Whether Community Sentences Are Effective, and Cost Efficient - Essay Example

Institution : xxxxxxxxxxx Title : xxxxxxxxxxx Tutor : xxxxxxxxxxx Course : xxxxxxxxxxx @2010 Evaluate whether community sentences are effective, cost efficient and should be used more often in sentencing Introduction Community sentences form one of the most commonly used penalties by law courts in the UK, and has witnessed exceptional growth in their use in the past two decades. According to Kaye (2010,p 11), not only are community sentences far more than common disposals, but are also more readily applied presently than in the years prior to 1990. For all the age groups and roughly all offences, the employment of community sentences has increased and has turned out to be more diverse in terms of scope and their wider application. There is however important issues regarding the use as well as impact of community sentences that ought to be given much more consideration by all those interested in matters of criminal justice. This particular paper will therefore evaluate whether or not community sentences are effective, cost efficient and whether they should be used more often in sentencing. According to Matrix Evidence (2009, p2), community sentences are more effective and cost efficient as compared to prisons and should therefore be employed more often in sentencing. One of the reasons for this is that community sentences enable low-risk wrongdoers to recuperate themselves more effectively as compared to short time periods in prisons. They work more effectively as they combine punishment and the opportunity for the wrong-doers to turn away from doing crime. As a result, they often have the capability to serve dual purposes of punishing offenders for the crimes they have committed in addition to rehabilitating them to live crime-free lives after their release. By combining punishment and treatment, community sentences teach offenders how to cope up with the social pressures of life in addition to learning news skills. Additionally, the fact that they can be tailored to match the needs of the offenders makes community sentencing much more robust especially for those offenses that have high impact on the community such as shop lifting, motor vehicle theft and burglary. An opportunity for the wrong-doers to turn away from doing crime often comes up as good news to the wrong-doers, but more significantly, it is normally good news to the community as a whole. The programs therefore offer the wrong-doers various ways of triumphing over their problems and avoiding troubles in future. Kaye (2010, p54) highlights that when used appropriately, community sentences have more often than not, dramatic impacts on individual’s lives and help reduce re-offending. Community sentences are more effective as far as reducing the rates of re-offending are concerned. Kaye (2010, p50) highlights further that; latest statistics reveal that the frequency of re-offending for community sentences has gone down sharply by roughly 13 per cent, an indication that fewer wrong-doers return to crime. This according to Kaye (2010,p51) can be explained by the fact that wrongdoers kept within the community have high possibilities of remaining in work, holding on to their homes in addition to maintaining close contacts with their families, a factor which social bond theorists suggest helps in fostering desistence. Furthermore, a number of research recognizes the fact that desistence from wrong doing is not a single event but a process. According to McDougall et.al, (2003,p36), the flexibility of the community sentences therefore provides, especially with the possibility of re-assessment and modification by a progress court recognizes the less binary reality and could more effectively lower down further offending. Community sentences are therefore known to have lower rates of re-offending both in terms of offending and the seriousness of the offences. According to Matrix Evidence (2009,p5), there is no doubt that prisons does very little to reduce the number of wrong-doings and even more, prisons compared to community sentences, does nearly nothing to lower down re-offending for those on short-term sentences. By reducing the rates of re-offending, community sentences, in comparison are therefore more effective and offer significant cost savings. According to Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, (2008,p3) it costs approximately 37,000 Euros annually to maintain one wrongdoer in prison, an amount of money that could essentially be used to cut down re-offending through community sentences. Matrix Evidence (2009,p5), research reveals that a great number of community sentences provide better value for money as well as effectiveness when compared to short-term prison sentences. In addition, when taking a look at offenders with drug-related problems, the comparative savings as well as the effectiveness offered by the community sentences increases massively. Diverting an offender from detention to a residential treatment would save the society roughly 200,000 Euros over the lifetime of the wrongdoer. Compellingly, this figure does not only include capital savings for the particular state but savings to the society in terms of reduced financial costs and reduced pain as well as suffering. The cost savings incurred from community sentences include not only the reduced cost of implementing sentences, but also the costs evaded due to lower cases of re-offending as a result of community sentencing. On the other hand, according to the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (2008, p1), the relationship between the type of sentencing and re-offending rates is complex. As a result, there is still a need for more research regarding the impact as well as the effectiveness of alternatives to custodial sentencing, along with the reflection of why, and under what circumstances community sentences work. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (2008, p4) highlights too that there has also been claims that there has been an over-reliance on re-conviction data and that this (re-conviction) needs to be considered in relation to other risk factors. In addition, there has also been a lack of thorough evaluation of the UK programs, implying that much of the evidence base for the United Kingdom policy comes from evaluations from the United States of America. In addition, there have also been arguments citing that the effectiveness of punishment can only be measured in terms of how successful it is in suppressing undesired behaviours. Effectiveness of punishment therefore depends on practices that work in general, as well as those that work with particular populations. Dignan et.al, (2007,98) highlights further that psychological research on punishment has revealed that mild punishment can be effective as far as changing behaviour is concerned, but the evidence is still less clear regarding the effectiveness of harsh punishment. The question of whether or not a type of punishment is effective therefore depends on what inspires potential offenders. The deterrence argument is based on the arguments of economic rational theory as well as the classical postulation that offenders are egotistical, reasoning, rational cost-benefit calculators (McDougall et.al, (2003,p13). In addition, the dividing line as to which crimes ought to come under remit of community service and which ought to be the remit of prison appears also to some extent blurred. In the beginning, community sentences were thought to be appropriate for low-level crime such as shop lifting, vandalism, joy riding etc.The stress is therefore on “non-violent” where the wrongdoer is not perceived as an immediate threat to the general publics’ safety. All the violent crimes such as murder, gun crime, rape and serious body assault are viewed as the sole remit of prison, irrespective of whether or not it is a first offence. On the other hand, there have been views that some of the non-violent crimes, such as burglary can lead to serious emotional consequences for the victim, implying that community sentences are too lenient an option (Scottish Executive Social Research ,2007,p9). Despite the criticisms of community sentences, community sentences are also proving to be effective as well as cost-efficient, owing to the fact that custodial sentencing has led to great pressure on the prison estate, which is presently running very close to fully capacity. According to the National Offenders Management Service, the total custody population in UK is rising. At the same, National Offenders Management Service approximates the total operational capacity of the UK prison estate to be 82,949. This is described as the total capacity of the establishments on the estates not including 1,700 places to create allowances for the operating margins for instance the need for separate housing for both male and female prisoners. As a result, the UK government has since 2007 been able to increase prison places by 20,000 in addition to initiating new building programs so as to deliver additional 8,000 by the year, 2012. A review on prisons conducted on December 2007 also recommended a further 6,500 new places required by 2012 (Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, 2008, p4) A congested prison struggles to accommodate prisoners in humane as well as safe conditions. It also makes great effort to rehabilitate, as it does not always have enough resources to handle prisoners’ complex needs such as drug dependency, mental health problems, poor education levels and homelessness; it also inescapably leads to churn, where prisoners are relocated from one prison to another, and so are not able to connect with the continued support that they need. Moreover many states are currently facing most severe fiscal constraints present in recent years, continued prison constructions turns out to be more problematic and the development of practical as well as low costing alternatives becomes more acceptable (Umbreit, 1981, p128). Community sentencing does promote a proportionate approach such that sentences replicate the injuries caused to the victims and culpability. By itself, it implies that less serious offences involving minor or no injuries, community sentencing comes out as the most effective way of sentencing. The approach is therefore the right one as it focus on proportionality. This enhances fairness as well as consistency in sentencing. In addition, it also makes it clear that custodian sentencing ought only to be used in cases where offences committed are truly deserving of it, an essential message at present time (Ashworth, 2007, p72). Keeping an offender in custody is therefore significantly more costly in addition to being ineffective when compared to supervising him/her within the community. Community sentencing comprises a wide range of non-custodial alternatives available to judges when passing sentence. As a result, there is therefore a wide range of options available to sentencers depending on the type as well as the severity of the various offences carried out by the offenders. However, according Scottish Executive Social Research (2007, p17), it is believed that public understanding of the scope of community sentences, what they really seek to achieve and how effective they really are low. In addition, earlier research has indicated that, despite the fact that criminal justice experts and academics tend to perceive the UK criminal justice system as among the toughest in Western Europe, the perception of the public is that it is too lenient. Several criticisms are also pointed out at the sentencing process and the judiciary in general. Most critically, community sentences are thought to be unsuccessful in punishing as well as deterring effectively owing to their leniency. Moreover, communities sentencing is often considered to be inappropriate since the logic guiding the sentencing decisions are not always clear to the public. According to Scottish Executive Social Research, (2007,p7), for instance, there are several mentioned occasions where offenders who carried out violent crimes such as manslaughter received lesser sentence compared to those who committed fraud, for example. Judges are also viewed as being inconsistent in addition to being out of touch with the reality. This gives an inkling of concerns of some judges possessing too much autonomy in deciding an individual’s fate, resulting in unjust inconsistencies in sentencing. This suggests therefore that the distance between what the courts and the public perceive as appropriate sentencing is not as great as the public presently perceive. There is however, a feeling that this could be due to the views being compelled by a minority extreme cases that tend to attract the attention of media, rather than a reflection of the overall picture. Whereas levels of understanding regarding the precise workings of community sentences are vague at best, the opinions regarding the purpose behind it seem consistent and are believed to include a combination of key areas including punishment, deterrent, and recompense, reformative as well as compassion. Unlike custodial punishment, the significance as well as the benefits of all these elements of community sentences is widely recognized to work effectively. As a result, community sentencing is known to enlighten the offender in addition to giving them moral guidance, which they admit they may have possibly lacked in their lives and played a role in where they are at present (Scottish Executive Social Research, 2007, p9-10). As a task that requires the offender to give back to the community, community sentences are not only of great significance to the community, but also acts as a means of helping the offenders re-connect with the society and understand that they have a role to play within the society. In the same way, as a corrective as well as reformative program, they are also designed to improve the offenders’ social and life skills, in the end having long term benefits to the individual and the society as a whole. However, according to Solomon (2007,p1), a much closer analysis of community sentencing is still long overdue and that it will never be able to tackle all complex issues associated with re-offending. First evidence reveal that a huge number of offenders serving community sentences have various complicated social problems. Approximately two-thirds of these offenders are way below literacy and numeracy level expected of 11-year olds; a large number are unemployed; under a third have housing problems; nearly half have health problems; almost a quarter of them have drug-related problems, and nearly half have alcohol problems. As a result, the picture revealed is that of a group that is vulnerable as well as excluded individuals having multiple needs. Solomon (2007,p1) argues that until now, skills training are still in short supply, alcohol treatment nearly non-existent and mental health provisions unfortunately inadequate. In actual fact, half of the 12 interventions that constitute community sentences are not being used, or are being used rarely. This brings about significant questions regarding the extent at which the community sentences are being used to address the factors behind an offender’s behaviour. Solomon (2007, p1) however argues that instead of addressing the various factors behind an offender’s behaviour, the main emphasis has presently been placed on unpaid work. The number of time spent on community sentences carrying out the unpaid work have therefore increased by 30 per cent within the past two years rising to about 6.5 million between the years 2005-2006. At the same time, it also appears that more significant interventions are being under resourced. Solomon (2007, P1) argues that the effectiveness of community sentences is therefore questionable. Conclusion From the above analysis, it is clear that there are considerable difficulties in weighing up the relative effectiveness of community sentences as a means of punishing offenders. First, there are great concerns as regards its ability to provide an effective alternative to custodial sentencing. Second, a number of variables seem to influence offending, of which the type of sanction given being only one. Nevertheless, there is unwillingness to completely reject the idea behind community sentencing: there is the willingness to view it as a viable option as it appears to be more effective than incarceration as far as rehabilitation of the offenders is concerned and also emerges as superior when it comes to economic grounds, at least for the non-violent offenders, as they cost substantially less when compared to imprisonment. References Ashworth, A, 2010, Sentencing and Criminal Justice: Law in Context, Edition 5, Cambridge University Press, p72. Dignan, J, Atkinson, A & Howes, M, 2007, Criminology and Criminal Justice: Staging Restorative Justice Encounters against a Criminal Justice Backdrop: A Dramaturgical Analysis, Sage Publications, p98. Kaye, R, Gibbs, B & Casey Louise, 2010, Fitting the Crime: Reforming Community Sentences, Policy Exchange, p11-56. http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/pdfs/Fitting_the_Crime_-_Nov__10.pdf,Pp 11-56. Matrix Evidence, 2009, Make Justice Work: Are Short term Prison Sentences an Efficient and Effective Use of Public Resources?p1-16 Retrieved on April 16 from http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:nZeD5M_8ga8J:cebp.indiana.edu/Portals/418/Chris/are-short-term-prison-sentences-an-efficient-and-effective-use-of-public-resources.pdf+are+community+sentences+effective+and+cost+efficient%3F&hl=en&gl=ke&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShW1gGAC9cMkwduVk1_FLodGq8xY744yPmWPMXO1iasAfzsWiKylAphOA7fn8piEtsZgrMOiguiuGBd73e_j1h8kG7YG67zeDcAWPoBTOICH0MEWliwCVNi4UBrVdQcJLx9R_DB&sig=AHIEtbTNlMm456gZRUqBh2-DDrhA1Mvr6w . McDougall, C, Cohen, M, Swaray, R & Perry, A, 2001, Benefits-Cost Analyses of Sentencing: A Campbell Collaboration Systematic Review, p1-39. http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:SeXEaP6CyxsJ:education.indiana.edu/Portals/418/Chris/Cost%2520Benefit%2520Sentencing.pdf+evaluate+whether+community+sentences+are+effective,+cost+efficient+and+should+be+used+more+often+in+sentencing.&hl=en&gl=ke&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESih69UbKjsOYtBDskYXVTT1Hp8GuWACFXBoi3P6-Hu0rbNn0nZmaPB3y4gaeKNWNWQSib2jKPpGda_mSxNg7Z9Rm12mEqyNHzNyh190S2QmRgir-WPZ-c_S3DAouTGS2Fi31Uac&sig=AHIEtbTu591cMNKD9I6cSnYTBgDqLz9agw. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, 2008, Alternatives to Custodial Sentencing, P1-4, Retrieved on April 18, 2011 from http://www.howardleague.org/fileadmin/howard_league/user/pdf/Community_sentences_factsheet.pdf. Scottish Executive Social Research, 2007, Community Sentencing: Public Perceptions &Attitudes: Summary Research Report, p1-18. Retrieved on April 18, 2011 from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/203436/0054193.pdf Solomon, E, 2007, Community Sentences, p1, Retrieved on April 18, 2011 from http://www.insidetime.org/articleview.asp?a=42&c=community_sentences. Umbreit, M, 1981, Community Service Sentencing: Jail Alternative or Added Sanction? P128-129. Read More