4.1 Introduction
The current chapter pertains to present secondary data findings and the discussion and analysis with an aim to conduct detailed comparative analysis of the data that has been gathered for the community-based punishments and the custodial services. The data for the current research study has been gathered from secondary sources that have been identified as relevant for the current research study. By summarizing the key factors, benefits and effectiveness of community-based punishments over the custodial sentences, the chapter also includes a coherent discussion on the research objectives. Furthermore, the chapter includes the development of conclusion based on the secondary data that has been gathered for the purpose of research and for deriving valid findings for the current dissertation writing service.
4.2 Comparative Analysis of Community-based Punishments and Custodial Sentences
Numerous research articles, books and authority reports published by the different countries’ government have researched and summarized numerous similarities and differences, which justify the community-based punishments as the better and soft alternative for the custodial sentences and imprisonments.
4.2.1 Differences between community-based punishments and custodial sentences
4.2.1.1 Offenders Filtering
One of the major differences highlighting the effectiveness of the community-based punishments over imprisonment is filtering of offenders. Department of Corrections, (2012) in their authority report discussing the criminal justice system of New Zealand and spotting out the differences in non-community based alternatives to imprisonment stated that criminal justice system of custodial sentences does not consider significance of managing offenders through filtering them. The filters can be placed on the type and intensity of the crime or the age of the criminals. Additionally, the authors further added in context of the alternative non-custodial punishments to deal with the more serious statistics of sentencing in the country. Among the different non-custodial punishments highlighted in this study, include “These include infringements or fixed penalties, police diversion, police warnings and cautions, and family group conferences (for young offenders)”.
In consistence with the opinions of Department of Corrections, (2012), authors Henrich et al., (2010) also acknowledged the need to categorize and classify the criminals based on the intensities of their crimes and subsequently impose different type of punishments on them. As stated by Henrich et al., (2010) community-based punishments is beneficial for small criminals so that these small criminals do not get into contact with other big and serious criminals that have done murder or something for which they were thrown into the prison. It can be examined that there are numerous individuals that consider the need and importance of some sort of imprisonment as necessary in some conditions specifically when the offender is demonstrably a continuing danger to community.
4.2.1.2 Overcrowding Issues
Another difference between the custodial sentences and the community-based punishments is the overcrowding. Ardley, (2005) in his research has confirmed the effectiveness of community-based punishments in decreasing the number of prisoners and as a result, prison becomes less packed. In the similar context, less security is required in the prisons when the small criminals are transferred to the community rehabilitation centre and this can help police to focus on the security of the jail as well. Authors of dissertation writing believe that harsher imprisonments are unable to curb crime rates. Taylor, (2011) also said that overcrowding of the prisons is a key challenge faced by the European and Britain countries. It can be depicted that prisons are there for the protection of public however, the rights and needs of the offender also come out as crucial element. Overcrowded prisons are unable to fulfill the needs of all the offenders simultaneously.
4.2.1.3 Cost and Expenditures of Punishment
Travis & Sparrow, (2010) in their study have substantiated that on average imprisonment costs £38,000 a year to send someone to prison. The higher cost of the imprisonment can be controlled through community-based punishments. Such punishments as an alternative can help jail authorities incurring less cost in the management of the activities related to prisons and jails. Researches have found parole and conditional imprisonment as effective alternative for the offenders.
In contrary, authors Rix et al., (2010) have highlighted the community-based punishments such as Fine Payment Work orders and probation as effective only when the authorities implementing these concentrate highlight on the responsible factors such as “untrained placement supervisors; the lack of clarity and consistency in monitoring attendance and responding to non-compliance; and the relatively high administrative costs” (p.5).
4.2.2 Similarities between community-based punishments and custodial sentences
4.2.2.1 Reoffending
The inability of the custodial sentencing in filtering criminals in past studies have also reported reoffending as the critical issue demanding implementation of community-based punishments. There are several contrasting statistics about the increasing rate of reoffending both in non-custodial convictions and in community-based punishments. Grimwood & Berman, (2012) within their research have reported the statistics of the Ministry of Justice in England and Wales. They pointed out that reoffending rates in the country are rising for the offenders “who were released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, received a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine in a given twelve month period (p.23)”. It shows the ineffectiveness of the community sentencing in dealing with the crime rates. There are several underlying factors and reasons behind reoffending such as moral implications of criminality and experiences in the prison.
Grimwood & Berman, (2012) argued that it can be depicted although custodial sentences are necessary for helping an addict in solving his addiction problems. The sentences are also seen as helpful in teaching range of both cognitive and practical skills to the prisoners. However, such skill learning and development is also possible within the community-based punishments. Grimwood & Berman, (2012) also argue that prison sentences have the potential to weaken the protective factors such as education, mental and physical health. Likewise, such a decrease in the protective support can reduce the rehabilitation of the offenders.
4.2.2.2 Need for Policy Intentions
Additionally, McIvor et al., (2013) have emphasized that both the custodial sentences and the community need strong policy intentions for better implementation. Authors in discussing the experience of introducing unpaid work for offenders stated that this type of community-based punishment is effective for those who are unable to pay fines. Authors argue that implementation with strong policies have positive effects on the level of default at each stage of the enforcement process.
4.3 Discussion of Research Findings
Both literature review and critical analysis findings can be analysed to achieve the key aim of the current research and to accomplish research objectives. The key guiding aim of the research was to investigate Community-Based Punishments as an Alternative to a Custodial Sentence. The objective of the study was to analyse the concepts behind the two options and the effectiveness and benefits of the community-based punishments as a soft alternative to the custodial sentences. The comparative analysis findings confirmed the evidences gathered from the other European countries.
Both literature and comparative analysis described that the community-based punishments are related to the punishments awarded by the judiciary in which the culprit is not sent to jail (Alarid, 2016; Eley et al., 2016). The community punishments are based on restorative justice while the custodial sentences are focused on the retributive approach. The findings confirm restorative justice as an approach considering crime as a social subject affecting social interrelationships (Rodriguez, 2007)while retributive approach considers crime as a legal offence subjected to proportionate punishments i.e. custodial sentences (Cullen et al., 2000; Markel, 2009).
Both types of punishments are sub-divided according to the needs of the victims and offenders in different European countries (Ardley, 2005; McIvor et al., 2013; Department of Corrections, 2012). However, under community-based punishments, criminals are being sent back to the community to perform different community services and to ensure little punishments from the society in order to offer that culprits chance to redeem themselves. The discussion further highlighted that these sorts of punishments are primarily offered to those individuals that are not involved in dangerous crimes and do not have the past history when it comes to getting involved in any illegal activity or activities that can be termed as anti-state. It has been identified through the discussion that these kinds of punishments can consider to be beneficial for the authorities who are facing different issues related to overcrowding of jails due to an excessive amount of criminals that have been put into these jails (Grattet et al., 2009; Groot & Van Den Brink, 2010; Garvey, 2014). Therefore, the establishment is looking towards these kinds of punishments for the individuals involved in minute crimes. The rationale behind this activity is also related to providing opportunities to the individuals who have not been involved in criminal activities before a chance to improve themselves. Furthermore, custodial sentences are not able to rehabilitate the offenders and ultimately helpful in reducing the reoffending rate (Grimwood & Berman, 2012). It was also found that both of the punitive approaches are based on the policy intentions and implementation measures planned and acted upon for successful implementation of the alternatives.
4.4 Conclusion
From the comparative analysis of the community-based punishments and the custodial sentencing highlighted that community-based punishments are beneficial for the society in general as they are helpful for guiding the criminals in improving themselves and leading a better life than what they have been doing before. However, such efforts are not effective and successful until appropriate factors highlighted above are taken into account. The chapter concludes that community-based punishments are generally imposed in cases different from the custodial sentencing cases. Therefore, similarities and differences between these two punitive approaches comes out as necessary for the successful implementation of community-based punishments within UK, as a soft alternative. The next chapter of the study presents research conclusion and recommendations.
The current chapter pertains to present secondary data findings and the discussion and analysis with an aim to conduct detailed comparative analysis of the data that has been gathered for the community-based punishments and the custodial services. The data for the current research study has been gathered from secondary sources that have been identified as relevant for the current research study. By summarizing the key factors, benefits and effectiveness of community-based punishments over the custodial sentences, the chapter also includes a coherent discussion on the research objectives. Furthermore, the chapter includes the development of conclusion based on the secondary data that has been gathered for the purpose of research and for deriving valid findings for the current dissertation writing service.
4.2 Comparative Analysis of Community-based Punishments and Custodial Sentences
Numerous research articles, books and authority reports published by the different countries’ government have researched and summarized numerous similarities and differences, which justify the community-based punishments as the better and soft alternative for the custodial sentences and imprisonments.
4.2.1 Differences between community-based punishments and custodial sentences
4.2.1.1 Offenders Filtering
One of the major differences highlighting the effectiveness of the community-based punishments over imprisonment is filtering of offenders. Department of Corrections, (2012) in their authority report discussing the criminal justice system of New Zealand and spotting out the differences in non-community based alternatives to imprisonment stated that criminal justice system of custodial sentences does not consider significance of managing offenders through filtering them. The filters can be placed on the type and intensity of the crime or the age of the criminals. Additionally, the authors further added in context of the alternative non-custodial punishments to deal with the more serious statistics of sentencing in the country. Among the different non-custodial punishments highlighted in this study, include “These include infringements or fixed penalties, police diversion, police warnings and cautions, and family group conferences (for young offenders)”.
In consistence with the opinions of Department of Corrections, (2012), authors Henrich et al., (2010) also acknowledged the need to categorize and classify the criminals based on the intensities of their crimes and subsequently impose different type of punishments on them. As stated by Henrich et al., (2010) community-based punishments is beneficial for small criminals so that these small criminals do not get into contact with other big and serious criminals that have done murder or something for which they were thrown into the prison. It can be examined that there are numerous individuals that consider the need and importance of some sort of imprisonment as necessary in some conditions specifically when the offender is demonstrably a continuing danger to community.
4.2.1.2 Overcrowding Issues
Another difference between the custodial sentences and the community-based punishments is the overcrowding. Ardley, (2005) in his research has confirmed the effectiveness of community-based punishments in decreasing the number of prisoners and as a result, prison becomes less packed. In the similar context, less security is required in the prisons when the small criminals are transferred to the community rehabilitation centre and this can help police to focus on the security of the jail as well. Authors of dissertation writing believe that harsher imprisonments are unable to curb crime rates. Taylor, (2011) also said that overcrowding of the prisons is a key challenge faced by the European and Britain countries. It can be depicted that prisons are there for the protection of public however, the rights and needs of the offender also come out as crucial element. Overcrowded prisons are unable to fulfill the needs of all the offenders simultaneously.
4.2.1.3 Cost and Expenditures of Punishment
Travis & Sparrow, (2010) in their study have substantiated that on average imprisonment costs £38,000 a year to send someone to prison. The higher cost of the imprisonment can be controlled through community-based punishments. Such punishments as an alternative can help jail authorities incurring less cost in the management of the activities related to prisons and jails. Researches have found parole and conditional imprisonment as effective alternative for the offenders.
In contrary, authors Rix et al., (2010) have highlighted the community-based punishments such as Fine Payment Work orders and probation as effective only when the authorities implementing these concentrate highlight on the responsible factors such as “untrained placement supervisors; the lack of clarity and consistency in monitoring attendance and responding to non-compliance; and the relatively high administrative costs” (p.5).
4.2.2 Similarities between community-based punishments and custodial sentences
4.2.2.1 Reoffending
The inability of the custodial sentencing in filtering criminals in past studies have also reported reoffending as the critical issue demanding implementation of community-based punishments. There are several contrasting statistics about the increasing rate of reoffending both in non-custodial convictions and in community-based punishments. Grimwood & Berman, (2012) within their research have reported the statistics of the Ministry of Justice in England and Wales. They pointed out that reoffending rates in the country are rising for the offenders “who were released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, received a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine in a given twelve month period (p.23)”. It shows the ineffectiveness of the community sentencing in dealing with the crime rates. There are several underlying factors and reasons behind reoffending such as moral implications of criminality and experiences in the prison.
Grimwood & Berman, (2012) argued that it can be depicted although custodial sentences are necessary for helping an addict in solving his addiction problems. The sentences are also seen as helpful in teaching range of both cognitive and practical skills to the prisoners. However, such skill learning and development is also possible within the community-based punishments. Grimwood & Berman, (2012) also argue that prison sentences have the potential to weaken the protective factors such as education, mental and physical health. Likewise, such a decrease in the protective support can reduce the rehabilitation of the offenders.
4.2.2.2 Need for Policy Intentions
Additionally, McIvor et al., (2013) have emphasized that both the custodial sentences and the community need strong policy intentions for better implementation. Authors in discussing the experience of introducing unpaid work for offenders stated that this type of community-based punishment is effective for those who are unable to pay fines. Authors argue that implementation with strong policies have positive effects on the level of default at each stage of the enforcement process.
4.3 Discussion of Research Findings
Both literature review and critical analysis findings can be analysed to achieve the key aim of the current research and to accomplish research objectives. The key guiding aim of the research was to investigate Community-Based Punishments as an Alternative to a Custodial Sentence. The objective of the study was to analyse the concepts behind the two options and the effectiveness and benefits of the community-based punishments as a soft alternative to the custodial sentences. The comparative analysis findings confirmed the evidences gathered from the other European countries.
Both literature and comparative analysis described that the community-based punishments are related to the punishments awarded by the judiciary in which the culprit is not sent to jail (Alarid, 2016; Eley et al., 2016). The community punishments are based on restorative justice while the custodial sentences are focused on the retributive approach. The findings confirm restorative justice as an approach considering crime as a social subject affecting social interrelationships (Rodriguez, 2007)while retributive approach considers crime as a legal offence subjected to proportionate punishments i.e. custodial sentences (Cullen et al., 2000; Markel, 2009).
Both types of punishments are sub-divided according to the needs of the victims and offenders in different European countries (Ardley, 2005; McIvor et al., 2013; Department of Corrections, 2012). However, under community-based punishments, criminals are being sent back to the community to perform different community services and to ensure little punishments from the society in order to offer that culprits chance to redeem themselves. The discussion further highlighted that these sorts of punishments are primarily offered to those individuals that are not involved in dangerous crimes and do not have the past history when it comes to getting involved in any illegal activity or activities that can be termed as anti-state. It has been identified through the discussion that these kinds of punishments can consider to be beneficial for the authorities who are facing different issues related to overcrowding of jails due to an excessive amount of criminals that have been put into these jails (Grattet et al., 2009; Groot & Van Den Brink, 2010; Garvey, 2014). Therefore, the establishment is looking towards these kinds of punishments for the individuals involved in minute crimes. The rationale behind this activity is also related to providing opportunities to the individuals who have not been involved in criminal activities before a chance to improve themselves. Furthermore, custodial sentences are not able to rehabilitate the offenders and ultimately helpful in reducing the reoffending rate (Grimwood & Berman, 2012). It was also found that both of the punitive approaches are based on the policy intentions and implementation measures planned and acted upon for successful implementation of the alternatives.
4.4 Conclusion
From the comparative analysis of the community-based punishments and the custodial sentencing highlighted that community-based punishments are beneficial for the society in general as they are helpful for guiding the criminals in improving themselves and leading a better life than what they have been doing before. However, such efforts are not effective and successful until appropriate factors highlighted above are taken into account. The chapter concludes that community-based punishments are generally imposed in cases different from the custodial sentencing cases. Therefore, similarities and differences between these two punitive approaches comes out as necessary for the successful implementation of community-based punishments within UK, as a soft alternative. The next chapter of the study presents research conclusion and recommendations.
No comments:
Post a Comment