Criminal Justice and Probation in the 1980's
| Published date | 01 September 1983 |
| Author | Bill Jordan |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455058303000302 |
| Date | 01 September 1983 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
83
Criminal
Justice
and
Probation
in
the
1980’s
Bill
Jordan
University
of Exeter
How
should
we
try
to
understand
the
changes
in
the
criminal
justice
system
which
are
taking
place
in
this
country
in
the
present
decade?
How
can
the
Probation
Service
maintain
its
professional
integrity,
influence
the
outcomes
of
policy
decisions,
and
serve
the
best
interests
of
its
clients?
How
do
these
issues
link
with
wider
developments
in
social
policy
and
social
work?
A
former
probation
officer,
turned
social
policy
analyst,
gives
an
overview
of
the
Criminal
Justice
Act.
The
Criminal
Justice
System
Britain
is
a
highly
developed
centralised
state,
and
its
criminal
justice
system
reflects
this.
In
Anglo-Saxon
times
there
were
no
such
things
as
crimes;
offences
against
persons
and
property
were
treated
as
wrongs,
and
dealt
with
between
the
kin
of the
offender
and
the
victim,
with
the
local
community
providing
some
form
of
mediation.
The
wrongdoer
was
expected
to
make
some
kind
of reparation
(either
material
or
symbolic),
or the
kin
of
the
victim
exacted
some
kind
of
physical
retribution
on
the
wrongdoer
and/or
his
kin.
Gradually
during
the
Middle
Ages,
the
State
came
to
play a
part
in
criminal
justice,
defining
certain
wrongs
done
against
citizens
as
being
also
wrongs
against
the
state
i.e.
crimes,
and
setting
up
an
administrative
system
of
justice.
We
now
have
a
system
where
the
state
not
only
hears
the
case
and
decides
the
penalty,
but
also
exacts
it,
as
if it
(the
State)
was
the
wronged
party,
with
little
reference
to
the
needs
or
deserts
of the
victim.
So
we
still
have
a
notion
of reparation
for
wrongs
in
our
civil
courts,
but
our
criminal
courts
reflect
the
State’s
concern
with
’law
and
order’.
In
criminal justice
we
still
speak
of offences
against
the
Crown,
or
against
the
Queen’s
Peace.
The
kinds
of penalties
exacted
by
the
State
for
crimes
have
changed,
and
the
philosophy
behind
them
has
changed
also.
Up
to
the
nineteenth
century,
penalties
were
mainly
either
financial
or
physical,
and
they
were
still
seen
mainly
as
a
form
of
retribution
against
the
wrongdoer
for
his
wrong.
In
the
nineteenth
century,
there
came
to
be
much
more
emphasis
on
deterring
other
potential
wrongdoers,
and
the
criminal
himself
from
future
wrongdoing.
Prison
came
to
be
the
symbol
of
deterrence,
and
the
main
basis
of
the
penal
system.
But
we
have
to
be
careful
to
understand
what
prison
is,
what
the
nature
and
purpose
of
this
particular
form
of punishment
is.
It
has
recently
been
suggested
(for
instance)
that
all
punishment
is
containment
and
all
containment
is
punish-
ment.’
This
is
wrong.
A
fine
is
clearly
a
punishment,
but
it
is
not
containment
at
all.
Being
admitted
to
mental
hospital
is
containment,
but
it
is
not
punishment
in
the
legal
sense.
The
point
about
imprisonment
as
a
punishment
is
that
it
contains
the
offender,
and
punishes
him -
even
if it
doesn’t
reform
or
change
him,
and
even
if he
doesn’t
deserve
it,
or
need
it
-
and
it
deters
would-be
offenders.
This
latter
aim
(general
deterrence)
is
in
fact
the
principal
objective
of the
criminal
law -
to
strike
terror
into
the hearts
of
those
who
might
be
tempted
to
break
the
criminal
law.
It is
of
much
more
than
symbolic
value
to
rulers.
What
sort
of criminal
law
is
this,
and
what
does
it
tell
us
about
our
society?
First,
it
is
a
law
that
defends
private property
-
that uses
state
power
to
uphold
the
institution
of
property,
not
merely
the
property
of
individuals.
Secondly,
it
is
a
law
that
enforces
social
order.
Offences
against
persons,
like
property
offences,
are
seen
as
offences
against
the
State,
in
that
they
infringe
public
order.
The
injury
to
the
victim
of
an
assualt
is
somewhat
incidental;
it
is
the
State
that
prosecutes
and
punishes,
because
the
State
is
offended
by
assaults
on
individuals
as
well
as
To continue reading
Request your trial