Good behaviour bonds and re-offending: The effect of bond length
| Author | Lorana Bartels,Suzanne Poynton,Don Weatherburn |
| Published date | 01 April 2014 |
| Date | 01 April 2014 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0004865813504769 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology
2014, Vol. 47(1) 25–43
!The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0004865813504769
anj.sagepub.com
Article
Good behaviour bonds and
re-offending: The effect
of bond length
Suzanne Poynton
NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Sydney, Australia;
Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
Don Weatherburn
NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Sydney, Australia
Lorana Bartels
Faculty of Business, Government and Law, University of Canberra,
Australia
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of good behaviour bonds in reducing
re-offending. Data on 19,478 individuals who received a good behaviour bond under section 9
of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) for their principal offence were exam-
ined. Propensity score matching techniques were used to match offenders who received a
bond of less than 24 months with offenders who received a bond of 24 months or more.
These two matched groups were then compared on time to first new offence. After matching
offenders on a large range of factors, time to reconviction was longer for offenders placed on
bonds 24 months or longer compared with offenders placed on shorter bonds. A significant
effect of bond length on re-offending was apparent for both supervised and unsupervised
orders. The evidence presented here tentatively suggests long bonds are more effective in
reducing re-offending than short bonds.
Keywords
Australia, good behaviour bonds, propensity score matching, re-offending, sentencing
Introduction
With increasing prison numbers in most western countries (Australian Bureau
of Statistics (ABS), 2009) and evidence suggesting that custody fails to deter further
offending (see Nagin et al., 2009), there has been a renewed interest in the effectiveness of
non-custodial sanctions, particularly the effectiveness of community-based sentences.
Corresponding author:
Suzanne Poynton, Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, GPO Box 6, Sydney, New South Wales 2001, Australia.
Email: suzanne_poynton@agd.nsw.gov.au
The most widely used alternative to prison in Australia is a good behaviour bond
(ABS, 2013; hereafter simply referred to as a ‘bond’; for a recent discussion of the
advantages and disadvantages of such orders, see New South Wales (NSW)
Sentencing Council, 2011). In 2011, bonds accounted for 15% of all penalties imposed
by Australian adult courts (unpublished ABS data, received 26 July 2012). Broadly
speaking, a bond is an order requiring an offender to be of good behaviour, and
abide by certain conditions (see further discussion below). If the offender fails to
comply with the order, he or she can be re-sentenced for the original offence (as well
as punished for any new offences).
In NSW, bonds may be imposed under sections 9, 10 or 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing
Procedure)Act 1999 (NSW) (CSPA). Bonds imposed under section 9 permit a court,
upon convicting an offender, to make an order directing an offender to enter into a good
behaviour bond, instead of imposing a sentence of imprisonment. The maximum term of
the bond is five years (CSPA: s9 (2)). By contrast, bonds imposed under sections 10 and
12 are not to exceed two years. Section 10 bonds can be imposed where the court has
found a person guilty of an offence but not entered a conviction, while section 12 bonds
arise following conviction and the imposition of a suspended sentence.
Table 1 sets out the legislative maximum for bonds ordered with or without convic-
tions (also known as good behaviour orders, conditional release orders or undertakings)
in other Australian jurisdictions. Bonds as a condition of a suspended sentence are not
available in Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania or the Northern
Territory and are therefore not included below.
Only two Australian studies have examined the effectiveness of bonds in reducing
re-offending. Weatherburn and Trimboli (2008) examined the re-conviction rates of
12,838 male offenders, 4432 of whom had been placed on a supervised bond,
1
with
the remainder placed on an unsupervised bond. They found no effect of supervision
on risk of re-offending. Weatherburn and Bartels (2008) examined the re-conviction
rates of 6356 offenders, 4957 of whom had been given a supervised bond and 1399 of
whom had been given a suspended sentence. Again, no difference emerged in rates of
reconviction between the two groups.
Table 1. Legislative maximum for bonds ordered with or without conviction by jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction Legislation With conviction Without conviction
NSW Crimes (Sentencing) Procedure Act 1999 s9–5 years s10–2 years
Vic Sentencing Act 1991 s72–5 years s75–5 years
Qld Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 s 32–no maximum stated s19–3 years
SA Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 ss39; 40–3 years ss39; 40–3 years
WA Sentencing Act 1995 ss39; 48; 49–2 years ss39; 48; 49–2 years
Tas Sentencing Act 1997 ss7; 59–5 years ss7; 59–5 years
NT Sentencing Act 1995 s11–5 years s13–5 years
ACT Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 s13–no maximum stated ss13; 17–3 years
Cth Crimes Act 1914 s20–5 years s19B–3 years
26 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 47(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial