Criminology Essay: What are the main justifications for punishment? By Jamal Hylton In recent decades there have been reports that have revealed a penal crisis, the problems of punishments and their ineffectiveness in controlling and reducing the crime rate (Cavindo and Dignan, 1992, 9; Croall, 1998, 31; McGuire and Priestly, 1995, 11). “It is important for society and for individual victims, that those who break the laws are suitably punished. If punishment is not imposed, or if the punishment is generally perceived as too lenient, the victim will be left with a sense of injustice and grievance, and public confidence in the criminal justice system will be eroded (H.M.S.O., 1996, 3).” The purpose of the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales, is to sustain the rule of law and to protect the public (H.M.S.O., 1996, 25). If the laws of authorities are broken, then the socially and lawfully acceptable behaviour of society has not been met. Sanctions may then be enacted as penalties in order to enforce conformity in the future. A sanction is a punishment for ‘breaking the rightness of the status quo’ (Garland, 1990, 3). The main court sentencing options that may then be available are imprisonment, probation supervision, fines, community penalties and discharges (Davies et al, 1998, 6). These sentences are punitive as they can deprive the offender of time, money, liberty, social standing or reputation (McLaughlin and Muncie, 1996, 200). The aim of the Government is to ensure that ‘punishments’ such as these are effective and that the risks of further crime are reduced. The effects it aims to achieve are argued to justify this distribution of punishment. These are deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, incapacitation and reparation (Davies et al, 1998, 240; Marsh et al, 1996, 532). Through these functions, punishment aims to diffuse and treat criminal behaviour, which threatens public safety and the maintenance of social order. Punishment therefore aims to reduce and control the rate of crime (Davies et al, 1998, 240; Marsh et al, 1996, 532). On being found guilty of an offence, an offender would anticipate receiving a punishment from the court. If methods of punishment functioned to effectively control and reform criminal behaviour, then the crime rate would have decreased substantially. However, between 1981 and 1997, recorded crime significantly increased by sixty seven per cent, with over 4.5 million offences recorded in the latter year (H.M.S.O., 1999, 1). In 1999, the courts sentenced over 1.41 million offenders for indictable and summary offences. 105,300 of this number received a custodial sentence, which was the highest figure for more than fifty years (H.M.S.O., 1999b, 1). 218,470 of this number underwent a type of Probation Service supervision (H.M.S.O., 1999b, 18). Research shows that of all prisoners that were discharged from prisons in England and Wales in 1996, fifty seven per cent was reconvicted of another offence within a two-year period (H.M.S.O., 1999a, 150). Fifty six per cent of offenders that received a community sentence in 1996 was reconvicted within a twoyear period (H.M.S.O., 1999a, 150; Kershaw et al, 1999, 1). Forty four percent of all offenders, which received a conditional discharge and forty three per cent of offenders, which received a fine for a standard list offence in 1995, was reconvicted within a two-year period (Kershaw et al, 1999, 1). Based on these figures and the arguments such as those of McGuire and Priestly (1995, 11), there is little empirical evidence to prove that punishment is effective. No method of punishment has ever managed to effectively reduce the crime rate, or to achieve high rates of reformation in offenders (McGuire and Priestly, 1995, 11). Punishments have failed to control or 1

reduce the crime rate, but they remain to be justified by the aims of deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, incapacitation and reparation (Marsh et al, 1996, 532). Investigation of these aims may determine whether they are sufficient reasons for punishment. The most basic notion of the function of punishment is that fear of its context and utilisation may restrain people from committing criminal offences (Sharpe, 1990, 127128). Deterrence is argued to be a justification for punishment as people may; "Refrain from actions because they dislike what they believe to be the plausible consequences of those actions (Walker, 1991)." Studies by Light et al (1993) found that crime prevention and punishments fulfil little of the desired effect in terms of deterrence, as the prospect of being caught and punished plays a small part in the offenders thinking prior to an offence. The ‘opportunist’ offender may not consider the possibility of detection and punishment if the crime is committed at the 'spur of the moment', the rewards outweigh the punishments, or because the possibility of detection is minimal. The 'rational' offender may not be deterred, as a premeditated crime may have an 'untouchable' content that makes them believe they are undetectable or uncatchable (Marsh et al, 1996, 536). Punishments cannot be viewed as effective in terms of deterrence for offenders that are caught, as there are high reconviction rates for most types of sentences (H.M.S.O., 1999a, 150; Kershaw et al, 1999, 1; Thornton et al, 1984). In addition, since the establishment of modern law and order there has been a continuous increase in the amount and diversity of criminal acts (Sharpe, 1990, 12728). Garland (1990) argues that imprisonment is the ultimate symbol of punishment and is therefore the ultimate form of deterrence, but cannot be viewed as effective. Prisons are ineffective at reducing the crime rate and have been described as overcrowded, costly, under-managed and a failure at reducing reoffending rates (Cavindo and Dignan, 1992, 9; Morgan, 1997, 1140). Research shows that punishment can be an effective method of deterrence, but only if enacted under certain conditions. For punishment to deter and prevent offending and reoffending, citizens’ and offenders’ must view it as inevitable, instantaneous, severe, flexible and comprehensive (Barker, 1994; Grant and Evans, 1994). McGuire and Priestly (1995, 13) argue that these conditions are not met within the criminal justice system. Citizens and offenders are less likely to be deterred from committing criminal offences, knowing that there are low detection rates for most types of crime and that a subsequent arrest and conviction is far from guaranteed (McGuire and Priestly, 1995, 13). There have been improvements in detecting, reporting, classifying and counting crime, and there have been changes in recognising the factors that can influence offending and reoffending. Croall (1998, 73) highlights the fact that from the early 1980s the Home Office produced a number of publications, which argued that most crime was opportunist and could be prevented by reducing opportunities for undetectable crime, therefore making offences more difficult to commit (Clarke, 1980). Williams (1997, 320-321) argues that consequentially, Closed Circuit Television (C.C.T.V.) has become increasingly perceived as a measure that can deliver control and deterrent effects, due to its intense surveillance. Williams (1997, 322-323) argues that increasing the likelihood of detection can potentially increase the offender’s fear of being caught, therefore deterring criminal opportunity and activity. However, this type of crime prevention can result in crime 'deflection' and move offending to a less monitored area, instead of reducing offending generally. Offenders have been found to combat surveillance techniques by committing the intended crime at a different time, in a different place, in a different way, or by 2

committing a different offence altogether (Barr and Pease, 1992; Walklate, 1996, 304). The control of crime, enforcement of laws and punishment of offenders, demonstrates acceptable modes of behaviour to the public. This can reaffirm and strengthen social bonds, morals and values, as many citizens in society share the values that are represented by the laws protecting property and personal safety (Garland, 1990, 28). Sharpe' (1990, 130) argues; "Our main concern is how likely we are to be mugged, burgled, raped or assaulted, and whether the areas in which we live are likely to become more dangerous and less pleasant (Sharpe, 1990, 130)." This public ‘fear’ of criminality can be minimised with the belief that where law and order is prominent, offending behaviour would be so contrasting that an offender would be quickly detected, caught and punished. Sharpe (1990, 131), argues that this belief induces a feeling of well-being and security into those members of society that do not commit crimes, as it suggests that the possibilities of them encountering criminal behaviour and dangerous locations are minimised. Punishment through the Criminal Justice System, can therefore provide for the citizen; familiarity, protection, security and adjudication (Garland, 1990, 3, 28; Marsh et al, 1996, 548-549). Retributionists argue, that punishments maintain public confidence and conformity with the Criminal Justice System, which re-enforces the values of right and wrong in both citizen and offender (Marsh et al, 1996, 543, 538). However, a certain degree of order in society does not mean that there is a general commitment to traditional modes of behaviour. People may follow laws for a number of practical reasons, which could be to avoid punishments rather than because of moral commitments. There is a considerable amount of disagreement as to whether ‘minor’ offences such as tax evasion widely offend moral sentiments (Marsh et al, 1996, 543). These factors query whether violations of criminal law genuinely break moral sentiments in general, and whether punishments are actually retributive to the offender (Lukes and Skull, 1983, 114-120). Retribution is often seen as the most important aim of punishment. It is based on a revenge motive and is often associated with the saying, ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ (Davies et al, 1998, 242-243; Marsh et al, 1996, 538). Reributionists argue that punishments make offenders ‘pay their debt to society’ for committing crimes against it, and that certain offences deserve certain punishments. This is known as ‘just deserts’. They argue that if offenders do not receive ‘proper’ punishments for their offences, then the law and order of society will break down. This is to make the victim feel better and stop them seeking actual revenge, help the public to accept the reality of crime and to express the need for state regulation (Marsh et al, 1996, 538). There is a considerable amount of disagreement as to whether some crimes receive ‘proper’ punishments (Marsh et al, 1996, 543). Davies et al (1998, 242-243) argue that as punishments are actually proportionate to the crime instead of equivalent, they may not satisfy the publics condemnation, demonstrate the effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System, or make the victim feel better. Punishments may not be retributive to offenders if they do not accept blame for their actions, or do not view their punishment as deserved. In addition, offenders may not feel a punishment is deserved if it causes hardship or distress for their partners or families (Davis et al, 1998, 242; Marsh et al, 1996, 538-539). Rehabilitation of the offender is based on the belief that people’s mentalities can change, or be changed. It has to be accepted that the majority of offenders ultimately have to live in society, posing no danger or threat to the security and safety 3

of people and property. This may only be possible if offending behaviour has changed or improved (Elkin, 1957, 36; Marsh et al, 1996, 539). It is argued that methods of punishment can achieve rehabilitation in offenders. However, strategies of rehabilitation have not been effective overall, given the fact that many offenders reoffend. No method of punishment has ever managed to achieve high rates of reformation in offenders (McGuire and Priestly, 1995, 11, 13). If methods of punishment functioned to effectively reform criminal behaviour, then reoffending rates would have decreased substantially. However, large amounts of offenders have been found to reoffend (H.M.S.O., 1999a, 150-151, 157; Kershaw et al, 1999, 1). This amount could be higher as some offences are never detected or reported, and some do not result in a conviction when they should (Marsh et al, 1996, 532; McGuire and Priestly, 1995, 11, 13). The idea that methods of punishment can change and improve the offender’s behaviour, was initially advocated in the Victorian era through imprisonment and the long periods of solitary confinement, where the prisoner was meant to use the time to examine their consciences and souls (Marsh et al, 1996, 539). Similarly, the Prison Service mission statement that is displayed outside all establishments’ states; "Her Majesty’s Prison Service serves the public by keeping in custody those committed by the courts. Our duty is to look after them with humanity and help them lead law-abiding and useful lives in custody and after release (Prison Reform Trust and H.M. Prison Service, 1999, i)." However, research shows that of all prisoners that were discharged from prisons in England and Wales in 1996, fifty seven per cent was reconvicted within a two-year period (H.M.S.O., 1999a, 150). Prisons have been reported to be overcrowded, costly, under-managed and a failure in reducing reoffending rates (Feely and Simon, 1992, 464; McGuire and Priestly, 1995, 11; Morgan, 1997, 1140). The government has described prisons as; “An expensive way of making bad people worse (Waddington, Home secretary, 1990).” There are prison regimes that have been reported to be successful in terms of rehabilitation. They are reported to have very low rates of internal offending and post-release re-offending. Barlinnie Special Unit and Grendon Underwood have been reported to have highly rehabilitative regimes and corresponding conditions, which are costly but effective (Matthews, 1999, 74-76; Wilson and Ashton, 1998, 4041). These regimes have been argued to work, as the rate of voluntary inmate participation in the rehabilitative programmes on offer is high. Their inmates have previously volunteered to enter waiting lists to be transferred there from other prisons, so are therefore not forced to participate (Wilson and Ashton, 1998, 40-41). These programmes may be successful as there is no compulsion for inmates to participate (McLaughlin and Muncie.1996, 200). McGuire and Priestly' (1995, 10-11), argue that it has become apparent that punitive, medical and psychotherapeutic methods do not work in reducing re-offending. What 'works', is to address the factors that contribute toward the offending act, and then tailor a programme and level of supervision that is suitable (1995, 4). Lipsey' (1992) found that if systems and programmes that recognised offenders problems, were correlated with the efficient management and control of offenders and communities, then positive effects could be achieved. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998, was a 4

flagship policy for New Labour, which promoted this approach to crime and disorder. It incorporated the relevance of social problems and the fact that their solution can be delivered through partnerships between public, private, community and voluntary agencies (Crawford, 1998; Wilson and Ashton, 1998, 21). The Act built on the impact of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which recognised the importance of community sentencing and the Probation Service (Whitfield, 1998, 17). The Correctional Policy Framework (H.M.S.O., 1999c) accordingly states that; "Re-offending is prevented by ... working in partnership to improve literacy, job skills, employment opportunities, family support and access to housing (H.M.S.O., 1999c)." May (1999, x) argues that there are evident links between social factors and reconviction rates; therefore Probation Service work with offenders that addresses problems of accommodation, employment and substance misuse may play a major role in reducing re-offending. However, some needs of offenders can not be addressed directly by the Probation Service, either due to a lack of resources, experience, or legislation in particular areas (Aubrey and Hough, 1997, 3-4). Community sentences can involve Probation Service supervision, which is designed to provide this type of intervention (Davies et al, 1998, 283; H.M.S.O., 1995, 17; H.M.S.O., 2000, 1; National Probation Service, 2001, 13). However, they not been a large success in terms of rehabilitation, as on average fifty six per cent of offenders that received a community sentence in 1996 was reconvicted within a two-year period (Davies et al, 288-289; Heddermann et al, 1-4; H.M.S.O., 1999a, 150, 157; Kershaw et al, 1999, 1). McLaughlin and Muncie (1996, 200), argue that rehabilitative punishments will be unsuccessful if they place the offender under a degree of compulsion. Even the mildest forms of rehabilitation programmes involving community sentencing and the Probation Service, require offenders to do things they may not do voluntarily, or which may inconvenience them, and they may be threatened with more severe punishments if they do not comply. The combination of helping and compelling offenders has been found to cause tensions between the rehabilitator and the rehabilitated, which can hinder rehabilitative processes (McGuire and Priestly, 1995, 9-11; McLaughlin and Muncie.1996, 200). Davies et al (1998, 245), argue that for punishments to be rehabilitative, the sentence has to fit the individual and not the offence. Research has found that existing methods of punishment can be an effective method of behaviour change, but only if enacted under certain conditions (Barker, 1994; Grant and Evans, 1994). McGuire and Priestly (1995, 13) argue that for punishment to prevent reoffending, the offender must view it as inevitable, instantaneous, severe, flexible and comprehensive, and these conditions are generally not met within the criminal justice system, which therefore queries the effectiveness of rehabilitative processes (Morgan, 1997, 1140). In addition, not every offender can be, or wants to be rehabilitated (McGuire and Priestly, 1995, 10-11; McLaughlin and Muncie.1996, 200; Kershaw et al, 1999, 1; Roberts, 1995, 231). Incapacitation is a justification for the range of punishments that aim to either temporarily or permanently prevent an offender from re-offending (Marsh et al, 1996, 540). Punishments such as electronic tagging, curfews and disqualification’s make it harder for the offender to commit similar or further offences. They impose restrictions that warrant harsher penalties if not complied with (Davies et al, 1998, 243; Marsh et al, 1996, 540). Imprisonment is a more determinate form of incapacitation as it removes the offender from societal circulation, which makes it impossible for them to reoffend (McGuire and Priestly, 1995, 12). Murray (1997, 14) uses the aims of incapacitation to argue that, when imprisonment is applied to 5

burglars they cannot commit burglaries and when applied to rapists they cannot commit rapes. Davies et al (1998) generally agree with Murray, but argue that the aims of incapacitation are only partially achieved with imprisonment, due to the fact that gangs, violence, drug selling and drug abuse exist in prisons, and in any oneyear there are vast amounts of incidents in prisons that involve, drugs, violence and disorder (Matthews, 1999, 72). This highlights the fact that imprisonment does not always halt criminal careers, but more seemingly hinders direct criminal interaction with the public and can make the offender worse (Davies et al, 1998, 294). Murray (Murray, 1997, 14) argues that as offending is largely attributed to young males, prescribing long sentences would effectively end their public criminal careers. However, it has to be accepted that the majority of offenders ultimately have to live in society, posing no danger or threat to the security and safety of people and property. Tarling (1993) argues that for incapacitative methods to have a significant effect on the crime rate, a large number of offenders would have to be incapacitated. Tarling (1993) argues that to achieve a thirty per cent reduction in the crime rate, the prison population would have to rise by such a rate that it would be deemed ethically and financially unacceptable. Nevertheless, the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences and the removal of automatic remission, were incorporated into the Crime Sentencing Act 1997 (Wilson and Ashton, 1998, 20). The act is similar to that of American sentencing, which has been found to swell prison numbers without effectively reducing crime (Dunbar and Langdon, 1998, 135-137). In the United States of America between 1987 and 1995, a massive prison population increase of 124 percent achieved only a small percent decrease in the crime rate, which has stabilised at a very high level (Murray, 1997, 16; Young, 1997, 35, 39). In 1992, the prison population in England and Wales was 45,000 and decreasing, whereas in 1997 it was 60,000 and increasing (Dunbar and Langdon, 1998, 3). It has been estimated to increase to 92,000 by 2005, a number which would require twenty new prisons to be built (Davies et al, 1998, 404). This increase has placed a considerable strain on Prison Service resources (Dunbar and Langdon, 1998, 37). Dunbar and Langdon (1998, 37) argue that this is why inmates are constantly transferred, programmes of educational, rehabilitative and vocational value have been reduced, and inmates are spending longer periods locked in their cells. These factors have previously been causes of rapid decreases in inmate discipline and control (Dunbar and Langdon, 1998, 37). In this context, Feely and Simon (1992, 459), argue that imprisonment will make no positive difference in the lives of offenders that experience it. Incapacitation cannot be justified in the contexts, that the majority of offenders ultimately have to live in society posing no danger or threat to the security and safety of people and property, forms of punishment are effective, and that the risks of crime and the crime rate must be reduced. No method of penality that has ever managed to effectively control the crime rate, or achieved a high rate of rehabilitation. If criminal behaviour were restricted for the length of the sentence only, then it would not have been effectively diffused, but instead restricted or postponed. This may be why eighty two per cent of young adult males discharged from prisons in 1987 were reconvicted by 1994, and of all prisoners that were discharged from prisons in 1996, fifty seven per cent were reconvicted within a two-year period (Home Office, 1994; Home Office, 1996; H.M.S.O., 1999a, 150). Community sentences have had similar reconviction rates to imprisonment, even though home detention curfews by electronic monitoring have had very high success rates (H.M.S.O., 1999a, 171; Kershaw et al, 1999, 1). If incapacitative punishments continuously postpone or restrict criminal careers when they should be diffused or treated, then offenders will largely be found to reoffend and the crime rate may just fluctuate at best (Morgan, 1997, 1140). 6

Reparation is a justification for the range of punishments that requires the offender to compensate for their crime, either to the victim or to society. Specifically or symbolically, reparative punishments aim to compensate the victim through financial payments or services provided by the offender (Davies et al, 1998, 248; Marsh et al, 1996, 540). Davies et al (1998, 248), argue that reparation can be successful in cases of property crime, where the victims are willing to participate and it is possible for the offender to make some kind of reparation. However, there is doubt as to whether reparative punishments are effective in terms of reparation or as punishments. They can be difficult to apply and can cause deprivations for innocent partners and families (Marsh et al, 1996, 540). Morgan (1997, 1184) argues that this is why many fine defaulters are imprisoned each year, even though imprisonment was not originally intended for them. Forty three per cent of offenders that received a fine for a standard list offence in 1995, and fifty per cent of offenders receiving a community service order, were reconvicted of another offence within a two-year period (Kershaw et al, 1999, 1). McGuire and Priestly (1995, 13) argue that for punishments to deter offending and prevent reoffending, citizens’ and offenders’ must view them as inevitable, instantaneous, severe, flexible and comprehensive. McGuire and Priestly (1995, 13) argue that these conditions are not met within the Criminal Justice System; therefore they are less likely to be deterred or prevented from committing offences (McGuire and Priestly, 1995, 13). Croall (1998, 318) argues that although the Criminal Justice System is the main force for social regulation, its role is in fact limited. It has not radically reduced the crime-rate, given the fact that crimes still occur and in greater numbers. If punishments functioned to effectively deter, incapacitate, reform or rehabilitate criminal behaviour, then the crime rate would have decreased substantially. Instead, increasing offence rates for drugs, violence, robbery and sexual offences have prompted longer sentences and the greater use of imprisonment, even though this has been found to be largely ineffective at treating or diffusing criminal behaviour. There has also been an increase of non-custodial sentences for more minor offences, which have also increased, even though many have been found to be largely ineffective at treating or diffusing criminal behaviour (H.M.S.O., 1999b, 1; Matthews, 1999, 87). Sharpe (1990, 131) argues that punishment represents the power of the state, which is utilised in order to enforce conformity with the law and the maintenance of social order. The regulation of society is concerned with the values, interaction patterns and the ideologies, which underlie the basic structural arrangements in society, many of which are embodied in law as substantive rules. The prevention of crime, enforcement of laws and the punishment of offenders, demonstrates the allowed and acceptable modes of behaviour to the public (Cotterrell, 1992, 5; Garland, 1990, 28; Marsh et al, 1996, 543). Timasheff (1939) summarises this factor and argues; "The reasons for all forms of law - both direct and indirect - express one basic social phenomenon, that of the co-ordination of human behaviour by authoritative patterns (Timasheff, 1939)." This is because for a state or legal system to function effectively it requires society's conformity to it (Cotterrell, 1992, 154). People accept the domination of law, as it is assumed to represent and uphold the values of its citizens (Cotterrell, 1992, 157). Punishment through the Criminal Justice System, can therefore provide for the citizen; familiarity, protection, security and adjudication (Garland, 1990, 3, 28; Marsh et al, 1996, 548-549). It is in this context, that Sharpe (1990) argues that the use of punishment is justified and effective, as it can; 7

"Make us feel securer, and reassures us through the re-assertion of social values, rather than because we have any well-founded hopes that so doing so will either make the individual offender desist from offending again, or achieve a more general lowering of the levels of crime (Sharpe, 1990, 131)". Sharpes view is similar to that of the justice approach (Davies et al, 1998, 290-293). Advocates of this approach argue that if a responsible individual makes a free choice to commit an offence, then they deserve to be duly punished. The punishment does not have to be justified on the grounds of social protection or the reduction of future crime. It is based on the retributive justifying factor of ‘just deserts’ (Davies et al, 1998, 290-293). Punishments seem to only exercise justice in order to defend the authority and legitimacy of the state (McLaughlin and Muncie, 1996, 200). Davis et al (1998, 293), argue that this is why sentencing has become uniform and less individualised in both American and English penal systems. Sentences do not effectively deter, incapacitate or rehabilitate the offender; they just seem to seek to punish the offender for breaking the lawfully accepted behaviour of society. The purpose seems to be that if offenders are not punished, the victim may be left with a sense of injustice and grievance and the offender may perceive they are above the law. This could cause public confidence in the Criminal Justice System to be eroded, which could lead to a breakdown in social order. Punishment can be therefore viewed as just a penalty for individual deviation from the social cohesion of society. It teaches and internalises individuals with the knowledge that certain actions are unacceptable and wrong. Therefore a sentence is a punishment, which is evident to teach the individual that they are required to conform to acceptable modes of behaviour. ‘Social control’, is the term that can be used to describe the terrain of processes and methods, through which society ensures that its members conform to the expectations of a regulated society. As punishments have not been found to be largely retributive, the function of punishment can therefore be seen as merely a back up for the mainstream processes of socialisation, of which the benefits may be social, political, economical and cultural (Garland, 1990, 3; Marsh et al, 1996, 548-549). This work has not found punishment to be effective in terms of achieving; deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, incapacitation and reparation, therefore its utilisation cannot be justified by them. If punishments could be justified by these functions, then they would be evidently successful in reducing the crime rate and controlling offending behaviour. They can therefore only be seen as secondary functions that can be achieved to some extent, but not effectively enough to be appropriately identified as the primary goals and justifications that they are perceived to be. However, it has to be argued that the purpose of the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales is not just to sustain the rule of law; it is also to protect the public, and this justifies the utilisation of punishments (H.M.S.O., 1996, 25). It is because punishments do not reduce the rate of crime in society that there have been new policies introduced, with positive measures aimed at improving the service from the agencies of the government in order to address past, present and future problems that may cause offending and reoffending. They do not involve punishing the offender, which could be interpreted to partly support the fact that punishments cannot provide this function. New Labour’s approach to crime and disorder, is that if systems and programmes that recognised offenders’ problems were correlated with the efficient management and control of offenders and communities, then positive effects could be achieved. It incorporates the relevance of social problems and the fact that their solution can be delivered through partnerships between public, private, community and voluntary spheres (Crawford, 1998; McGuire and Priestly, 1995, 14-16; Wilson and Ashton, 1998, 21). Wilson and Ashton (1998, 21) argue that even though the 8

policies of Labour incorporate positive policies to reduce the crime rate, it is hindered by punitive policies such as the Crime Sentencing Act 1997. This is why Wilson and Ashton (1998, 157) argue that Labour should concentrate more on their election proposals to be ‘tough on the causes of crime’, and less on their proposals to be ‘tough on crime’. The prevention of problems that can cause criminal behaviour has been found to be more productive than punishing the offender for their actions. This method is used in France and the Netherlands, and has enabled the crime rate to be significantly decreased (Sparks, 1996, 232; Wilson and Ashton, 1998, 157). Knott (1995, 124-125) argues that strategies to reduce the causes, needs, desires, and opportunities to offend, will appraise programmes and strategies to reduce offending and reoffending and reduce certain types of offences. This could mean that strategies to effectively reduce the crime rate may be effectively found between social explanations of crime and methods of crime prevention. Punishing the offender is argued to reduce and control the crime rate and reform offenders. This is effect attempted by utilising and achieving the methods and aims of deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, incapacitation and reparation. Methods of punishment and these aims have not been found to effectively reduce the crime rate, or to be effectively achieved. If they were, then the crime rate would have decreased substantially. They may be the accepted and perceived justifications for punishment, but they do not actually justify the use of punishment due to their ineffectiveness. However, they will remain as justifications for punishment, as long as punishment remains a dominant method for the Criminal Justice System to treat and diffuse criminal behaviour in order to reduce and control the crime rate, sustain the rule of law, and maintain social order. Bibliography Aubrey, R., and Hough, M. (1997) Assessing Offenders Needs: Assessment Scale for the Probation Service, Home Office Research Study 166, H.M.S.O. Bar and Peace. (1992); in Walklate, S. (1996) Community and crime prevention, 304; in, McLaughlin, E., and Muncie, J. (Ed) (1996) Controlling Crime, London: Sage; 293332. Barker. (1994); in, McGuire, J., and Priestly, P. (1995) Reviewing “What Works”: Past, Present and Future, 13; in, McGuire, J. (Ed) (1995) What Works: Reducing Reoffending: Guidelines from Research and Practice, West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons Ltd, 3-33. Cavindo, M., and Dignan, J. (1992) The penal system: An introduction, London: Sage. Clarke. (1980); in Croall, H. (1998) Crime and Society in Britain, London: Longman, 73-74. Cotterrell, R. (1992) The sociology of law: An introduction, London: Butterworths. Crawford, A. (1998) Community Safety and the Quest for Security: Holding Back the Dynamics of Social Exclusion; in, Hope, T. (Ed) (2000) Perspectives on Crime Reduction, Hants: Dartmouth Publishing Company, 237-238. Croall, H. (1998) Crime and Society in Britain, London: Longman. 9

Davies, D., Croall, H., and Tyrer, J. (1998) Criminal Justice: An Introduction to the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales: Second Edition, Essex: Pearson Educational. Dunbar, I., and Langdon, A. (1998) Tough Justice: Sentencing and Penal Policies in the 1990’s, London: Blackstone Press. Elkin, W. (1957) The English Penal System, Middlesex: Penguin Books. Feeley, M., and Simon, J. (1992) The New Penology: Notes on the Emerging Strategy of Corrections and its Implications, Criminology Journal: Vol 30, No 4. Garland, D. (1990) Punishment and modern society, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Government Statement. (2001) Ambitions for Britain; Labour’s Manifesto 2001, London: The Labour Party. Grant and Evens. (1994); in, McGuire, J., and Priestly, P. (1995) Reviewing What Works: Past, Present and Future, 13; in McGuire, J. (Ed) (1995) What Works: Reducing Re-offending: Guidelines from Research and Practice, West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons Ltd, 3-33. H.M.S.O. (1995) National Standards for the Supervision of Offenders in the Community, H.M.S.O. H.M.S.O. (1996) Protecting the Public: The Governments Strategy on Crime in England and Wales, CM3/90, March 1996, H.M.S.O. H.M.S.O. (1999) Information on the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales: Digest 4, H.M.S.O. H.M.S.O. (1999a) Prison Statistics England and Wales, H.M.S.O., Cm 4805. H.M.S.O. (1999b) Probation Statistics England and Wales, H.M.S.O. H.M.S.O. (1999c) Correctional Policy Framework; in, N.A.C.R.O. (2000) The Forgotten Majority: Resettlement for Short-Term Prisoners, N.A.C.R.O, 4. H.M.S.O. (2000) National Standards for the Supervision of Offenders in the Community, H.M.S.O. Hedderman, C., Ellis, T., and Sugg, D. (1999) Increasing Confidence in Community Sentances, H.M.S.O., Research Findings 92. Home Office. (1994); in, McGuire, J., and Priestly, P. (1995) Reviewing “What Works”: Past, Present and Future, 11; in, McGuire, J. (Ed) (1995) What Works: Reducing Re-offending: Guidelines from Research and Practice, West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons Ltd, 3-33. Home Office. (1996); in, Morgan, R. (1997) Imprisonment: Current Concerns and a Brief History Since 1945, in, Maguire, M., Morgan, R., and Reiner, R. (Ed) (1997), 1140; in, The Oxford Handbook of Criminology: Second Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1137-1194.

10

Kershaw, C., Goodman, J., and White, S. (1999) Reconvictions of Offenders Sentenced or Discharged from Prison in 1995, England and Wales, H.M.S.O.: Issue 19/99: October 1999. Knott, C. (1995) The STOP Programme: Reasoning and Rehabilitation in a British Setting; in, McGuire, J. (Ed) (1995) What Works: Reducing Reoffending: Guidelines from Research and Practice, Sussex: John Wiley and Sons, 115-126. Light, R., Nee, C., and Ingham, H. (1993); in, McGuire, J. (Ed) (1995) What Works: Reducing Reoffending: Guidelines from Research and Practice, Sussex: John Wiley and Sons, 11. Lipsey, M. (1992) Juvenile Delinquency Treatment: A Meta-Analytic Inquiry into the Variability of its Effects; in, McGuire, J., and Priestly, P. (1995) Reviewing What Works: Past, Present and Future, 14-16; in, McGuire, J. (Ed) (1995) What Works: Reducing Re-offending: Guidelines from Research and Practice, West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons Ltd, 3-33. Lukes, S., and, Scull, A. (1983) Durkheim and the law, Oxford: Martin Robertson. Marsh, I., Keating, M., Eyre, A., Campbell, R., and McKenzie, J. (1996) Making sense of society, London: Longman. Marsh, I., Keating, M., Eyre, A., Campbell, R., and McKenzie, J. (1996) Making sense of society, London: Longman. Matthews, R. (1999) Doing Time: An introduction to the Sociology of Imprisonment, Houndmills: Macmillan Press Ltd. May, T. (1999) Explaining Reconviction following a Community Sentence: The Role of Social Factors, Home Office Research Study 192. McGuire, J. (Ed) (1995) What Works: Reducing Reoffending: Guidelines from Research and Practice, Sussex: John Wiley and Sons. McGuire, J., and Priestly, P. (1995) Reviewing What Works: Past, Present and Future, In McGuire, J. (Ed) (1995) What Works: Reducing Re-offending: Guidelines from Research and Practice, West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons Ltd, 3-33. McLaughlin, E., and Muncie, J. (Ed) (1996) Controlling Crime, London: Sage. Moore, S. (1996) Investigating Crime and Deviance, London: HarperCollins. Morgan, R. (1997) Imprisonment: Current Concerns and a Brief History Since 1945; in, Maguire, M., Morgan, R., and Reiner, R. (Ed) (1997) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology: Second Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1137-1194. Murray, C. (1997) Does Prison Work, London: IEA. National Probation Service. (2001) Careers in the Probation Service, National Probation Service; Home Office Communication Directorate. Prison Reform Trust., and H.M. Prison Service. (1999) Prisoners Information Book: Male Prisoners and Young Offenders, London: Prison Reform Trust. 11

Roberts, C. (1995) Effective Practice and Service Delivery; in, McGuire, J. (Ed) (1995) What Works: Reducing Reoffending: Guidelines from Research and Practice, Sussex: John Wiley and Sons, 221-236. Sharpe, J. (1990) Judicial Punishment in England, London: Faber and Faber. Sparks, R. (1996) Prisons, Punishment and Penality; in, McLaughlin, E., and, Muncie, J. (Ed) (1996) Controlling Crime, London: Sage. Tarling, R. (1993) Analysing Offending: Data, Models and Interpretations; in, McGuire, J., and Priestly, P. (1995) Reviewing What Works: Past, Present and Future, 12; in, McGuire, J. (Ed) (1995) What Works: Reducing Re-offending: Guidelines from Research and Practice, West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons Ltd, 333. Thornton, D., Curran, L., Grayson, D., and Holloway, V. (1984); in, McGuire, J. (Ed) (1995) What Works: Reducing Re-offending: Guidelines from Research and Practice, West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons Ltd, 11. Timasheff (1939); in, Cotterrell, R. (1992) The sociology of law: An introduction, London: Butterworths, 39. Waddington, D. (1990); in, Wilson, D., and Ashton, J. (1998) What Everyone in Britain Should Know About Crime and Punishment, London: Blackstone Press. P. 14. Walker, N. (1991); in, Marsh, I., Keating, M., Eyre, A., Campbell, R. and McKenzie, J. (1996) Making Sense of Society: An Introduction to Sociology, Essex: Addison Wesley Longman. Walklate, S. (1996) Community and crime prevention; in, McLaughlin, E., and Muncie, J. (Ed) (1996) Controlling Crime, London: Sage, 293-332. Whitfield, D. (1998) Introduction to the Probation Service: Second Edition, Winchester: Waterside Press. Wilson, D., and Ashton, J. (1998) What Everyone in Britain Should Know About Crime and Punishment, London: Blackstone Press. Williams, K. (1997) Textbook on Criminology, London: Blackstone Press Ltd. Young, J. (1997) Charles Murray and the American Prison Experiment: The Dilemmas of a Libertarian; in, Murray, C. (1997) Does Prison Work, London: IEA.

12

13