NCJ Number
197129
Date Published
2002
Length
20 pages
Annotation
This chapter examines the use and range of community penalties throughout Great Britain and the lack of a clear conceptual framework for community orders. An examination is then conducted of a solution presented in the Home Office Sentencing Framework Review or Halliday Report (2001) offering clarity through a generic community punishment order with follow up arguments recommending the focus be directed towards the substance of community penalties and not a change in legal form.
Abstract
In England and Wales, the use and range of community penalties has grown significantly and continues to be extended today. However, the opportunities offered by these penalties, such as probation, community service, and curfews backed by electronic monitoring have not been fully exploited due to the lack of a clear conceptual framework for community orders. In this chapter, community penalties are reviewed and a solution is offered by the Home Office Sentencing Framework Review or Halliday Report (2001) addressing the lack of clarity surrounding the use of community orders recommending a generic community punishment order. The argument is made that this generic community punishment order will not increase the understanding of what happens when someone is supervised in the community. In lieu of a generic community punishment, it is recommended that efforts be steered towards the substance of community penalties. From a review of empirical findings from interviews with magistrates and victims, offenders and probation staff, a number of discussion points emerged on the role of communication in punishment and how they saw punishment communicating (communicative theory). The penal messages described in the interview often anticipated a positive reaction from offenders and that undertaking community service or being supervised on probation developed an offender’s awareness of the impact of their behavior on others. The interviews suggest that community orders have rich communicative potential. It is argued that there need not be a change in legal form, such as the generic community punishment order as proposed by the Halliday Report, but a focus on the substance of community penalties to maximize the opportunities they offer to engage offenders positively in processes of change. The argument further suggests closer integration between offenders’ experiences in court and under supervision. References