Community sanctions: Offenders’ perceptions about their appropriateness
| Author | Rui Abrunhosa Gonçalves,Andreia Castro Rodrigues,Joana Andrade,Ana Rita Cruz,Olga Cunha |
| DOI | 10.1177/20662203211014161 |
| Date | 01 August 2021 |
| Published date | 01 August 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Original Articles |
2021, Vol. 13(2) 161 –177
https://doi.org/10.1177/20662203211014161
European Journal of Probation
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/20662203211014161
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejp
Community sanctions:
Offenders’ perceptions
about their appropriateness
Joana Andrade
University of Minho, Portugal
Ana Rita Cruz
Lusophone Group, Lisbon, Portugal
Olga Cunha
Lusophone Group, Porto, Portugal
Rui Abrunhosa Gonçalves
University of Minho, Portugal
Andreia Castro Rodrigues
ISPA—University Institute, Portugal
Abstract
This study analyzed offenders’ perceptions about distinct sanctions and their adequacy
for different crimes, checking if these ideas apply to their crime. We covered a total of
163 adult offenders who were sanctioned with a non-custodial order. The results show
that participants tended to express a punitive attitude toward crime, apart from their
offenses. Participants who committed driving or drug trafficking offenses were those
that revealed congruence regarding the adequacy of the sentence and the usefulness
of the sanction imposed. Regarding sentences’ purposes, we noticed most participants
considered punishment and general deterrence as the primary purposes. The main
contribution of this study lies in its educational value about the cognitive particularities
and specific needs of each type of offender. Not attending to offenders’ perceptions
regarding sanctions may function as an obstacle for an efficient implementation
of the Justice, in terms of their adherence to the sanctions, and consequently their
rehabilitation.
Corresponding author:
Joana Andrade, School of Psychology, University of Minho, Rua da Universidade, Braga 4710-057, Portugal.
Email: joana.rm.andrade@gmail.com
1014161EJP0010.1177/20662203211014161European Journal of ProbationAndrade et al.
2021
Original
Article
162 European Journal of Probation 13(2)
2 European Journal of Probation 00(0)
Keywords
Community orders, crime, offenders, perceptions, sentences
Introduction
Development of community sanctions
The practice of sanctioning should be guided through a set of fundamental principles that
promote the effectiveness of the sentences while ensuring the rights of both victims and
offenders. After the seventies, boosted by the “nothing works” movement (Cullen and
Gendreau, 2001), academics have been discussing and searching for “what works” to
reduce recidivism. Several attempts tried to understand which type of sentence could fit
better the purpose of rehabilitation (Andrews and Bonta, 2017; Bottoms, 2017). Given
the growing skepticism for prison sanctions (Cullen et al., 2011), alternatives to prison
were developed to reduce the prison population, decrease costs of incarceration, and
offer a more effective way to rehabilitate people. As preconized by Capdevila et al.
(2016), to guarantee that the criminal justice system increases reintegration, it is essential
to provide other options besides prison. Non-custodial measures seek to supervise the
execution of a mandatory order in the community, focus on both community protection
and offenders’ reintegration (Capdevila et al., 2016). Being under supervision, criminals
have to behave according to the law. Besides, they have to comply with regular presenta-
tions, agreeing with a plan that aims to prevent reoffending (United Kingdom Department
of Justice, 2011).
Prison versus community orders
Theorists attempted to compare the efficacy of either imprisonment or community orders
(see Villettaz et al., 2006). Despite these efforts, the lack of knowledge about offenders’
perceptions regarding penal sanctions supports the need to analyze the phenomenon
more acutely. Most literature about these issues focuses on the comparison between
prison and non-custodial sentences. According to specific deterrence purposes, prison
sentences are seen as more effective (Nagin, 2018). Theorists who endorse the use of
imprisonment advocate that in the absence of custodial measures, the control of danger-
ous felons would not be possible (Milani and Moghadam, 2015). Also, they consider that
only a prison term can change offenders’ behavior (Cullen et al., 2017), giving rise to the
disempowerment of perpetrators and making them disinvest in crime (Nagin, 2018).
Despite this, some criticism regarding prison sentences has been postulated. One of the
central arguments states that imprisonment increases the exposure to criminogenic risk
factors. The prison, known as the “school of crime,” implies the inmates’ exposition to
other offenders, which increases the likelihood of learning how to perpetrate other crimes
(Ginneken, 2016; Milani and Moghadam, 2015). Also, offenders have to face stigmatiz-
ing labels and integration challenges when they are released. Empirical evidence indi-
cates that after imprisonment, most discharged prisoners face a set of social challenges
that make their return to the community harder. Often, they have difficulties finding a job
and re-building their individual and social capital (United Nations Office on Drugs and
To continue reading
Request your trial