Fines as the Most Common Form of Sentencing - Assignment Example

Criminology Report Q #1 Fines are the most common form of sentencing passed by courts in England and Wales on adult offenders, accounting for approximately one third or 66.5% of all sentences passed down by courts in 2013 (gov.uk, 2014: p1). This was a decrease of 5.2% in comparison to the same period in 2012, as well as the lowest percentage in the last ten years. With regards to community orders and suspended sentences, 12.5% of sentenced adult offenders were handed a community sentence, while 3.6% of sentenced adult offenders were handed suspended sentence orders. This was a decline of 14% and 8.8% compared to 2012 respectively. Finally, 7.9% of all sentenced adult offenders were given a custodial sentence, which was a decrease of 4.7% in comparison to 2012 (gov.uk, 2014: p1). The main aim of fines in the criminal justice system may be to impose a retributive, deterrent, or even rehabilitative effect on the offender. On the other hand, Ashworth (2012: p32) argues that the main purpose for handing down fines is only to punish the offender, although fines also have a deterrent aspect both to the general public and to the individual. In this case, the consequences of a fine on conviction is a punishment for the offender, as well as a signal deterrent to the general public that if they offend, get caught, brought before the same court, and are convicted, the consequences will be similar or tougher. As such, fines seek to ensure that offenders do not repeat the offence once they pay the required fines. Community service, on the other hand, aims to enable offenders to pay for their crimes back to the community, specifically by doing for which they get no payment for community groups and organizations and charities (Ashworth, 2012: p43). Therefore, the main purpose of community service is to give offending persons the chance to make reparations for their offences to the local community (Ashworth, 2012: p44). Another aim of community service is to aid the offender to acquire and learn skills that can enhance their employability, thus helping them avoid being involved in crime again. With regards to prison, the main aim is for general deterrence for others who may commit similar crimes in the future, while also reducing the likelihood that the offender will commit a similar crime when released. Secondly, imprisonment aims to punish the offender and to gain retribution from offenders who may have committed a serious crime. Imprisonment also aims to encourage offenders to reform through rehabilitation (Ashworth, 2012: p52). Finally, imprisonment also acts to protect the public from the offender, especially in the case of persistent offenders. The use of punishment as a way to maintain societal order has several underlying theoretical justifications. The theories of punishment are generally divided into the utilitarian theory and the retributive theories of justice. Whereas the retributive theory mainly aims to punish an offender because they are considered as deserving of punishment, the utilitarian theory aims to punish the offender in order to deter or discourage them from doing wrong in the future (Murphy, 2013: p33). Both deterrence and rehabilitation fall under the utilitarian theory of justice and, as a result, both aim to use laws as a way to enhance society’s happiness. Since punishment and crime are not consistent with happiness, deterrence and rehabilitation seek to keep them at a minimum. In this case, while both deterrence and rehabilitation understand that there is always crime in society, they endeavour to inflict punishment to the extent required to prevent criminal activity in the future (Murphy, 2013: p33). Deterrence, as a utilitarian rationale for meting punishment, seeks to prevent an offender from repeating a crime by either putting them in jail to prevent them from committing a similar crime during the period, as well as to discourage them from repeat offences by putting them in unpleasant conditions (Murphy, 2013: p34). On the other hand, rehabilitation as a utilitarian theory rationale for punishment, mainly seeks to prevent an offender from committing crimes in the future. This is done by providing them with an opportunity to be successful, but within the law’s confines. Measures for rehabilitation normally include treatment from some afflictions like chemical dependency, mental illness, and violent behaviour. It also involves educational programs that allow offenders to gain skills and knowledge required for them to compete in the employment sector (Murphy, 2013: p34). Q #2 The proportion of people in prison made up of sentenced prisoners in 2013 was 85.1%, while 13% of the population was on remand and 1.9% was made up of non-criminal prisoners (gov.uk, 2015: p1). Of this population, 9.3% were serving prison sentences of less than twelve months. The proportion of the prison population serving indeterminate sentences in England and Wales stood at 19% in 2013, of which 60% were on life sentences and 40% on an indeterminate sentence for public protection. The proportion of female prisoners stood at 4.6% of the entire prison population, which was a decline of 7% from the proportion in 2012. The proportion of men in prison in the same period was 95.4% and that of adult males over the age of 21 was 75%. 27% of the prison population was made up of black and minority ethnic groups in 2013, of which black people consisted of 13.4% of the entire population and Asians consisted of 7.4% (gov.uk, 2015: p1). Moreover, 1% of the entire prison population comprised of juveniles between the ages of 15 and 17, while for young offenders aged between 18 and 20 years of age, their proportion of the prison population stood at 7% in 2013. Between 2003 and 2013, the population of prisoners in England and Wales grew by 21% or 14,830 prisoners and, during this period, prisoners given custodial sentences increased by 28% and those on remand decreased by 13% (Blom-Cooper, 2014: p29). During the same period, the number of female prisoners declined by 3% and the number of males in prison went up by 24%. In 2006, the population of people in prison surpassed the eighty thousand mark for the first time ever before increasing further to 85,000 during 2010. The population remained stable at this level until 2011, during which the riots in England resulted in a sharp increase in the prison population, reaching an all time high of 88,179 individuals in prison (Blom-Cooper, 2014: p29). In the aftermath of the riots, at least nine hundred prisoners were held in prison for offences related to public disorder. This rise in England and Wale’s prison population cannot be explained solely by the riots and subsequent public disorder, however and Blom-Cooper (2014: p31) argues that more work needs to be done to identify the underlying reasons for the increase. The prison population has decreased since the record highs witnessed in late 2011, which has seen the number stabilize at ~84,000. The average length of sentences during the same period also increased to 14.8 months in 2013, which is an increase of 2.1 months compared to 2003. This increase can be attributed to the case mix for those receiving custodial sentences, in which other types of sentences are now increasingly used to deal with summary offences and longer sentences are handed down for indictable offences. Moreover, restrictions in the use of Indeterminate sentences for Public Protection under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act of 2008 has also coincided with increased long determinate sentences of at least ten years (Blom-Cooper, 2014: p32). This may have contributed to average custodial sentence length increasing after 2008. Arrigo and Milovanovic (2013: p43) argues that there has been a fundamental shift in strategies of crime control over the latter part of the 20th century, leading to the decline of an old penology at the expense of a new theory of penology, in which crime is increasingly being addressed via risk management strategies that are grounded in actuarial techniques to minimize offending. Whereas the old penology theory mainly focused on the establishment of guilt and identification of the individual offender’s appropriate treatment, new penology theory accepts the widespread nature of crime. Rather than focusing on intervention philosophies, traditionally identified as reformation, transformation, and reintegration, the new penology theory is focused on the identification, classification, and management of individuals and groups by assorted dangerousness levels. As such, prison has moved from being an institution focused on eliminating crime and towards an institution seeking to manage populations deemed dangerous. The new penology theory, therefore, has evolved psychological and occupational programs for prisoners, while also integrating a range of probation and community service orders that involve aftercare and guidance of offenders released into the community (Arrigo & Milovanovic, 2013: p43). Q #3 Community orders and suspended sentence order, on the face of it, are essentially the same sentence for all intents and purposes. Thus, the requirements for the two have the potential to be confusing, especially for the ordinary citizen in England and Wales. Mair et al (2011: p40) state that some magistrates argue that both sentences’ requirements cannot be compared because they are presented during different points in the process of sentencing, as well as the fact that suspended sentence orders cross the threshold of custody and carry a threat of custody. Suspended sentences involve the imposition of a custodial sentence by the judge, although it is suspended on specific conditions, which means that the offender is not imprisoned if they adhere to the requirements (Mair et al, 2011: p41). There are three main requirements in suspended sentence orders, one of which is that there must be a term of imprisonment handed down. Another requirement is that the conditions under which the sentence is suspended must be presented, for instance undergoing specific treatment or keeping the peace. Finally, the period for which the judge is suspending the sentence is also a requirement that should be presented (Mair et al, 2011: p42). Community service orders, on the other hand, requires that the offender has to carry out some work that is beneficial to the community and are normally imposed as an alternative to a prison sentence. The requirements for a community service order are that the individual must be suitable to carry out community service. In addition, community work that is suitable for the offender must be available for them to carry out, while the offender must also agree to the community service order. One aspect of both orders is that they seem to be getting more punitive and tougher with growth of curfews and unpaid work requirements, which both share punishment as the main reason for sentencing (Mair et al, 2011: p42). McNeill and Dawson (2014: p898), in exploring the practice of probation as related to prison-based work, court work, and integration of new developments, locates a radical critique of the practice within a Marxist framework of analysis. In this case, an organization reproduces social relations according to capitalism, promotion of consensus within society that is essentially in conflict, and individualizing crime. Consequently, probation officers are being paid to fulfil a specific job for the country, which is a role that essentially supports capitalism. Accordingly, probation should be a socialist practice that defends clients from punitive excesses, especially the worst forms, within the court system by providing recourse to stop proceedings and minimizing custodial sentencing use. Probation should also use educational work, as well as provide useful services that meet the complex and varied needs that different offenders may have. Moreover, the probation practice should include involvement in the community for the offender, as well as campaign for changes in the criminal justice system and in society (McNeill & Dawson, 2014: p899). There are three main ideologies that underpin the practice of probation, which are managerialism, personalism, and a radical approach grounded in the Marxist perspective. The crucial elements of the Marxist analytical framework can be brought together, specifically by considering the functions that probation as a social institution serves. These are repressive functions, regulatory mechanisms that keep the system functioning, and ideological functions that make workers understand that social interests that serve capitalist interests are in their own interests as well (McNeill & Dawson, 2014: p899). References Arrigo, B. A., & Milovanovic, D. (2013). Revolution in penology: Rethinking the society of captives. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Ashworth, A. (2012). Sentencing and criminal justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blom-Cooper, L. J. (2014). The penalty of imprisonment: Why 60 per cent of the prison population should not be there. London: Continuum. gov.uk. (2014, May 29). Criminal justice statistics quarterly: September 2013. Retrieved February 24, 2015, from Ministry of Justice: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-justice-statistics--2 gov.uk. (2015, January 2). Prison population statistics. Retrieved February 24, 2015, from Ministry of Justice: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/prison-population-statistics Mair, G., Mills, H., & Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (Great Britain). (2011). The community order and the suspended sentence order three years on: The views and experiences of probation officers and offenders. London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies. McNeill, F., & Dawson, M. (August 11, 2014). Social Solidarity, Penal Evolution and Probation. British Journal of Criminology, 54, 5, 892-907. Murphy, J. G. (2013). Punishment and rehabilitation. Belmont, California: Wadsworth. Read More