The Government is always conscious of, and sometimes responsive to, public opinion which appears to be in favour of retribution. For example, life sentences for people convicted of a second ‘serious offence’, unless there are exceptional circumstances, and it does not matter how long ago the first ‘serious offence’ was committed. Serious offences include: conspiracy to murder; manslaughter; rape or attempted rape; sexual intercourse with a girl under 13; various firearms offences; and robbery with a firearm or imitation firearm. These terrible offences demand, in the public’s eye, a severe life long punishment.
Related to retribution is the concept of denunciation or disapproval of certain types of conduct. So, sentences may be increased where society has become less tolerant of offences. The attitude to drink driving is a classic example. Thirty years ago, it was not seen to be particularly heinous but now there is a social stigma attached to a drink drive conviction and if someone were three or more times over the limit, then a custodial sentence would be quite appropriate and would certainly be expected by the general public.
If a person is in prison he/she is incapable of re-offending and so, importantly, society itself is protected. In fact, protection of the public is a key aim in sentencing and custodial sentences are specifically provided.
There are other ways of incapacitating an offender, and often this is in relation to specific offences; a driving ban for a motoring offence, a restriction order for Football hooligans effectively banning them from attending matches, or the imposition of a curfew. These specific sentences would be tailored to the offence and therefore render the individual incapable from re-offending in that particular way but would allow them to continue living within society.
The main aim of punishment is to deter potential offenders. To exaggerate, if sentences of twenty-five years imprisonment were handed down to speeding drivers, then the problem of speeding would diminish! Now, deterrent sentences are often handed down where a certain type of offence is prevalent, again returning to the example of drink driving. These are known as general deterrent sentences. The point is that by advertising an unusually harsh sentence, it will send a message to the public at large, who respond by not drinking and driving and thus avoid official and social punishment. These deterrent sentences have been used; a trial judge passed a sentence of life imprisonment on a football hooligan as a warning to other hooligans. Though, the Court of Appeal reduced the sentence to three years. Critics point out the essential unfairness of this ‘general’ deterrence since it involves sentencing an offender to a longer term than is deserved for the specific offence and as such is a kind of ‘lottery’ sentence, which may result in the publics opinion switching sides and turning on what they now see as harsh justice. The general strategy of incarceration of offenders does not appear to be particularly effective as 65 per cent of adult prisoners re-offend within two years of release. A fact that has led to incapacitating offenders.
The community-based examples of sentences are handed down with the intention of reforming or rehabilitating an offender. For example community orders such as probation, curfews, attendance centres and community services allow punishment to be carried out without custody.
Research Findings
A survey was carried out with 500 people taking part to find out about the publics knowledge on crime levels.
The results are:
- That four out of five people continue to substantially overestimate the proportion of crime that is violent
- Only a minority (16%) of respondents correctly identified that most ‘known’ offenders are adults, not juveniles
- While most people (68%) were aware that juveniles crime is committed predominantly by males, nearly a third thought it was committed equally by females
- Over two-thirds thought that the young were becoming increasingly involved in crime but the number of known juvenile offenders has remained constant or fallen during this period.
This table shows the public’s opinions of the ‘best way’ to deal with juveniles offenders.
Results in %
10 YEAR OLD OFFENDER 15 YEAR OLD OFFENDER
Note: The columns do not add up to 100% because some of the respondent’s options (fines, punishments for parents and others) are excluded from the table.
This table shows the public’s opinions of the ‘best way’ to deal with adult offenders.
Results in %
This table shows the public’s opinion of court and other criminal justice agencies for juveniles and adult offenders.
Results in %
Bibliography
The resources I have used to find my research consist of multiple books at the Ware college library and the University of Hertfordshire library and the Internet site
