Studies of the effectiveness of punishments often use reconviction rates as a measurement of success or failure. According to fairly recent reports there are currently no real differences between reconviction rates for custodial and all community penalti

Authors Avatar

INTRODUCTION

Studies of the effectiveness of punishments often use reconviction rates as a measurement of success or failure.  According to fairly recent reports there are currently no real differences between reconviction rates for custodial and all community penalties (Home Affairs Committee, 1998, Home Office, 1998).  However, there are many problems associated with the reliability of such data, and much caution is needed when using such measurements as a criteria for assessing the effectiveness of punishment.  For instance, there is much disagreement about what reconviction should be counted.  For community penalties the counting began on the date of sentence whereas for custodial sentences the counting begins on the date of release (May, 1994).                                 therefore, does not take into account any offence committed whilst in prison.        On the other hand, there is no way of knowing how far re-offending whilst serving a community sentence is due to the ineffectiveness of the punishment or an individuals social circumstance.  The 1998 report by the Home Affairs Committee draws attention to even more concerns regarding reconviction rates.  It is stated that:

“Reconviction rates take any subsequent reconviction as an indication of failure and do not take into account changes in offence severity or a reduction in the frequency of offending; Reconviction rates under-estimate the true level of re-offending since for many types of offence the clear up rate is very low; Police Forces have varying clear up rates which reflect differences in the changes of being arrested and re-convicted ” ( : XV-XV1).  

It is clear then, that any evaluation of the effectiveness of a prison and community punishment need to be judged against a range of criteria other than the simple adding up of reconviction rates.  This is a difficult task when considering what the crimes of punishment should be.  Thoughts that spring to mind include, rehabilitation, incarceration, reintegration, protection, treatment, cost effectiveness, fair administration, deterrence, adequate punishment, and most of all reducing crime.   However, for the purpose of this essay effectiveness will be discussed within the context of how prison and community can;

Rehabilitate Offenders

Protect the Public

Be Cost Effective

Be seen as Adequate Punishment

Administrated Fairly

REHABILITATION

One of the utilitarian functions of any punishment is that it is intended to reform and rehabilitate offenders whether by personal example, access to work, training and education, or through exposure to various types of treatment programs (Hoods and Sparks, 1970).  By addressing the factors that are related to offending such as unemployment, drug addiction and temperament, a positive regime can influence offenders to lead crime-free lives in the future (Vass, 1990, Worrall, 1997).  As Davis, Croall and Tyrer (1998) suggest: -

Join now!

“A flexible range of sanctions and resources should be available so as to be able to respond to the individual needs of each offender in the hope of changing their future behaviour.  Some offenders will need counselling with regard to drug dependencies; Others will need social skills training” (:245).

Offenders given a community sentence face a variety of experiences.  They can include counselling or therapy for drug or alcohol abuse or anger management (Davis, Croall and Tyrer, 1998).  Others may participate in projects such as the Essex Motor Project that provides offenders who have been involved in car crimes with ...

This is a preview of the whole essay