Saturday Work: A Real Alternative?
| Published date | 01 June 1976 |
| DOI | 10.1177/000486587600900206 |
| Date | 01 June 1976 |
AUST &NZ
JOURNAL
OF
CRIMINOLOGY (June 1976) 9
(95-108)
SATURDAY WORK: A
REAL
ALTERNATIVE?O
Sheila
Varnet
95
The
Saturday
Work
Order
Scheme
which
was
introduced
in Tasmania in 1972
is attracting interest
from
many
of those involved in sentencing
and
criminology
in general,
both
in Australia
and
overseas. Many statements are
being
made,
both
by
politicians
and
people
working in the field, concerning
the
effectiveness of
the scheme in
reducing
the
prison population,
however
I will
contend
in this
paper
that these statements are
being
made
without the benefit
of
any concrete
evidence
to
support
them,
and
further, that
many
of
them
are misleading.
So far in Tasmania practically no research at all has
been
carried
out
in any
area
of
crime
and
sentencing activity; either systematizing the available
data
concerning crime rates, or in the area of assessing the effects
of
different
sentences on the
offender
himself or
the
community
in general. This situation
leaves sentencing authorities groping blindly
with
the
confusing array of
alternative measures
and
theories at their disposal, making essentially intuitive
decisions
about
the person confronting them, fortunately in
Tasmania
with the
guidance
of
pre-sentence reports. These sentencers have
been
provided
with
little
feedback
concerning the effects
of
their decisions
which
provides an
inadequate
basis
from
which
to operate. This is especially relevant in
the
present
situation
where
new
schemes are
being
implemented
and
was
emphasized
in
1968
by
Mary Daunton-Fear!
who
pointed
out
that
unless sufficient funds are
invested to measure success or failure, there is
not
much
point
in experimenting.
In
order
to assess the uses
and
effects
of
the
Work
Order
legislation, a
brief
assessment of the situation in Tasmania
prior
to 1972 must
be
made,
and
as in
other
States,
the
general
rate
of crime,
measured
albeit imperfectly
by
the
number
of cases
brought
before
the Courts" has
been
increasing steadily over the
last
ten
years. This is
shown
graphically in Figure 1.
Data
are
not
available concerning
how
these offenders
brought
to
Court
are
subsequently dealt
with
in terms of those
who
receive adischarge, fine,
bond,
probation
or imprisonment, so that an analysis
of
frequencies of particular
sentences
could
not
be
carried out. Also unavailable is information on the
frequency of reconvictions in these specific categories
which
is essential for a
thorough investigation
of
the effectiveness of these alternatives.
The
number
of
people
imprisoned
each
year
however
is available
but
surprisingly bears little
relation to
the
curve
for offences
brought
before
the
court
(see
Figure
2).
oThe author
would
like to
acknowledge
the generous assistance
provided
by officers of the
Probation
and
Parole Service of Tasmania, the Tasmanian office of the Australian Bureau of
Statistics
and
Mr Alan
Ward
in particular,
and
the cooperation of the Attorney-General's
Department.
t
Third
Year
Undergraduate
Student, Political Science
Department,
University of Tasmania.
To continue reading
Request your trial