Drug treatment and testing orders
This requires the offender to take part in regular drug tests to detect the use of drugs in the bloodstream; the court closely reviews this at intervals. The offender also has to undertake treatment in relation to the drug problem. This order is managed by the probation service by a specialist drug treatment unit. If the offenders fails to comply with the order and results with a positive drugs test can lead to a breach action.
Suspended sentence supervision order
This order is usually for offenders aged twenty-one and over and those that have been sentenced in the crown court. This requires the offender to be monitored part or all of the time of suspension of a suspended prison sentence.
Community punishment order
This was previously called the community service order. This order requires the offender to do unpaid work for the benefit of the community for a set number of hours. This is supervised by the probation service. The number of hours range from forty to two hundred and forty hours depending on the offence.
Community rehabilitation order
This was previously called the probation order. This requires the offender to keep in contact with the probation service and comply with arrangements made for his/her supervision, which may include taking part in programmes. The court may demand other requirements that need to be met such as treatment for mental illness or addictions, curfew order, attending certain activities or a probation centre. This type of order can last up to three years but usually is a less short period of time. If the offender does not comply with the order then can face a heavier punishment or imprisonment for breach of order.
The community sentence for young offenders (juveniles) is slightly different as they have a long supervision order. The young offenders are placed under a three-year order; the local authority or a social worker supervises them. This type of sentence is for the juveniles aged between ten and eighteen. If however the order has been violated or failed to cooperate, the offender can face enforcement but this type of measure has never been the main focal point.
The most recent figures (National Probation Service 2001; Home Office 2001) show that the probation service supervises over 200,000 offenders at any one time, which includes:
- 61,000 on community punishment orders
- 46,000 on community rehabilitation orders
- 29,000 on the combined punishment and rehabilitation orders
- 7,000 have to pay a fine and are supervised until the fine is paid
- 80,000 are supervised on release from prison and other custodial establishments
- 25,000 of the offenders are supervised in the community
Community punishment as mentioned before is altering in its purpose; this is beneficial as it can deal with different types and brutality of crime. The community punishment order is the courts main alternative to imprisonment, it forces offenders to take part in unpaid community work with tasks such as shrub clearance, church renovations, lock-fitting schemes and many more. The order is seen as an effective method then imprisonment. The community rehabilitation order is less of a punishment order and more of a helping hand to get back on track. The offender is supervised by a probation officer who creates an action plan for the offender, if the offender fails to take a keen interest in it or fails to attend a meeting with the officer then he or she can alert the court who will re-sentence. It offers a push towards getting a job, which is seen as very helpful for the rehabilitation of offenders.
Other orders include a blend of the previously mentioned orders this is seen as the best of both orders providing punishment and then offering rehabilitation. Other orders include a tagging order this essentially puts the offender under house arrest during certain times during the day this in hypothesis keeps the offender from re-offending however there is no counselling or pressure to enter the labour market. The court may also demand a fine be paid in order to “pay back” for the criminal offence committed but this is virtually a bad practice as the offender may have to find a substantial amount of money and therefore may route to offending again in order to get the required money. In general community punishment seeks to punish and rehabilitate offenders without involving imprisonment.
I think that an if an average teenager was given community punishment it will be rather embarrassing, as it will possibly damage his or her “street” image, on the other hand if a teenager was locked up for a criminal offence s/he would exult in the boost of his or her tough guy reputation. This would not occur if the punishment were less unusual, such as sweeping the streets. If the young offenders were given such an embarrassing, yet compulsory task s/he would probably spend more time thinking the consequences. S/he may give some serious thought into education and would not want such jobs as a future career. Therefore the benefits for community sanctions are miscellaneous.
Thinking about the youth that is left in a cold and heartless prison cell would on the whole likely snub authority and would plan how s/he can avoid being incarcerated in the future.
Once allowed back into the community, the rehabilitation order allows the offender and the probation service staff have a lot of contact. The staffs act as suitable role models for the offenders. This type of punishment is extremely helpful for the offenders to confide in their supervisors and talk about any problems they might have. It also encourages employment and learning. If the offence is more serious then curfew orders are put into place, also known as “electronic tagging”. This is an alternative to prison, which takes away the freedom of the criminal and protect the public from harm. The offender has to wear an electronic tag around his/her ankle or wrist out of the public’s sight, so the probation service are aware of the offenders location. This has been an effective method of tracking offenders, for example in drug crime. This type of order allows the offender back into the community with a tracking device gradually allowing the offender to get back into society and has proven to reduce the rate of re-offending.
On the other hand, I do believe the prison system is essential for the safety of the public, as serious crimes such as murder, GBH, rape and serious drug crimes need to be dealt with by taking the offender completely out of the community for a certain time. I think without this service society will collapse and our communities will be filled with dangerous people. I strongly believe if the crime is not too serious the best option is to help the offender not to re-offend, as many concerns are that they are put into prison they associate with other prisoners, this can lead to the fortification of criminal behaviour and increase of drug crimes.
The Home Office Minister Hilary Benn announced that there would be a new community sentence programme aimed at offenders aged 18 to 20. The programme is called ‘The Intensive Control and Change Programme’. This was set up for young offenders that often re-offend. It is currently being piloted in six areas, which include places like London and West Yorkshire. Offenders that take part in the scheme are subject to daily curfews and possibly forced to wear electronic tags. They are also forced to do 25 hours per week of unpaid intense activity, which includes:
- 7 hours a week of unpaid work as reparation to the community
- Working with a mentor
- 18 hours a week at an offending behaviour programme, employment, education and training
- A compensation order will be applied, so that the offender can pay the victim for loss, injury or damage, or a fine where necessary
ICCP is specifically aimed for young adults. 42 per cent of first time offenders and one-fifth of reconvictions are offenders aged between 18 to 20. 63 percent of this age group had a problem of numeracy and literacy and were unemployed.
In conclusion, it is not easy to say weather community penalties the most effective source of punishment without sending an offender to prison, as I believe it mostly if not entirely depends on the background and readiness of the offender. I strongly believe that community sanctions have come along way and are an extremely successful process. It involves the offender being shamed in front of the community and peers and then paying back the community and then later seeking professional help to better themselves and not to re-offend. I prefer this method of punishment to imprisonment as the offender is locked up and kept under lock and key away from the victims of crime, who are not able to see their regret and sorrow, that’s only if they feel remorse. Also as mentioned earlier it give the offenders chance to interact with other criminals, possibly more dangerous then themselves. This does not educate the offenders and fails to reintegrate the offenders back into society. However, if the offenders were for example, murderers then the time in prison is hugky compulsory and a community sanctions are not acceptable. It would be beneficial after the time in prison that the offender is given a community sanction, which is also a good way to re-educated and reintegrate the offender.
Bibliography
-
Bottoms A et al, 2002, Community Penalties Change and Challenges, USA and Canada, Willan publishing
-
D.King R et al, 2000, Doing Research On Crime and Justice, Oxford, Oxford University Press
-
Maguire M et al, 2002, The Oxford Handbook Of Criminology, Oxford, Oxford University Press
-
Muncie J et al, 1997, Criminological Perspectives, London, SAGE publications Ltd
