with it) is such as to justify the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for life, then the court must impose a life sentence". 4 If the gravity of the crime is such that it does not qualify for a life sentence but is nevertheless cause for concern with regard to public safety, then the court issues a sentence of imprisonment for public protection. The judge is required to impose a term of imprisonment depending on the seriousness of the offence. This term is indeterminate because the prisoner is kept in custody until his or her case is reviewed by the parole board. Once the board decides that the offender no longer poses a threat to the well - being of the public and further incarceration is unnecessary, the prisoner will be released on a license and is kept under probation and is supervised for the rest of his natural life. Offenders who have completed the term of their imprisonment may nevertheless be recalled to prison if their behaviour is considered dangerous or if they fail to comply with parole requirements. Sentencing as well as post - sentence supervision is discretionary in nature as the law requires that individual features of the cases be considered. Thus the law is flexible when it comes to dealing with dangerous offenders. Several factors are taken into consideration before parole is granted or refused. These include age at the time of conviction, substance abuse, criminal history including past convictions for sexual or violent crimes and subsequent behaviour, recurring psychological problems, childhood abuse, unsatisfactory response to supervision, breach of probation rules and failure to cooperate with parole officers.5 Life sentences as mentioned earlier are imposed when the offender commits a specified crime that also qualifies as a serious offence. But there are instances when the offender commits a specified crime that does not come under the category of serious offence, but is still viewed as a danger to the public as there is risk of reoffending involved and a prior history of conviction, in which case extended sentences are imposed. Ashworth puts it more clearly, "the extended sentence applies to all 'specified offences' which are not 'serious offences'". 6 The Criminal Justice Act 2003 has attempted to introduce measures for controlling dangerous offenders. It relies on longer sentences coupled with life - long supervision to control criminals. However it has come in for a lot of criticism as many feel that the imposition of harsh sentences and unnecessary supervision are uncalled for as they violate the rights of offenders who are usually far less dangerous than they are perceived to be. Moreover the very foundation on which these legal provisions rest are shaky at best as they do not have the backing of scientific fact and their effectiveness is also questionable. Arguments against the Use of Excessive Sentencing and Unnecessary Supervision The main argument against the use of longer sentences and prolonged supervision is that they impinge on the rights of the offender. The punishment is often excessive and outweighs the crime itself. Therefore in imposing severe sentences and denying parole to offenders in order to protect public safety the law takes on a more barbaric quality than crime itself. Tonry puts it most succinctly when he says, "It would be hard in principle to justify taking an offender's liberty, over and above what a current crime justifies, in order to prevent future violence, on the basis of prediction of commission of any but very serious violent crimes".7 Some other objections to the implementation of severe penalties are outlined below. Inadequate Sentencing Guidelines The Criminal Justice Act 2003 has failed to establish comprehensive guidelines for sentencing. This is a major cause for concern as judges will then exercise a lot of power over convicted offenders and fairness may be sacrificed in the process. When it comes to deciding punishments for offenders, especially for those accused of committing particularly horrifying crimes, the decision of the judge is most likely to mirror his or her personal biases and beliefs as opposed to legal precedent. Consequently it is not surprising that "The evidence that English sentencing is riddled with unwarranted and therefore unjust disparities in the sentencing of similar cases is overwhelming".8 This situation must be addressed if indiscriminate, unfair sentencing is to be curbed. Probation Supervision Probation officers have a crucial role to play in controlling dangerous offenders. From the time of conviction, lifers come under the supervision of the probation services and their activities are closely monitored from their time in prison to their release on parole and in effect for the rest of their lives. Thus probation officers have a challenging task that calls for no small amount of skill and knowledge. It is their task to gauge the risk posed by these offenders to the public and ascertain their dangerousness before helping in the rehabilitation and resettlement process. According to Appleton, "The release and resettlement of life - sentenced offenders therefore poses a critical challenge to criminal justice professionals: the challenge of ensuring the public is protected from dangerous offenders, whilst simultaneously protecting the rights of individuals".9 Officers have to deal with the problems faced by the offenders - pertaining to mental health, substance abuse, inability to get or hold jobs, financial troubles and bad company.10 This is a heavy responsibility. As more and more offenders find their way to prison, the task becomes a Herculean one for the probation services, particularly as they are ill - equipped for it. The job calls for experience and expertise, but probation officers usually do not receive sufficient training. This aspect of the problem faced by the officers reveal the failure of the government to deal with the issue of rehabilitation and resettlement. The law has chosen to deal with dangerous offenders by the use of punishment, but has failed to do anything beyond that. More attention must be paid to helping these offenders find their way back to civilized society by providing them with facilities like psychological intervention, accommodation, job opportunities and the like as opposed to focusing on keeping dangerous offenders behind bars forever. Risk Assessment The management of risk is an important part of the supervisory role carried out by the probation services. It is their task to identify offenders who are likely to perpetuate further violent or sexual offences and to take preventive measures. In the instance of particularly sensational cases, probation officers are pressurized to err on the side of caution and tend to favour further imprisonment over release on parole. Further officers tend to overestimate the dangerousness of the offenders and base their decisions accordingly. Hood and Shute for instance in their study of the role of parole officers in risk - based decision making have stated, " this study has found strong evidence that panel members were making decisions, in aggregate, on the basis of unduly pessimistic 'clinical' estimations of risk when compared with actuarial calculations of risk". 11 A common misconception is that dangerous offenders are likely to repeat their misdeeds. There is no evidence to support this belief. A study by Hood et al. reveals, " as far as reconviction is concerned the findings of this study reinforce those of other follow - up studies, all of which have demonstrated that the probability of a serious sexual offender being reconvicted for a sexual (and also for a serious violent) offence is relatively low, even for those who have victimized children and have been at liberty for a considerable number of years".12 Cruel Treatment of Offenders Considering the vindictive framework within which justice is purportedly carried out, offenders are subjected to harsh treatment and their rights are grossly violated. Offenders are subjected to ostracism and stigmatization by society and this results in resentment that often culminates in anti - social and destructive behaviour - "The primary relevance of stigmatization is that it shuns offenders and treats them as outcasts and may provoke a rebellious and criminal reaction from them". 13 If their criminal records prevent offenders from getting jobs and earning decent wages they may have no recourse but to go back to a life of crime. The law has failed to adopt a humane approach in the treatment of dangerous offenders. This is evident in certain legal stipulations that require sex offenders to come forward and register their details with the police.14 While it is intended to be a precautionary measure, it has the effect of alienating offenders from their community. Persistent persecution of this nature may lead to offenders feeling like cornered animals and they turn to crime or in some cases they even commit suicide. Thus harsh penal codes have unsavoury results and it is important that alternate methods be introduced to control dangerous offenders without exacerbating their criminal and self - destructive tendencies. Conclusion From a critical analysis of the use of sentencing and post - sentence supervision in controlling dangerous offenders it is seen that the results are rather disheartening. While proportionate sentences and adequate supervision might lead to positive results the fact remains that currently unnecessarily stern sentences are being imposed and parole officers also seem devoted to the concept of prolonged imprisonment. Comprehensive sentencing guidelines need to be established to promote fairness. It would be in the interests of all to explore alternate strategies to control dangerous offenders. Education, employment opportunities, situational crime prevention via increased surveillance, counselling and the like may be used in crime prevention in addition to sentencing and post - sentence supervision. These options must be considered in the interests of the criminal justice system. References Appleton, C. 'After life imprisonment: The role of the probation service', in Working with dangerous people: The psychotherapy of violence. D. Jones (ed). Radcliffe Publishing, Oxford, 2004. pp. 175 - 90. Ashworth, A. Sentencing and Criminal Justice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005. Hood, R., & Shute, S. 'The parole system at work: A study of risk based decision making'. in Home Office Research Study 202. February 2000, viewed on 15 May 2007. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors202.pdf Hood, R., Shute, S., Feilzer, M., & Wilcox, A. 'Sex offenders emerging from long - term imprisonment', The British Journal of Criminology, vol. 42, iss. 2, 2002, pp. 371 - 94. Hungerford - Welch, P. Criminal Litigation and Sentencing, 6th edition. Cavendish Publishing, London, 2004. McAlinden, A. 'The use of shame with sexual offenders". The British Journal of Criminology, vol. 45, iss. 3, 2005. pp. 373 - 94. Tonry, M. Punishment and Politics: Evidence and Emulation in the Making of English Crime Control Policy. Willan Publishing, Cullompton, 2004. Read More