Case Comment
| Date | 01 March 1978 |
| Published date | 01 March 1978 |
| DOI | 10.1177/000486587801100109 |
| Author | K L Milte,A A Bartholomew |
AUST &NZ JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY (March 1978) 11 (57-60)
CASE
COMMENT
Holdsworth: The Times (London) 18, 20 June 1977
57
It has
been
stated
in a
report!
that
"The
Home
Secretary's Advisory
Council
on
the
Penal
System
and
the
Parole
Board
have
both
published
constructive
reports
dealing, in
their
different
ways,
with
the
same
issue:
how
to
reduce
the
appallingly
high
level
of
the
prison
population
without
at
the
same
time
putting
society
under
any
significantly
increased
risk".2 In this
editorial
we
are
not
concerned
with
the
issue
of
parole.
The
Interim
Report
of
the
Advisory
Council
on
the
Penal
System,
entitled
"The
Length
of Prison
Sentences"
makes
a
number
of
interesting
observations
which
include:
we carne to the firm conclusion that the present legislative framework for sentencing, while not
lacking in internal consistency, does not possess any rational foundation.
The
system of maximum
penalties is not the
product
of a rational
and
consistent scheme,
but
rather the result of piecemeal
legislation
over
more
than acentury in response to
many
different pressures such as, for example,
transient Parliamentary
concern
with aspecific crime.
The
present
maximum penalties, by
and
large,
are little
more
than
words
on the statute book. Although they may influence the practice of
magistrates' courts,
whose
powers
of imprisonment are limited, the higher courts rarely
make
reference to them, for the simple reason that they
are,
for almost all offences, greatly in excess of
what
the judges wish to
impose
in all
but
the very exceptional
case.
. .3We do not
deal
in this
report
with the lengthy sentences passed by the courts in cases such as
armed
robbery
or serious crimes of
violence.
There
is a clear distinction to be
drawn
between
crimes of that kind
and
the offences
committed
by the majority of those who
enter
our prison
system.'
The
report
continues:
In the last
twenty
years, criminological research
concerned
with assessing the effectiveness of
particular
court
disposals
and
custodial regimes has considerably developed. Asteadily accumulating
volume of research has
shown
that, if reconviction rates
are
used to measure the success or failure of
sentencing policy, there is virtually nothing to choose
between
different lengths of custodial
sentence, different types of institutional regime,
and
even
between
custodial
and
non-custodial
treatment, although for
some
types of offence fines do
appear
to be
more
effective in discouraging
recidivism than prison sentences . . . Against the
backcloth
of a pessimistic conclusion
about
the
reformative potential of prison,
deterrence
and
the
need
to
protect
the public
have
become
the
principal justification for the penalty of imprisonment
and
few
would
now claim, as they might have
done
twenty years ago,
that
the principal role of prison is to reform."
The
Advisory
Council
then
offer
asuggestion
for
asentencing
technique:
"The
general
rule
which
we
advocate
for all
courts
to follow is to
stop
at
the
point
where
a
sentence
has
been
decided
upon
and
consider
whether
a
shorter
one
would
not
do just as well
...
6Are
there
not
cases
of
two
years'
imprisonment
where
18
months,
or 15 or
even
less,
might
safely
be
passed,
and
sentences
of
twelve
months
when
six
months
would
do
just as well?
And
for
the
offender
going
to
prison
for
the
first
time,
should
not
even
a
shorter
sentence
suffice?"7 As
the
Times suggests"
"it
is the
beginning
of
the
sentence,
the
sharp
initial shock,
To continue reading
Request your trial