Another large group of prisoners can be seen as being ethnic minorities Cavadino & Dignan (2002 p318) have cited evidence that there is racial discrimination in prisons giving the example that the best jobs were regularly allocated to white prisoners. Whilst C Phillips & B Bowling (2002 pg 605) give an example of the Court of Appeal ruling in favour of an African/Caribbean inmate who had been discriminated against in being denied a kitchen job.
In 1988 the prison service developed a “Statement of Purpose”
“Her Majesty’s Prison Service serves the public by keeping in custody those committed by the Courts. Our duty is to look after them with humanity and to help them lead law-abiding and useful lives in custody and on release.” (Cavadino & Dignan, 2002, pg179)
Although it can be argued that prison will be a negative experience for the offender, there are now more education and work programmes as well as a variety of skills training courses. There are also a number of courses aimed at helping prisoners to control their alcohol or drug abuse. (Coyle 2005, pg 6.)
During a custodial sentence there are rules and regulations that must be adhered to. It must be made clear that even though a prisoner is in jail he or she must still be entitled to be protected by the law, if there were to be a violent incident for example the police would be expected to undertake criminal investigations. Breaches of prison rules must be clearly identified and dealt with. The consequences of being found guilty of breaching or breaking prison rules could be loss of privileges, exclusion from social and work activities, stoppage of earnings and the award of additional days.
In a similar way probation ensures that community penalties are enforced,
the emphasis as cited by (Mair G, 2004) is on tough and demanding community penalties, continues to remain in place. The NPS also takes very seriously enforcement of these orders. National Standards have given probation clear guidelines for required levels of contact and as cited by Chui and Nellis (2003 pg 90) these are to satisfy the court and wider community that a credible level of disciplined supervision is taking place. Secondly to ensure that all offenders have the opportunity to engage in effective supervision and any failure to comply without reasonable explanation shall be deemed unacceptable and the order or license can be returned to court. With increasing public interest in the punishment of offenders and to ensure that probation orders are not seen as the soft option to a custodial sentence.
The Criminal Justice Act 1997 allowed discretionary or conditional release under a period of supervision, electronic monitoring can also be imposed for early release from custody, home detention curfew (HDC). It is suggested by Chui & Nellis, (2003 pg 246) that the future of electronic monitoring may be extended to all post-release supervision, including lifers. They also conclude that the development of tracking technology may be used to monitor electronically the movements of such offenders whilst subject to a post-release supervision.
This early release of prisoners can be argued was merely a way of reducing the size of the prison population and partly an expression of the concept that rehabilitation of prisoners could be aided by early release coupled with support in the communities cited by Coyle (2005, pg77.). Although those prisoners who were not granted parole would be eventually released without supervision, even though they were likely to be ‘worse risks’, and in possible greater need of supervision upon release. (Cavadino & Dignan, 2002, pg 269.)
Lord Woolf, in his lecture ‘Achieving Criminal Justice’ stated that
‘The shortcomings are particularly unfortunate because there is now clear statistical evidence that if prisoners have a home and a job to go to on their release it is very much less likely that they will reoffend.
The retributive theory was still popular in early prison policy and saw a revival in the 1970’s. This was seen as a reaction to the previously popular consequentiality theories. This theory started dwindling in popularity due to various studies showing that rehabilitative approaches were not working, and from which the idea that ‘Nothing Works’ became popular (Martinson, 1974, cited by Rex, 2003, pg 41). With decreasing interest on rehabilitation penal policy turned back towards imprisonment. This was a cause upon which the then Home secretary Michael Howard also took up. In 1993 Michael Howard made his famous speech to the Conservative party conference, in which he affirmed that ‘prison works’.
Not surprisingly, therefore following the ‘prison works’ pronouncement, the prison population increased’ Burnett & Maruna (2004 pg 390.).
This statement was seen to contradict the same government’s judgment that prison was ‘an expensive way of making bad people worse’ (Home Office, 1990, as cited by Burnett and Maruna, 2004, pg 390.).
Lord Woolf, in his lecture ‘Achieving Criminal Justice’ stated that ‘the problem of overcrowding in prisons is a cancer eating at the ability of the prison service to deliver.’ He also continued by stating that a large proportion of the prison population should not be there, he argued that ‘prisons can do nothing for prisoners who are sentenced to less than 12 months.’ In Lord Woolf’s speech he argues that ‘In many of those cases, the prisoners could have been punished in the community.’
Community penalties are managed in the community by the National Probation Service (NPS) which was founded in 1907 and took upon the role of administering community penalties, which were encouraged as alternatives to custody, (Hirsch, 1998, cited by Harrison, 2006, pg 143.) states the purpose of rehabilitation as ‘curing an offender’s personality of their criminal tendencies by changing an offender’s personality, outlook, habits or opportunities so as to make them less inclined to commit crime.’
In June 1997 the Prison/Probation review was set up and the aims of this were to look at ‘options for closer integration’ between the two services. (Chui & Nellis, 2003, pg 9.) The aims of both services were to protect the public and reduce re-offending.
The NPS took on the role of enforcing the community penalties which were handed out as sentences from the courts, at present these orders include the Community Order, Drug Rehabilitation Requirements, with various requirements such as unpaid work, accredited programmes and education, training and employment.
These sentences were seen to punish by limiting free time for the individual and by forcing offenders to carry out tasks in the community that would benefit all that resided there. It was suggested by (Harrison, 2006, pg 146.) That fulfilling these tasks enhances the self esteem and confidence of the offender, which would be hoped to have a positive impact on their offending behaviour.
As in prison, probation aims to reduce re-offending by using accredited programmes these currently include, Drink Impaired Driving, drug or alcohol abuse, anger management and sex offenders treatment programmes. It is suggested by (Harrison, 2006, pg 150.) that there are a small number of offenders who would prefer the option of having a programme requirement revoked and spending time in custody as an alternative because the effort of participating and contributing to a programme is too great for them.
Both imprisonment and community penalties have had an impact on managing offending behaviour and it may be true to suggest that there can be little difference in terms of there relative effectiveness at reducing re-offending. Cavadino & Dignan state ‘ When reconviction rates that are associated with custody and community penalties are compared after allowing for factors that are known to influence the risk of reconviction (such as age at first offence, type of offence, criminal history and gender) the differences between them are usually found to be negligible’ (2006, pg 150.).
The Home Office online report shows that in 2001 the adult reconviction statistics after serving either a custodial or community sentence were 54.7% for males and for females 46.4%.
It can therefore be argued that there is little difference between reducing reoffending by either custodial or community penalties, although for public reassurance it is important to recognise that custodial sentences as cited by Cavadino and Dignan (2006 pg 150.). “The main apparent advantage that custody has over other penal measures derives from the ‘protective’ impact it appears to offer the public at large. We accept that there are some serious violent and sexual offenders who present such a clear and vivid threat to the safety of others that custodial incapacitation is both justifiable and right”.
In summary it can be concluded that by comparing both prison and probation that to some degree both imprisonment and community penalties work equally effectively and the aims of both services are achieved.
It could also be argued that with the implementation of National Offender Management Service (NOMS) that the future of the NPS will mean closer
working links with prisons which would suggest a greater continuity of work with offenders being released into the community.
Bibliography:
Burnett, R. & Maruna, S. (2004). So ‘Prison Works’, Does it? The Criminal Careers of 130 Men released from Prison under Home Secretary, Michael Howard. The Howard Journal, Vol 43 – (issue 4), pg 390-404
Cavadino, M., & Dignan, J. (2006). The Penal System – An Introduction (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Chui, WH., & Nellis, M (2003). Creating The National Probation Service – New wine, Old Bottles?. In Chui, WH., & Nellis, M. Moving Probation Forward (pp1-18). Essex: Pearson.
Coyle, A (2005). Understanding Prisons. Berkshire: Open University Press.
Harrison, K. (2006). Community Punishment or Community Rehabilitation: Which is the Highest in the Sentencing Tariff? The Howard Journal, Vol 45 – (issue 2), pg 141-158.
Hudson, B. (2002). Punishment and Control. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, R. Reiner Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. (233-263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lord Woolf. (2002). Achieving Criminal Justice (electronic version). Retrieved November 21, 2006 from
Mair, G. (2004). Purposes matter: examining the ‘ends’ of probation, What Matters in Probation. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing.
Peay, J. (2002). Mentally Disordered offenders Mental Health and Crime. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, R. Reiner Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. (746-791). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Phillips, C. & Bowling, B. Racism, Ethnicity, Crime, and Criminal Justice. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, R. Reiner Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. (579-619). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rex, S. (2003) What works in the Theories of Punishment. In W H, Chui and M, Nellis (Eds.) Moving Probation Forward. (pg 38-55) Essex: Pearson.
Sather, T. (1999). Pros & Cons - A Debaters Handbook (18th ed.). London: Routhledge.
