Use of Community Sanctions and Programs: Critical Issues, Lessons Learned, and an Agenda for Change (From Resource Material Series No. 38, P 225-237, 1990, United Nations Asia and Far East Institute -- See NCJ-135723)

• NCJ Number: 135737
• Author(s): C T Griffiths
• Date Published: 1990
• Length: 13 pages
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/; United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders; NCJRS Photocopy Services
• Publication Type: Survey
• Language: English
• Country: Japan

Annotation

In Canada, four justifications have been offered for the use of community sanctions: reducing the number of offenders involved in the criminal justice system, providing a more humane alternative to incarceration, reducing corrections costs, and more effectively rehabilitating offenders. However, the controversy over community sanctions continues.

Abstract

As in many other countries, the Canadian criminal justice system has experienced difficulty in measuring the success of its activities. While recidivism rates are too crude an indicator to assess the effectiveness of community sanctions, other measures might include the extent of community involvement, evaluation of the offender's family life, the nature of individual contact between offenders and community residents, and the relative improvement of the offender. This author contends that criminal justice systems worldwide have come to rely increasingly upon formal agencies of social control to respond to criminal behavior, resulting in decreased community involvement. Public perceptions of crime and sentencing also affect the way in which community sanctions are administered. To be effective, community sanctions and programs must be matched to the community and designed with offender input and involvement. Finally, sentencing in the criminal court and parole board decisionmaking need to be examined to understand their impact on community sanctions. 1 figure and 48 references