The Efifectiveness of Sentencing CHRISTINE LAWRIE
| DOI | 10.1177/026455057802500307 |
| Date | 01 September 1978 |
| Published date | 01 September 1978 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
96
The
Efifectiveness
of
Sentencing
CHRISTINE
LAWRIE
FOR
YEARS
methods
of
dealing
with
offenders
have
centred
around
the
triple
objectives-
of
reform
(or
rehabilitation),
punishment
and
deterrence
with
little
evidence
to
support
the
belief
that
these
are
attainable
or
desirable.
The
1976
Home
Office
study
&dquo;The
Effectiveness
Of
Sentencing&dquo;
represented
the
first
attempt
to
draw
together
the
research
of
the
last
twenty
years
into
the
effects
of
different
types
of
sentence,
and
the
conclusions
that
can
be
drawn
from
it
are
therefore
of
great
importance,
especially
when
it
might
seem,
to
judge
from
reconviction
figures,
that
vast
numbers
are
not
deterred,
and
progress
through
the
penal
and/or
social
work
systems
to
little
positive
effect.
This
paper
is
based
on
that
study.
The
aims
of
sentencing
were
once
clear:
to
punish
(preferably
by
removing
the
offender
from
society
permanently
by
death
or
deportation)
and
thereby
to
deter.
Growing
humanitarianism,
concern
for
individual
rights,
the
development
of
modern
psychology
and
the
resulting
aware-
ness
of
the
origins
and
complexities
of
human
behaviour,
with
practical
considerations
such
as
the
need
to
find
alternatives
to
prison
because
of
shortage
of
space,
have
increased
the
range
of
sentences
available
and
vastly
altered
the
aims
of
sentencing.
A
present
day
judge
or
magistrate
has
a
much
more
difficult
task
than
his
predecessors.
Nowadays
reform
is
said
to
be
perhaps
more
important
than
punishment
or
deterrence,
and
therefore
the
sentence
now
has
to
fit
the offender
rather
than
the
crime.
This
involves
taking
into
account
many
factors,
e.g.
the
age,
character,
family
background,
psychological
history,
previous
convictions
of
the
offender,
and
public
opinion
must
also
be
considered,
justice
must
be
seen
to
be
done,
and
it
must
be
seen
that
undue
harm
is
not
caused
either
to
the
offender
or
society
(e.g.
by
letting
a
dangerous
person
return
to
the
community).
If
possible
any
recurrence
of
criminal
behaviour
should
be
prevented.
These
objectives
are
often
contradictory
and
unclear.
Disparities
between
sentences
passed
in
different
courts
in
Britain
have
been
observed
for
many
years,
and
it
has
been
demonstrated
that
dif-
ferences
are
strongly
related
to
the
beliefs
of
individual
magistrates
and
judges
about
the
aims
of
sentencing
and
the
relative
effectiveness
of
various
measures.
This
suggests,
perhaps,
a
need
for
a
unified
policy
of
sentencing,
but
none
exists
because
not
only
are
the
aims
of
sentencing
contradictory
and
unclear,
but
the
relative
effectiveness
of
different
measures
has
never
been
properly
assessed.
Various
studies
have
examined
individual
types
of
sentence
or,
more
often,
looked
at
&dquo;one-off&dquo;
experimental
projects;
the
Home
Office
study
was
the
first
to
examine
the
evidence
as
a
whole.
Sixty
five
separate
research
studies
into
corrective
change
amongst
per-
sons
already
sentenced,
dating
from
the
mid-1950’s
to
the
early
1970’s,
were
studied.
Studies
of
periods
spent
in
custody
in
Britain
and
America
conclude
that
longer
sentences
are
no
more
effective
than
shorter
ones
(taking
reconviction
rate
as
a
measure
of
success).
For
example,
a
comparison
(Mannheim
and
Wilkins
1955)
of
young
men
who
had
spent
more
or
To continue reading
Request your trial