strugglingstudent 4 | 151 ☆
Oct 22, 2008 | #1
On behalf of a friend I have been asked to post an essay she wrote for academia-research.com. When she was given this order no essential sources were requested by the customer. After completion the student then started asking for essential sources to be included. The student also changed the title of the essay and asked for all the changes in the CJA to be discussed and not just the sentencing changes. Anyway several emails later and my friend had the order reassigned to another writer. My friend just wants to make sure the student cannot still use her work by submitting it on the internet so that a university plagairism scanner will probably pick this up.
I told her that academia research should have intervened in this argument and told the student that as she did not specify sources at the beginning she could not ask for changes of this kind later. I told my friend that I would post the piece on here to help her in her cause to stop her work being submitted when she has not been paid anything for it.
Here is the essay, which according to the student does not deal with the changes in the CJA and does not answer the question posed. Glad to see academia look after their writers (not)
Introduction
This study intends to examine the way in which the Criminal Justice Act 2003 has impacted on the English legal system. In order to do this it will be necessary to discuss the specific changes introduced by the Act and the intention of the government in introducing these changes. A brief overview of the content of the Act and when it came into force will be included in the opening section. The study will then go on to discuss what the government had hoped to achieve through the introduction of the Act and the difficulties that have been experienced in implementing those changes. Within this framework the research paper will consider the rationale for the changes and the benefits that the government anticipated would be experienced through the reforms.
Having discussed the reasons behind the changes and the anticipated benefits to the community the paper will examine whether those expectations have been achieved. This will involve studying whether crime levels have decreased or increased since its introduction.
The main thesis of this paper is to consider the impact on the community and on the crime rate in relation to sentence reduction in situations where the accused enters a guilty plea. This study will also consider whether the new legislation has assisted in speeding up the legal process in getting cases heard at an earlier opportunity and the advantages and disadvantages of speeding up this process.
From the above it should be possible to reach a conclusion on the effectiveness of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and to highlight the failures and successes that have resulted from the changes.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 received Royal Assent in November 2003 and was introduced in response to problems highlighted by a series of reports conducted by the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and the Law Commission. The central theme that seems to emanate from all of these reports is the need for reform in the criminal justice system. All of the reports seem to highlight the frustration caused by the delay in getting cases brought before the courts, the rise in crime levels nationally, overcrowding in prisons and the unnecessary problems caused by the misdirection of cases to the relevant courts.
In 2001 a White Paper issued by the Home Office entitled Justice for All highlighted the need for reform of the criminal justice system. The paper focussed on previous studies carried out by Sir Robin Auld (2001) and John Halliday (2001). Both of these papers were commissioned with the intention of determining the need for reform of the criminal justice system. Sir Robin Auld's paper entitled A Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales looked at the specific area of re-structuring within the court system and reviewing the allocation of work to the various courts. Sir Auld was concerned that in many instances cases were being directed to the wrong courts and that issues that could be dealt with in the Magistrates courts were being referred to the Crown Court. The process of transferring cases in this manner was causing a backload of cases to mount up and would often result in unnecessary delays in bringing the accused to justice. The aim of his paper was to emphasise the need to reform the court procedure so that matters could be dealt with more expeditiously and that only the more serious cases would be sent to the Crown court. In his paper he highlights the need for better management of the criminal justice system as a whole and makes it clear that in many cases unnecessary work is created within the system.
Sir Auld highlighted that one of the main reasons why cases were sent to the wrong court was that the accused not being charged with the appropriate charge. He pinpoints the way in which the police have traditionally been responsible for making charging decisions and comments that he feels this is inappropriate since officers lack the legal skills to determine the correct charge. This issue was addressed in the Justice for All report where recommendations were made to place the responsibility for charging decisions to be handled by the Crown Prosecution Service. It was deemed to be a logical solution to the problem highlighted by Sir Auld since prosecutors have the necessary qualification to determine the most appropriate charge for the offence. When the Criminal Justice Act 2003 was enacted these recommendations were included within the Act and the responsibility for charging advice was transferred from the police onto the CPS.
Halliday (2001) was commissioned to focus on reforms within the punishments meted out by the courts. In his paper, Making Punishments Work, he was asked to consider the deficiencies within the sentencing framework and the effectiveness on crime reduction through the sentencing of offenders. Within his paper he examined the responses of the general public to the regime at that time and noted that public confidence in the criminal justice system was very low. He commented that serious reforms were needed in order to increase public confidence and also that sentencing policies needed to be reviewed in order to ensure that the punishment fitted the crime. Halliday stated that for many offenders and offence types the use of custodial sentences was not the most appropriate form of punishment.
Justice for All reflected the recommendations made by both of these reports and emphasised the need for changes to the CJS in order to make the system more cost effective and efficient. This report recommended the establishment of the Sentencing Guidance Council whose role it would be to determine the most appropriate sentence for the offence committed. Their remit would also be to look at new forms of punishment that could be applied as an alternative to custodial sentences. The reasoning behind this was that in many cases prison was no longer regarded as a deterrent by offenders and rates of recidivism seemed to suggest that imprisonment did not work.
These comments were reflected in the changes enacted by the CJA 2003 which has resulted in the reduction of sentences for guilty pleas. The government believed that by reducing sentences overcrowding in prisons would be eased. Encouraging guilty pleas was aimed at reducing costs incurred through unnecessary court actions as well as speeding up the justice process. They believed that this would also have the knock-on effect of increasing public confidence in the CJS as they would be encouraged by the fact that offenders were brought to justice more speedily.
Although sentence reduction is more likely to occur in less serious crimes, the government believed that sentences could also be reduced for more serious crimes if the accused entered a guilty plea at the earliest possible opportunity. The government felt that obtaining a guilty plea from the accused would not only save the expense of a lengthy trial but would also spare the victim or the families of the victim from having to go through the ordeal of a trial. In order to stave off criticism from the public in relation to sentence reduction for more serious crimes the courts were instructed that an admission of guilt was insufficient unless the accused fully admitted the offence and demonstrated that they were aware that their actions were wrong.
In order to be able to achieve an increase in the number of guilty pleas the government had to also include reforms within the CJA in relation to the early disclosure of evidence. Traditionally the prosecution would not disclose all elements of the case against the accused until the trial date was imminent. At this stage a full file would have been completed by the police and would contain all the evidence the prosecution would be relying on in court to prove the guilt of the defendant.
Under the reforms the police now have to prepare a file which contains all the evidence the defence are likely to need to be able to advise their client on plea by the first court hearing. The aim of this is to encourage defence counsels to instruct their clients to plead guilty at the first hearing rather than have to request the court to set a date to hear the case. In cases that can be dealt with by the Magistrates in respect of sentencing powers a guilty plea at the first hearing can result in the case being dealt with on the same day and punishment meted out. This has obvious benefits in terms of court costs as well as bringing a speedy resolution for the victim of the crime. This is of particular importance with domestic violence cases where frequently prolonged delays in getting the case heard in the court can lead to retractions being made by the victim and the offender evading punishment.
According to the Sentencing Guidelines Council sentence reduction is justified because:
' a guilty plea avoids the need for a trial (thus enabling other cases to be disposed of more expeditiously), shortens the gap between charge and sentence, saves considerable cost, and, in the case of an early plea, saves victims and witnesses from the concern about having to give evidence.'
Although the intended aim of the reforms was to reduce crime and strengthen public confidence these have still not been achieved (The Times, 2008). With regard to public confidence many believe that the courts are being too lenient and that community sentences fail to compensate the victim for the harm caused. In a letter written by the Chairman of the Committee, the Right Honourable John Denham MP to the Chairman of the Sentencing Guidelines Council he makes the observation that in his opinion:
'it is clear that the general public does not fully understand the rationale for having discounts for pleading guilty.'
He goes further to suggest that in order to address this problem
'...the Home Office, in liaison with the Council, should be pro-active in seeking to extend public understanding of the sound reasons underpinning this policy.'
He also went on to states that:
'...the Committee considers that public confidence is diminished by the way indeterminate sentences are calculated and presented to the public. The very concept of applying a sentence reduction to an indeterminate sentence is very hard to explain to the public. It is the combination of the discount for guilty pleas and the halving of the overall sentence, in accordance with the Criminal Justice Act 2003, that gives rise to most controversy.'
In December 2007 Lord Carter was commissioned to carry out a review of the prison system and in particular to comment on the future of the use of prisons as a form of punishment. The review entitled 'Securing the future, Proposals for the efficient and sustainable use of custody in England and Wales December 2007' examined how the supply and demand for places in prison could be balanced. Lord Carter in the review commented that
'The increased prison population of the past decade is a result of a concerted and successful effort to catch, convict and detain for longer periods the most dangerous and serious offenders.'
The recommendations made by Lord Carter to tackle the issue of prison overcrowding included building of more prisons , larger prisons to be built and the closing down of the older and more inefficient prisons and a more structured framework for sentencing (Lord Carter, 2007).Lord Carter also went onto to recommend the modification of the use of custody for low risk offenders and encouraged the government to consider alternative remedies for these offenders so that custody could be reserved for the more serious and dangerous offenders.
In order to be able to comment on the success of the reforms it is necessary to consider the alternative punishments that have been introduced through the 2003 Act.
In issuing guidance to the SGC the Act offered the Council alternative punishments for offenders under the guise of community punishments orders. These orders included curfew orders, exclusion orders, attendance centre orders, supervision orders and action plan orders. Extended use of Anti Social Behaviour Orders was also encouraged which was further bolstered through the introduction of the Anti Social Behaviour Act 2003. The government considered that in many cases one of the above orders might be a more appropriate form of punishment to incarceration. In order to reach a conclusion as to whether this is the case it is necessary to analyse how effective community punishments have been in reducing crime levels.
In a report carried out by Peter Gould in relation to the effectiveness of electronic tagging he posed the question whether tagging had impacted on the level of crime. In his report he quotes Harry Fletcher from the National Association of Probation Officers as declaring that it is too soon to tell whether tagging will deter criminals from re-offending. In the reported Fletcher is quoted as saying
'...there is still no evidence that it has reduced crime or prevented offenders from committing further offences. What we don't know is what happens to the individuals once the tagging period has stopped. My assumption is that a large proportion of them regress'
If the assertion made by Fletcher is true this effectively means that the assertions made by the public that community punishments are soft options is essentially correct.
In a Home Office study conducted on electronic tagging in Manchester, Norfolk and Reading between 1995 and 1996 83 curfew orders were issued, with 47 of these being in one of the trial areas (Home Office, 1995). It was noticed in the study that the use of curfew orders increased in number over the year and that most of the 24% of orders that were revoked ended with the offender being given a custodial sentence instead. The survey also revealed that 9% of the offenders breached the curfew order either by not attending when they were supposed to of by interfering with the device (Mair and Mortimer).
Surveys carried out by the Home Office looking at the successes in reducing the prison population through the use of community penalties seem to suggest that these do not work in reducing the prison population. Success has often been judged through examination of reconviction rates (Aubrey and Hough, 1997). One such study carried out by the Home Office revealed that there was no significant difference between reconviction rates for those who had been imprisoned and those that had been given community penalties (May and Wadwell, 2001). The study carried out by the Home office considered a multitude of factors that might affect the reconviction rate such as the criminal history of the offender, unemployment, drugs, accommodation and finances (Mair and May).
According to the BCS 2007-08 there has been a slight increase in the number of people who consider their local police are doing a good job. The survey reveals that in 2006-07 51% of those surveyed thought that the police were doing a good job compared with an increase of 2% for the 2007-08 figures. The survey also found that public confidence in the fair treatment of people by the police had increased although there was less confidence in the effectiveness of police in dealing with crime related issues. The majority of those surveyed were concerned that minor crimes generally received very little attention from officers with only 43% of those surveyed stating that they were confident in the way their local police dealt with minor offences. The overall opinion of the effectiveness of the CJS saw a slight increase, however, only 37% of those surveyed were confident in the system as a whole. The report also highlighted that the vast majority of those involved in the survey believed that crime was on the increase despite the statistics showing that there has been a decline in the last 2 years.
One of the primary reasons why public confidence in sentence reduction is lacking is due in part to the general perception, mentioned above, that crime is on the increase. In order to convince the public that sentence reduction is justified in some cases it is necessary to prove that incarceration is not the answer to crime reduction. The public, as a whole, tends to be distrusting of government statistics in relation to crime levels, and an influx in violent crimes in recent times has been manipulated to cause a panic amongst society. In this state of panic the public become blinded and have convinced themselves that incarceration is the only way to protect others from harm.
Conclusion
From the above it can be concluded that in some cases crime levels have reduced. This could be partly due to the alternative forms of punishment that the courts have been able to utilise. Research seems to suggest similar levels of recidivism for those released from prison and those that have been sentenced to community punishments. This could suggest that those that re-offend will continues to do so regardless of whether they have been awarded a custodial sentence or whether they have been given a community punishment order.
Public confidence in the criminal justice has not increased as anticipated which seems to suggest that the government need to do more to convince the public that incarceration does not solve the problem.
References
Aubrey, R & Hough, M, Assessing offenders' needs: assessment scales for the probation service Criminal Policy Research Unit, South Bank University, London Home Office Research Study.
Councell, R & Simes, J, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 14/02, Projections of long-term Trends in the Prison Population to 2009 England and Wales
Green, D, Prison Works. So why won't we admit it? The Times.
Halliday, J, Making Punishments Work: Report of a review of the sentencing framework for England and Wales.
Home Office (1995) Availability of a new community sentence: electronic monitoring of curfew orders. Home Office Circular 36/1995. London: Home Office.
Home Office consultation paper, Making Sentencing Clearer.
Home Office White Paper, CM5562, Justice for All.
Lord Carter's Review of Prisons, Securing the future: Proposals for the efficient and sustainable use of custody in England and Wales, December 2007,
Mair, G and May, C, Offenders on Probation, Home Office Research Study 167 A Research and Statistics Directorate Report
Mair, G. & Mortimer, E. (1996) Curfew orders with electronic monitoring: an evaluation of the first twelve months of the trials in Greater Manchester, Norfolk and Berkshire, 1995 - 1996. Home Office Research Study No.163. London: Home Office
May, C & Wadwell, J, Enforcing community penalties: the relationship between enforcement and reconviction, Findings 155, Home Office: London
Sir Robin Auld, Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales.
I told her that academia research should have intervened in this argument and told the student that as she did not specify sources at the beginning she could not ask for changes of this kind later. I told my friend that I would post the piece on here to help her in her cause to stop her work being submitted when she has not been paid anything for it.
Here is the essay, which according to the student does not deal with the changes in the CJA and does not answer the question posed. Glad to see academia look after their writers (not)Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the reduction of sentence for guilty pleas
Introduction
This study intends to examine the way in which the Criminal Justice Act 2003 has impacted on the English legal system. In order to do this it will be necessary to discuss the specific changes introduced by the Act and the intention of the government in introducing these changes. A brief overview of the content of the Act and when it came into force will be included in the opening section. The study will then go on to discuss what the government had hoped to achieve through the introduction of the Act and the difficulties that have been experienced in implementing those changes. Within this framework the research paper will consider the rationale for the changes and the benefits that the government anticipated would be experienced through the reforms.
Having discussed the reasons behind the changes and the anticipated benefits to the community the paper will examine whether those expectations have been achieved. This will involve studying whether crime levels have decreased or increased since its introduction.
The main thesis of this paper is to consider the impact on the community and on the crime rate in relation to sentence reduction in situations where the accused enters a guilty plea. This study will also consider whether the new legislation has assisted in speeding up the legal process in getting cases heard at an earlier opportunity and the advantages and disadvantages of speeding up this process.
From the above it should be possible to reach a conclusion on the effectiveness of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and to highlight the failures and successes that have resulted from the changes.
Criminal Justice Act 2003 - A brief overview of the need for reform
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 received Royal Assent in November 2003 and was introduced in response to problems highlighted by a series of reports conducted by the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and the Law Commission. The central theme that seems to emanate from all of these reports is the need for reform in the criminal justice system. All of the reports seem to highlight the frustration caused by the delay in getting cases brought before the courts, the rise in crime levels nationally, overcrowding in prisons and the unnecessary problems caused by the misdirection of cases to the relevant courts.
In 2001 a White Paper issued by the Home Office entitled Justice for All highlighted the need for reform of the criminal justice system. The paper focussed on previous studies carried out by Sir Robin Auld (2001) and John Halliday (2001). Both of these papers were commissioned with the intention of determining the need for reform of the criminal justice system. Sir Robin Auld's paper entitled A Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales looked at the specific area of re-structuring within the court system and reviewing the allocation of work to the various courts. Sir Auld was concerned that in many instances cases were being directed to the wrong courts and that issues that could be dealt with in the Magistrates courts were being referred to the Crown Court. The process of transferring cases in this manner was causing a backload of cases to mount up and would often result in unnecessary delays in bringing the accused to justice. The aim of his paper was to emphasise the need to reform the court procedure so that matters could be dealt with more expeditiously and that only the more serious cases would be sent to the Crown court. In his paper he highlights the need for better management of the criminal justice system as a whole and makes it clear that in many cases unnecessary work is created within the system.
Sir Auld highlighted that one of the main reasons why cases were sent to the wrong court was that the accused not being charged with the appropriate charge. He pinpoints the way in which the police have traditionally been responsible for making charging decisions and comments that he feels this is inappropriate since officers lack the legal skills to determine the correct charge. This issue was addressed in the Justice for All report where recommendations were made to place the responsibility for charging decisions to be handled by the Crown Prosecution Service. It was deemed to be a logical solution to the problem highlighted by Sir Auld since prosecutors have the necessary qualification to determine the most appropriate charge for the offence. When the Criminal Justice Act 2003 was enacted these recommendations were included within the Act and the responsibility for charging advice was transferred from the police onto the CPS.
Halliday (2001) was commissioned to focus on reforms within the punishments meted out by the courts. In his paper, Making Punishments Work, he was asked to consider the deficiencies within the sentencing framework and the effectiveness on crime reduction through the sentencing of offenders. Within his paper he examined the responses of the general public to the regime at that time and noted that public confidence in the criminal justice system was very low. He commented that serious reforms were needed in order to increase public confidence and also that sentencing policies needed to be reviewed in order to ensure that the punishment fitted the crime. Halliday stated that for many offenders and offence types the use of custodial sentences was not the most appropriate form of punishment.
Justice for All reflected the recommendations made by both of these reports and emphasised the need for changes to the CJS in order to make the system more cost effective and efficient. This report recommended the establishment of the Sentencing Guidance Council whose role it would be to determine the most appropriate sentence for the offence committed. Their remit would also be to look at new forms of punishment that could be applied as an alternative to custodial sentences. The reasoning behind this was that in many cases prison was no longer regarded as a deterrent by offenders and rates of recidivism seemed to suggest that imprisonment did not work.
Implementation of the recommendations into the CJA 2003
These comments were reflected in the changes enacted by the CJA 2003 which has resulted in the reduction of sentences for guilty pleas. The government believed that by reducing sentences overcrowding in prisons would be eased. Encouraging guilty pleas was aimed at reducing costs incurred through unnecessary court actions as well as speeding up the justice process. They believed that this would also have the knock-on effect of increasing public confidence in the CJS as they would be encouraged by the fact that offenders were brought to justice more speedily.
Although sentence reduction is more likely to occur in less serious crimes, the government believed that sentences could also be reduced for more serious crimes if the accused entered a guilty plea at the earliest possible opportunity. The government felt that obtaining a guilty plea from the accused would not only save the expense of a lengthy trial but would also spare the victim or the families of the victim from having to go through the ordeal of a trial. In order to stave off criticism from the public in relation to sentence reduction for more serious crimes the courts were instructed that an admission of guilt was insufficient unless the accused fully admitted the offence and demonstrated that they were aware that their actions were wrong.
In order to be able to achieve an increase in the number of guilty pleas the government had to also include reforms within the CJA in relation to the early disclosure of evidence. Traditionally the prosecution would not disclose all elements of the case against the accused until the trial date was imminent. At this stage a full file would have been completed by the police and would contain all the evidence the prosecution would be relying on in court to prove the guilt of the defendant.
Under the reforms the police now have to prepare a file which contains all the evidence the defence are likely to need to be able to advise their client on plea by the first court hearing. The aim of this is to encourage defence counsels to instruct their clients to plead guilty at the first hearing rather than have to request the court to set a date to hear the case. In cases that can be dealt with by the Magistrates in respect of sentencing powers a guilty plea at the first hearing can result in the case being dealt with on the same day and punishment meted out. This has obvious benefits in terms of court costs as well as bringing a speedy resolution for the victim of the crime. This is of particular importance with domestic violence cases where frequently prolonged delays in getting the case heard in the court can lead to retractions being made by the victim and the offender evading punishment.
According to the Sentencing Guidelines Council sentence reduction is justified because:
' a guilty plea avoids the need for a trial (thus enabling other cases to be disposed of more expeditiously), shortens the gap between charge and sentence, saves considerable cost, and, in the case of an early plea, saves victims and witnesses from the concern about having to give evidence.'
Have the reforms achieved their aims?
Although the intended aim of the reforms was to reduce crime and strengthen public confidence these have still not been achieved (The Times, 2008). With regard to public confidence many believe that the courts are being too lenient and that community sentences fail to compensate the victim for the harm caused. In a letter written by the Chairman of the Committee, the Right Honourable John Denham MP to the Chairman of the Sentencing Guidelines Council he makes the observation that in his opinion:
'it is clear that the general public does not fully understand the rationale for having discounts for pleading guilty.'
He goes further to suggest that in order to address this problem
'...the Home Office, in liaison with the Council, should be pro-active in seeking to extend public understanding of the sound reasons underpinning this policy.'
He also went on to states that:
'...the Committee considers that public confidence is diminished by the way indeterminate sentences are calculated and presented to the public. The very concept of applying a sentence reduction to an indeterminate sentence is very hard to explain to the public. It is the combination of the discount for guilty pleas and the halving of the overall sentence, in accordance with the Criminal Justice Act 2003, that gives rise to most controversy.'
In December 2007 Lord Carter was commissioned to carry out a review of the prison system and in particular to comment on the future of the use of prisons as a form of punishment. The review entitled 'Securing the future, Proposals for the efficient and sustainable use of custody in England and Wales December 2007' examined how the supply and demand for places in prison could be balanced. Lord Carter in the review commented that
'The increased prison population of the past decade is a result of a concerted and successful effort to catch, convict and detain for longer periods the most dangerous and serious offenders.'
The recommendations made by Lord Carter to tackle the issue of prison overcrowding included building of more prisons , larger prisons to be built and the closing down of the older and more inefficient prisons and a more structured framework for sentencing (Lord Carter, 2007).Lord Carter also went onto to recommend the modification of the use of custody for low risk offenders and encouraged the government to consider alternative remedies for these offenders so that custody could be reserved for the more serious and dangerous offenders.
Community punishments and their effectiveness.
In order to be able to comment on the success of the reforms it is necessary to consider the alternative punishments that have been introduced through the 2003 Act.
In issuing guidance to the SGC the Act offered the Council alternative punishments for offenders under the guise of community punishments orders. These orders included curfew orders, exclusion orders, attendance centre orders, supervision orders and action plan orders. Extended use of Anti Social Behaviour Orders was also encouraged which was further bolstered through the introduction of the Anti Social Behaviour Act 2003. The government considered that in many cases one of the above orders might be a more appropriate form of punishment to incarceration. In order to reach a conclusion as to whether this is the case it is necessary to analyse how effective community punishments have been in reducing crime levels.
In a report carried out by Peter Gould in relation to the effectiveness of electronic tagging he posed the question whether tagging had impacted on the level of crime. In his report he quotes Harry Fletcher from the National Association of Probation Officers as declaring that it is too soon to tell whether tagging will deter criminals from re-offending. In the reported Fletcher is quoted as saying
'...there is still no evidence that it has reduced crime or prevented offenders from committing further offences. What we don't know is what happens to the individuals once the tagging period has stopped. My assumption is that a large proportion of them regress'
If the assertion made by Fletcher is true this effectively means that the assertions made by the public that community punishments are soft options is essentially correct.
In a Home Office study conducted on electronic tagging in Manchester, Norfolk and Reading between 1995 and 1996 83 curfew orders were issued, with 47 of these being in one of the trial areas (Home Office, 1995). It was noticed in the study that the use of curfew orders increased in number over the year and that most of the 24% of orders that were revoked ended with the offender being given a custodial sentence instead. The survey also revealed that 9% of the offenders breached the curfew order either by not attending when they were supposed to of by interfering with the device (Mair and Mortimer).
Surveys carried out by the Home Office looking at the successes in reducing the prison population through the use of community penalties seem to suggest that these do not work in reducing the prison population. Success has often been judged through examination of reconviction rates (Aubrey and Hough, 1997). One such study carried out by the Home Office revealed that there was no significant difference between reconviction rates for those who had been imprisoned and those that had been given community penalties (May and Wadwell, 2001). The study carried out by the Home office considered a multitude of factors that might affect the reconviction rate such as the criminal history of the offender, unemployment, drugs, accommodation and finances (Mair and May).
Public perceptions of the CJS as reported in the British Crime Survey 2007-2008.
According to the BCS 2007-08 there has been a slight increase in the number of people who consider their local police are doing a good job. The survey reveals that in 2006-07 51% of those surveyed thought that the police were doing a good job compared with an increase of 2% for the 2007-08 figures. The survey also found that public confidence in the fair treatment of people by the police had increased although there was less confidence in the effectiveness of police in dealing with crime related issues. The majority of those surveyed were concerned that minor crimes generally received very little attention from officers with only 43% of those surveyed stating that they were confident in the way their local police dealt with minor offences. The overall opinion of the effectiveness of the CJS saw a slight increase, however, only 37% of those surveyed were confident in the system as a whole. The report also highlighted that the vast majority of those involved in the survey believed that crime was on the increase despite the statistics showing that there has been a decline in the last 2 years.
One of the primary reasons why public confidence in sentence reduction is lacking is due in part to the general perception, mentioned above, that crime is on the increase. In order to convince the public that sentence reduction is justified in some cases it is necessary to prove that incarceration is not the answer to crime reduction. The public, as a whole, tends to be distrusting of government statistics in relation to crime levels, and an influx in violent crimes in recent times has been manipulated to cause a panic amongst society. In this state of panic the public become blinded and have convinced themselves that incarceration is the only way to protect others from harm.
Conclusion
From the above it can be concluded that in some cases crime levels have reduced. This could be partly due to the alternative forms of punishment that the courts have been able to utilise. Research seems to suggest similar levels of recidivism for those released from prison and those that have been sentenced to community punishments. This could suggest that those that re-offend will continues to do so regardless of whether they have been awarded a custodial sentence or whether they have been given a community punishment order.
Public confidence in the criminal justice has not increased as anticipated which seems to suggest that the government need to do more to convince the public that incarceration does not solve the problem.
References
Aubrey, R & Hough, M, Assessing offenders' needs: assessment scales for the probation service Criminal Policy Research Unit, South Bank University, London Home Office Research Study.
Councell, R & Simes, J, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 14/02, Projections of long-term Trends in the Prison Population to 2009 England and Wales
Green, D, Prison Works. So why won't we admit it? The Times.
Halliday, J, Making Punishments Work: Report of a review of the sentencing framework for England and Wales.
Home Office (1995) Availability of a new community sentence: electronic monitoring of curfew orders. Home Office Circular 36/1995. London: Home Office.
Home Office consultation paper, Making Sentencing Clearer.
Home Office White Paper, CM5562, Justice for All.
Lord Carter's Review of Prisons, Securing the future: Proposals for the efficient and sustainable use of custody in England and Wales, December 2007,
Mair, G and May, C, Offenders on Probation, Home Office Research Study 167 A Research and Statistics Directorate Report
Mair, G. & Mortimer, E. (1996) Curfew orders with electronic monitoring: an evaluation of the first twelve months of the trials in Greater Manchester, Norfolk and Berkshire, 1995 - 1996. Home Office Research Study No.163. London: Home Office
May, C & Wadwell, J, Enforcing community penalties: the relationship between enforcement and reconviction, Findings 155, Home Office: London
Sir Robin Auld, Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales.