Reducing female admissions to custody: Exploring the options at sentencing
| Author | Gabrielle Watson,Julian V Roberts |
| Published date | 01 November 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1748895816684177 |
| Date | 01 November 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895816684177
Criminology & Criminal Justice
2017, Vol. 17(5) 546 –567
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1748895816684177
journals.sagepub.com/home/crj
Reducing female admissions
to custody: Exploring the
options at sentencing
Julian V Roberts
University of Oxford, UK
Gabrielle Watson
University of Oxford, UK
Abstract
Although women represent a small minority of the prison population in all nations, it has
long been a concern that custody is overused with respect to female offenders. Reducing
the number of women in prison has therefore emerged as a policy priority in many western
nations, including the United Kingdom. This article evaluates a range of sentencing strategies
to reduce the number of women in prison, on the grounds that their experience of the
sanction is disproportionately severe. The challenge is to achieve a reduction in women’s
imprisonment without compromising the fundamental sentencing principles of equity and
proportionality. Although no jurisdiction has launched a sentencing initiative with this specific
aim, the international sentencing literature offers insight into the most effective methods by
which reductions may be achieved. Informed by the principle of equal impact, which underpins
gender-specific sentencing, we explore policy options in two principal domains: (1) statutory
provisions to eliminate or restrict judicial discretion to imprison female offenders; and (2)
sentencing guidelines to structure judicial discretion in gender-sensitive ways. We conclude by
considering the likelihood of implementing the options.
Keywords
Female offenders, women and imprisonment
Corresponding author:
Julian V Roberts, Professor of Criminology, University of Oxford, Manor Road Building, Manor Road,
Oxford, OX26PZ, UK.
Email: julian.roberts@crim.ox.ac.uk
684177CRJ0010.1177/1748895816684177Criminology & Criminal JusticeRoberts and Watson
research-article2016
Article
Roberts and Watson 547
Introduction
Over the past 20 years, the sentencing of female offenders has attracted a significant
volume of scholarly commentary (e.g. Gelsthorpe and Sharpe, 2015; Hedderman and
Barnes, 2015; Player, 2012). In particular, the reliance on prison as a sanction for female
offenders has long been a concern in many jurisdictions. The early literature on women’s
imprisonment stressed the need for better prison facilities for women and highlighted the
failure of the prison estate in England and Wales (and elsewhere) to provide adequate,
gender-appropriate correctional institutions (e.g. Stern, 1987: 226–227). More recently,
politicians, Commissions of Inquiry, advocacy groups and academics have also called
for greater restraint in the use of custody for female offenders (e.g. Allen et al., 2014;
House of Commons Justice Committee, 2015). Movement towards this goal received
fresh impetus with the publication of two comprehensive reports examining women’s
imprisonment in the United Kingdom (Gerry and Harris, 2014, 2016). In 2016, the first
Prime Minister’s speech to focus solely on prisons set out plans for a reformed ‘21st-
century’ prison system and advocated alternative disposals for female offenders with
dependent children (Ministry of Justice, 2016). Finally, the problem of women in prison
is global in nature, as evidenced by a recent report from the Vera Institute which deals
with the ‘precipitous rise in the number of women in jail’ in the USA (Vera Institute,
2016: 6).
In this article, we move beyond the Gerry and Harris reports by reviewing a range of
sentencing strategies to reduce the number of women in prison. The challenge is to
reduce the number of women in prison without compromising fundamental sentencing
principles of equity and proportionality. Although no jurisdiction has launched a sentenc-
ing initiative with the specific aim of reducing the number of women in prison, the inter-
national sentencing literature offers insight into the methods by which such reductions
may be achieved. While we discuss the pivotal role of sentencing in reducing women’s
imprisonment, this is not to overlook potential solutions which precede or follow sen-
tencing. There are clear opportunities for reform at other stages of the criminal process,
particularly with respect to diversion and the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. For
example, prosecutors could make greater efforts to invoke alternatives to prosecution for
all but the more serious cases, or where the offender represents a substantial risk to the
community. These prosecutorial diversion policies could also be more sensitive to the
consequences of prosecution for dependants of individuals charged.
The article explores sentencing policy options in two principal domains: (1) statutory
provisions to eliminate or restrict judicial discretion to imprison female offenders; and
(2) sentencing guidelines to structure judicial discretion in more gender-sensitive ways.
We focus on these mechanisms because the link between reform and remedy is most
direct in the case of statutory law or statutorily-binding guidelines.1 The key to devising
an appropriate and effective remedy to the problem of women’s incarceration lies in
understanding why a court should respond differently to female offenders as a group
with a distinctive set of vulnerabilities in the criminal justice system (e.g. Angiolini,
2012; Gelsthorpe and Morris, 2002; Home Office, 2007). To affirm the significance of
gender alone would be insufficient. First, however, we note the principal justifications
for adopting a differential approach to the sentencing of women.
To continue reading
Request your trial