The Objective of Sentencing Is Rehabilitation - Assignment Example

The Objective of Sentencing is Rehabilitation Introduction Rehabilitation should be the primary purpose of sentencing with respect to the criminal justice system of the United Kingdom. The following discussion proves this contention. Rehabilitation is an intervention that is seized with reforming convicts, as well as the social conditions that promote a criminal culture. It has been acknowledged that crime, poverty, and drug abuse are correlated. It has been stated that correcting the behaviour of individual criminals cannot prevent the prevalence of crime. It is necessary to have a holistic criminal justice system, if the structural conditions that generate criminals is to be uprooted[Smi14]. Thus, criminal conduct connotes the presence of a sick society, instead of merely a deviant person. However, the imposition of legal punishment is essentially a social exercise. As such, sentencing reflects the public opinion. Consequently, the authorities responsible for the sentencing guidelines have to persistently consider public opinion, in order to identify the disparities between community views and judicial practice. It is quite feasible that some of the legal regulations could be contrary to the desires of contemporary society[Rob14]. In addition, there could be legal rules relating to mitigating and aggravating factors, culpability and excuses that could be investigated. After identifying these rules, the authority could decide to engage the community to a greater extent or to adjust practices. Moreover, the State should improve efforts to inform its citizens about the nature and outcomes of sentencing upon offenders, their families and the communities in which they reside[Rob14]. As such, populism should be less influential than principles, whilst determining sentencing practices. The inhibition or enhancement of punitiveness, due to the democratisation of punishment, depends upon several factors. Some of these are; the ambient level of public antipathy towards offenders, contemporary crime trends, effect of the media, high profile crimes, and the degree of isolation of the courts from community responses[Rob14]. In this regard, in May 2008 Royal Assent was granted to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act. This engendered the most momentous transformation to the youth justice system, subsequent to the Crime and Disorder Act of 1998. This new Act introduced the Youth Rehabilitation Order (YRO), which provided for the generic community sentencing of those aged less than 18 years. This was similar to the adult generic community sentence that had been provided for under the Criminal Justice Act of 2003[Placeholder1]. Moreover, the YRO is available only for offences or combination of offences that are sufficiently serious to justify such sentence. This has been stipulated at Section 148 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Nevertheless, the court has the discretion to impose or not to impose an YRO, regardless of the seriousness of the offence. Moreover, this Act enjoins that the conditions imposed by an YRO should be the most suitable for the offender, in the opinion of the court. In addition, the limitations on the offender’s liberty imposed by the YRO have to be commensurate with the gravity of the offence[Placeholder1]. Furthermore, the YRO can be imposed upon an offender, any number of times. If the offender repeats the offence, then the courts have to employ the YRO, repeatedly. A simplification of the sentencing structure is achieved by the YRO. Such sentences can be adapted to the circumstances and risks of the offender. It provides for the imposition of community service upon the offender, which could prove to be a better alternative to incarceration[Placeholder1]. The effective employment of the YRO can reduce recidivism, while diminishing the number of young people in prison. In addition, since 1993, the expenditure incurred on incarceration has increased tremendously. During the same period, there has been a twofold increase in the prison population. These disturbing developments propelled the government to concentrate to a greater extent upon reform and rehabilitation. The statistics provided by the government indicate that around 50% of the offenders released from prison, reoffend within a year of being released from prison. The number of offenders reconvicted within 10 years of being released from prison has been observed to be 75%[Myt12]. Consequently, a rehabilitation revolution was announced by the Justice Secretary, which specifically aims to address such repeat offending. Several processes have emerged from this policy. Some of these are; greater involvement of private companies and voluntary agencies in the daunting task of rehabilitating criminals, introduction of upper and lower limits for incarceration periods, vigorous community service sentences, depriving benefits to offenders who oppose supervision, compulsory drug rehabilitation programs, and the deportation of foreign national criminals[Myt12]. As such, a genuine need had been discerned to better integrate the approach to offender management by those working in the probation service and prisons. The objective has been to reinforce the relationship between probation and prisons, and to introduce improved interventions to diminish reoffending. These aims tend to be swayed by political considerations; nevertheless, the rehabilitation revolution has been generated as a response to the dreary economic conditions and budgetary deficit of the New Labour’s tenure[Myt12]. Additionally, there had been a proposal to reduce the budgetary allocation for prisons, by 25%. This was based on the assumption that by four years, the number of individuals in prison, would reduce by 3,000. The taxpayer spends approximately £50,000 annually, upon each prisoner, and this explains the urgency in government to diminish expenditure on prisons[Myt12]. Moreover, the government perceived that it would be much more viable to bring in decentralisation and migration from a general approach, and to introduce an approach that was more individualistic. This was with regard to managing offenders. In order to achieve this goal, a series of measures and strategies had been devised. These included, the introduction of more working prisons; expansion to the accountability of offenders, by means of restorative justice; and making services responsible for the results produced by them, with respect to the future conduct of offenders[Myt12]. With the advent of the new model of managing offenders, there will be a greater involvement of entities that had traditionally been external to the criminal justice system. In addition, this new model has been expected to improve competition between the voluntary and private agencies involved in offender management[Myt12]. The objective will be primarily to curtail, if not prevent, reoffending. Furthermore, several research studies have established that it is feasible to mitigate reoffending, by adopting rehabilitative programmes for offenders. These programmes, which are founded upon behavioural and psychological techniques have been recognised as having the capacity to achieve this salutary effect. This information was utilised by the criminal justice system of England and Wales, which adopted the Risk, Need and Responsivity norms. This model concedes that higher risk offenders require a higher quantum of corrective action than lower risk offenders, as the problems faced by the former tend to have a wider range[Fox13]. Such corrective action has a greater effect when it addresses the offender’s criminogenic requirements. The latter constitute dynamic risk factors that forecast ensuing offending behaviour. Some of these are; antisocial attitudes, peer associations, absence of self-control, lack of self-management skills, and dependency upon drugs. The provision of adequate corrective action can effect change in criminogenic needs, provided such action is receptive to the learning process and traits of the offender being subjected to such corrective treatment. In response to this model, a system of standardised accredited programmes have been developed. These programmes are aimed at addressing particular characteristics of offender conduct. In addition, several of these programmes have been developed on the basis of the cognitive-behavioural therapies[Fox13]. Society is well within its rights to expect effective punishment for offenders. The recent reforms have resulted in a significant increase in the number of individuals who have been incarcerated, and reoffending has not been addressed. There has been a doubling of the number of persons in prison, since 1993. This burgeoning prison population has exacted a very high cost upon the public exchequer[Lor101]. Albeit, the government had embarked upon an ambitious and expensive building programme, the prison system has, on quite a few occasions, been unable to accommodate all the offenders. As a result, prisoners had to be frequently detained in the cells of the courts and the police. Being unable to accommodate all the convicted felons, the authorities had to introduce a scheme, whereby, prisoners were released from prison, prior to the completion of their sentence, The available data regarding the criminal justice system of the UK had disclosed that as many as half of the released prisoners resumed a life of crime, within a year of their release from prison or with the commencement of a community sentence[Lor101]. It has been recommended that public safety can be improved and the number of victims can be reduced, by reforming reoffenders and making them eschew reoffending. In this context, offenders undergoing community sentences or who have been released from prison have to be dealt with by a stringent and coordinated response from the probation, police, and other related services. This will compel offenders to address the issues that form the basis of their preference for a life of crime. At the same time, these offenders will realise that reoffending will be detected promptly and that retribution will be sure and swift[Lor101]. Conclusion As such, there were a large number of prisoners, who had been kept behind bars for a short duration, and very little effort was taken to rehabilitate these criminals. As a consequence, several of these convicts reoffended upon being released from prison. Under these circumstances, rehabilitation is best suited for the UK criminal justice system, so that offenders do not revert to their previous life of crime. From the above discussion, it can be surmised that rehabilitation should be the objective of sentencing in the criminal justice system of the UK. References Crime and Disorder Act (c.37), 1998. Kew, Richmond Surrey, UK: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Criminal Justice Act (c.44), 2003. Kew, Richmond Surrey, UK: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Criminal Justice and Immigration Act (c.4), 2008. Kew, Richmond Surrey, UK: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office . Fox, A., Fox, C. & Marsh, C., 2013. Could Personalisation Reduce Re-offending? Reflections on Potential Lessons from British Social Care Reform for the British Criminal Justice System. Journal of Social Policy, 42(4), pp. 721-741. Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, 2010. Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment,. [online] Available at: [Accessed 30 October 2014]. Mythen, G., Walklate, S. & Kemshall, H., 2012. Decentralizing risk: The role of the voluntary and community sector in the management of offenders. Criminology and Criminal Justice , 13(4), pp. 363-379. Roberts, J. V. & Keijser, J. W., 2014. Democratising punishment: Sentencing, community views and values. Punishment & Society, 16(4), pp. 474-498. Smith, N., n.d. Encyclopedia of Criminal Justice. [online] Available at: [Accessed 28 October 2014]. Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, 2010. The Youth Rehabilitation Order and other Youth Justice Provisions of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. [online] Available at: [Accessed 28 October 2014]. Read More