Punishment And Rehabilitation In The Community Criminology Essay

Punishment And Rehabilitation In The Community Criminology EssayCritically evaluate the persona of the prison house as a disapprobation of the court in England and Wales all over the last 20 geezerhood.The 1990s witnessed a sharp sharpen in the politicization and in the sharpness of sendencing policy (Maguire et al, 2007). Since the 1990s legislating has been heavily criticised, this adage the abandonment of key pillars, yet the rise of others. Therefore, The sorry jurist run as fewwhat revolutionised bringing forward-moving bran- impertinenter legislation over the years that shake off impacted on the way dooms are use. The smorgasbord in government from Conservative to New Labour in addition saw a bewildered mixture of mod polices, which retain contributed and modulated the use of the prison.Since the seat war years the prison population began to expand, which led to a sense experience of crisis for the government from two perspectives. The first was in ter ms of social control. The square and rapidly rising prison population had the potential to be comprehend as a breakdown in social order. The other playing field of concern was referable to the expanding prison population and the extend in expenditure. At the time the government were trying to reduce expenditure and instigate new club sentences to limit the number of offenders who actually went to prison. Consequently, in that respect have been more theorists who have attempted to structure the criminal respectableice outline. There have also been new ideologies for how the prison should be used as a sentence. By analysing the use of the prison it will foster to define modern-day prisons in western societies, not least since there is considerable consensus that the penal system in England and Wales has been in a state of ever increase crisis since the 1960s (Maguire et al, 2007).Statistics show a major(ip) increase in the prison population. In 1989 the prison population was 48,600 throughout the year and in 2008 the prison population increased to 83,190. criminal offense measured by the British Crime Survey (BCS) fell from 18.5 million offences in 1993 to 11.7 million by 2003/04. BCS criminal offense fell by around a third in England and Wales at the same time as the prison population increased by two-thirds ( fundament Office 2008). These statistics suggest that the use of the prison has been truly effective by how recorded evil rates have fell over the years and that the number of offenders going to prison as increased. However, it strikes controversy due to the increase in prison populations. In 1997, Labour had created 16,000 more prison places when the governance were trying to reduce expenditure in that area.The lead up to the 1991 Criminal referee Act witnessed a shift in penal policy. The on-going concerns of ever gro break throughg prison verse accompanied a general disenchantment with the rehabilitative ideal and concerns were r aised rough the matching of sentences to offenders or else than the abhorrence (Brownlee 1998). The conservative government had issued major changes to the sentencing theoretical account influenced by retributivist guess and the concept of just leave where offenders were punished in proportion to the offensives they had committed. to a fault the 1990 white paper, Crime, nicety and Protecting the Public introduced new legislation in the criminal justice system. Now, Community sentences could be used as alternatives kinda than the use of imprisonment. bag Office (1990) also claimed a more unvarying approach to sentencing so that criminals get there just deserts.The central aims of sentencing were just desserts and proportional sentences save, deterrence was demoted as a sentence. This criticism was do of the 1991 Act and 1993 Act as there was an unworkable hybrid sentencing mannikin.The Criminal Justice Act 1991 was clear that the main sentencing decision was to calculat e offence unassumingness and a proportionate (commensurate) sentence. Prison therefore, was used to keep people in custody by the unassumingness of the offence (Easton et al, 2005). Consequently, the use of the prison had changed by acknowledging the seriousness of the offence, whereas in the beginning anybody who committed a crime would just go to prison. Thus, soulfulness convicted with murder would go to prison, whereas somebody who was vandalising would more likely dear a fine or have a fraternity sentence depending on the circumstances.This significant piece of legislation appeared to pave the way for familiarity sentences, and indeed the Probation Service to play a central role in criminal justice policy. Courts were now guided by seriousness thresholds, which necessary them to justify why a sentence was either serious adequate for a community penalty, or so serious that only a custodial sentence could be warranted (Cavadino Dignan 2002). By 1993 however the incomin g Home Secretary made it clear that he was an advocate of custodial measures for offenders in his statement Prison Works.The 1993 Criminal Justice Act rescinded on some of the positive aspects of the earlier 1991 Act, and marked a resurrection of law and order rhetoric in determining criminal justice policy. By 1995 in the verdancy theme Strengthening Punishment in the Community, despite the considerable changes brought more or less to community sentences by the 1991 Criminal Justice Act, the claim was made that probation inspection was still regarded as a soft option. The subsequent White Paper Protecting the Public clearly emphasised the need for community sentences to have a punitive rather than rehabilitative focus, and called upon these sentences to be physically, mentally or emotionally challenging with a stress on personal responsibility and discipline.The rapid increase in the prison population and the numbers sent to prison re gifted a radical break with the virtual perceptual constancy of previous decades. Even so, two considerations should be borne in mind before attributing the total responsibility for the increase in prison population merely to Michael Howard. First there is some evidence that unrestricted opinion took a more punitive turn in the 1990s, which might explain why the anticipated public outcry against Howards policies was so muted, and why the mass media were for the most part supportive of these policies (Hough, 1996). Ryan (2002) also argued that a series of moral panics was manipulated by politicians to win the support of voters for a tougher law and order platform. Populist Punitiveness had a major effect on legislation because it became central to the concerns of the general public and there responses to crime.A synopsis of the 1991 and 1993 Criminal Justice Act highlight the use of the prison by how serious the crime is. The prison is used to capture liberty and by 1993 and the use of community sentences made it more determinable by the level of crime committed by using seriousness thresholds. However, by 1995 they recognised that the probation suffice was to soft and needed amendments. The use of the prison was now seen as a last resort or for very serious offences. In addition, public opinion had a major influence on crime, which is argued angiotensin-converting enzyme of the reasons why the prison population is said to be so high due to the publics view and fear of crime.In may 1997, the Conservative Party was ejected from big businessman as Labour Led by Tony Blair enjoyed a landslide victory. Tony Blair, thought to alter Labour to New Labour, and one of the ways he did this was through public image by beseeming tough on crime (Mathews 1999). Labour introduced a various kernel of legislation, which led to the circulation of community penalties. This was evident in the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act, which created the dose Treatment Testing Order, and the 2000 Criminal Justice and Cour t Services Act. This brought about the Probation Order, Community Service Order and the Combination Order. Two further sentences were also created that are the Exclusion Order and the Drug moderation Order. However, the Drug Abstinence Order was later abandoned as it was proved unworkable this could be due to Populist Punitivism. The conservative government have a right wing approach, whereas New Labour comes from the left. This however, had little effect for the use of the prison as labour emphasised on the conservative approach to crime and made it stronger.Although there was new legislation that gave the court more former and options over the offender, prison numbers continued to rise. This was also apparent when David Blunkett became Home Secretary as the prison population started to rapidly grow months afterward (Guardian 2001). In 2001, the prison crisis of over crowding, and the fiscal problems were highlighted again, which resulted in new legislation from results drawn fr om the Halliday Report.The review was born out of a belief that the present sentencing framework suffers from serious deficiencies that reduce its contributions to crime reduction and public sanction (Halliday 2001).The report highlighted key limitations and suggested new approaches to strengthen the criminal justice system. angiotensin-converting enzyme of the highlighted problems was the short prison sentences of less than 12 months and that they had no effect on the offender. It was also noted that persistent offenders do not appear to commence significantly longer prison sentences. Halliday (2001) shows that in a sample of anthropoid offenders aged over 18 and sentenced in1998, the average sentence for burglary for an offender with 10 or more previous convictions was only 4 months more than somebody with no convictions.The Halliday Report led to the White Paper in 2002, Justice For All, which sets out the Governments far reaching proposals for the reform of the criminal just ice system and resulted in the 2003 Criminal Justice Act. The Halliday Report noted that just deserts and the penalisation fitting the crime are key features of the statutory framework set up in 1991 and that there is nothing wrong with this in itself. However the report now focuses on three tiers of seriousness completed by the Act fines, community punishment and custody (Easton, 2005). This created a new framework and therefore saw the collapse of just deserts. Instead of commission on just how serious the crime was for punishment, the court now had power to punish the offender in many of different ways depending on the offence.From the 2001 Halliday Report and the 2002 White Paper the new findings created a new framework to sentences. The Act clearly sets out the purposes of sentencing, which include retributive, deterrence and reductive, reform rehabilitation, public protection, and reparation, (Criminal Justice Act 2003). The Halliday Report also influenced the new legislat ion in 2003 by identifying a gap in the sentencing framework. The Act replaced all the giving community sentences with a generic community sentence. This allowed the courts to attach requirements to this community sentence from a number of options supervision, unpaid work, activities, prohibited activities, accredited programmes, curfew, exclusion, residence, mental wellness treatment, drug rehabilitation, alcohol treatment, attendance centre (for under 25 yr olds) (Criminal Justice Act 2003).The Criminal Justice Act 2003 also introduced a number of other measures such as Conditional Cautions, Strengthened postponement of sentence to include an element of probation supervision, Custody Plus, Intermittent Custody, new suspend Sentence Order however, these measures show unclear boundaries between community and custodial penalties. Thus, the argument against this is whether the courts will favour a custody followed by a rehabilitative sentence and that they will become more popular, which will help reduce overcrowding. Faulkner (2002) prior to the 2003 Criminal Justice Act urged caution in seeing the introduction of a new sentencing framework as the service to addressing crime. He states that If the new sentences are to contribute to reduced rates of crime or re-offending, they will at the very least have to be applied in the context of a prison system which is no longer distracted by overcrowding, of a well-resourced and innovative National Probation Service. This may suggest that there is a covert meaning under the new framework for the use of imprisonment. By utilising community sentences it is thought that this will dissolve prison space, which will stop over crowding and make punishment worth while. However, statistics show far greater use is being made of the prison and probation service because in 1996, 85,000 offenders were given a custodial sentence and 133,000 were given a community sentence. By 2001, both had increased by 25 per cent, with 107,000 offenders given a custodial sentence and 166,000 offenders receiving a community sentence (reference).The use of the prison as changed significantly over the years, with a major influence from the change in government and the change in the sentencing framework. Originally, the prison was used for any type of crime but due to over crowding the government came to recognise that the prison should be used for the more serious offences and introduced the community service for petty crimes. Community service was perceived to free up prison space and the fiscal crisis, however the prison population kept expanding over the years. This could be due to the numbers of offenders caught and sentenced as police powers had expanded or the increase in the general seriousness of the crimes brought to justice or the increase in the sentence severity for specific offences. New legislation allowed the courts to have an option, however, this soon expanded focus more on community services using the pri son as the last resort. Nobody wants to go to prison therefore by subject a community service it is giving them a strong pattern using the prison as the most feared punishment. Individuals who then break the community service punishment will then be sent to prison.A new Act came Criminal justice and immigration act 2008 brought forward the release date of prisoners serving sentences greater than 4 years obligate before 4 April 2005. It did not apply to prisoners serving life sentences or serving sentences for violent or sexual offences. This section came into force on 9 June 2008. This was in order to alleviate prison overcrowding.prisons are for suspects refused loose and detained before trial, or convicted but not yet sentenced, are held in custody to experience that the course of justice proceeds to its conclusion and that everyone interested is protected against the likelihood of harm in the interim.The system needs to ensure that the increased investment in prison and prob ation is targeted effectively to reduce crime and maintain public confidence. The use of prison and probation has increased by over a quarter since 1996, even though the number of people arrested and sentenced has remained by and large constant. The growth is due to the increased severity of sentences, which is linked to the fall in the use of fines.terrorists3 strikesmandatory life sentence 2003