The reduction of women’s imprisonment in England and Wales
| Author | Elaine Player |
| DOI | 10.1177/1462474505057119 |
| Date | 01 October 2005 |
| Published date | 01 October 2005 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
06_player_057119 (jk-t) 2/9/05 9:12 am Page 419
Copyright © SAGE Publications
London, Thousand Oaks, CA
and New Delhi.
www.sagepublications.com
1462-4745; Vol 7(4): 419–439
DOI: 10.1177/1462474505057119
PUNISHMENT
& SOCIETY
The reduction of
women’s imprisonment
in England and Wales
Will the reform of short prison sentences
help?
ELAINE PLAYER
King’s College, London, UK
Abstract
The Government published a separate strategy for women offenders and established
the Women’s Offending Reduction Programme to co-ordinate cross-government initia-
tives that target women’s offending and the criminogenic factors that underpin it. In
order for preventive strategies to be taken forward the reduction of women’s imprison-
ment has been identified as a priority. Yet the Government has presided over a period
of unprecedented growth in the female prison population and its criminal justice
policies convey contradictory messages about the use of custody for women. The future
capacity of the female estate has been expanded by the commissioning of two new
women’s prisons and the sentencing reforms contained in the Criminal Justice Act 2003
fail to apply a brake on the courts’ increasing use of imprisonment. This article
examines the ways in which the new legislation fails the test of ‘joined-up’ government
by undermining its own strategy for female offenders and exposing larger numbers of
women to the risk of imprisonment.
Key Words
Criminal Justice Act 2003 • sentencing • women’s imprisonment
Despite its advocacy of ‘joined-up policies’ for ‘joined-up problems’ the British govern-
ment’s record on the treatment of women offenders manifests important contradictions.
As part of a cross-government initiative1 to address issues of gender equality, the Home
Office published a separate strategy for women offenders, creating the Women’s Offend-
ing Reduction Programme that would co-ordinate ‘efforts across the criminal justice
system to reduce women’s offending, as well as efforts in other areas of government to
tackle criminogenic factors for women, relating to family ties, health, housing,
419
06_player_057119 (jk-t) 2/9/05 9:12 am Page 420
PUNISHMENT AND SOCIETY 7(4)
employment and training’ (Home Office, 2001a: 6). The development of the
Programme also forms part of the Government’s plans to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of the criminal justice system in punishing offenders and reducing their
re-offending. An independent review of the correctional services in England and Wales
had concluded that existing resources, particularly the use of imprisonment, were poorly
targeted and consequently ineffective in reducing recidivism (Carter, 2003). It recom-
mended that prison sentences should be reserved for serious dangerous and highly
persistent offenders; that less serious offenders should be more effectively managed
through intensive community supervision; and very low-risk offenders, ‘convicted of
less serious offences with a low probability of offending’, should be fined or required
to make reparation through pre-court diversion (2003: 39). Following Carter’s recom-
mendations the Government introduced a new organizational structure in June 2004
incorporating the Probation and Prison Services under a single authority, the National
Offender Management Service (NOMS) (Home Office, 2004a). This has responsibility
for the development, co-ordination and delivery of all correctional services and facili-
ties, in prisons and in the community, working in partnerships across government
departments and with the private and voluntary sectors. The Women’s Offending
Reduction Programme has a self-evident role to play in this new managerial context in
ensuring the availability of community-based facilities and the appropriateness of inter-
ventions and programmes that are tailored to meet the needs of women.
The Programme runs over three years, with annual reviews and a final evaluation to
inform future steps. Its strategic plan was published in 2004 and is concerned with how
women are dealt with at every stage of the criminal process, from arrest to resettlement
(Home Office, 2004b). A clear priority is the reduction of custodial sentences and
encouraging greater use of community disposals and diversion at pre-court and pre-
sentence stages. The significance of moderating prison sentences for women was
acknowledged when the Programme was first established in The Government’s strategy
for women offenders (Home Office, 2001a). In one of his less publicized statements, the
Home Secretary of the day admitted that: ‘We need alternatives to custodial sentences,
not least because many families are torn apart, to the detriment of society as a whole,
when a mother is sent to prison’ (Home Office, 2001a: 1).
In his introduction to the Programme’s strategic plan, the Minister for Correctional
Services and Reducing Offending, reinforced this message: ‘The ultimate measure of
success of the Programme will be a reduction of offending by women and fewer women
held in custody’ (Home Office, 2004b: 1–2). Yet alongside these Ministerial statements
and the Government’s published strategy for women offenders there exists a contradic-
tory message about the use of custody for women. While presiding over a period of
unprecedented growth in the size of the female prison population, the Home Office
has commissioned the building of two new women’s prisons. In addition, its reforms
to the sentencing framework contained in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, fail to intro-
duce an effective brake on the courts’ increasing use of custody and instead, expose
larger numbers of women to the risk of a prison sentence.
In this article the potential impact of these legislative changes on the custodial
sentencing of women in England and Wales will be examined. Its purpose is not to
assess whether women will necessarily be treated better or worse than men. Rather, it
seeks to point to the present weakness of the Government’s strategy to reduce the use
420
06_player_057119 (jk-t) 2/9/05 9:12 am Page 421
PLAYER
The reduction of women’s imprisonment
of custody for women. It argues that changing sentencing practice in a system that places
considerable value on judicial discretion requires a set of ‘joined-up’ policies that under-
stand and effectively intervene in the decision-making process. The concept of joined-
up government implies an awareness of the interactive contexts that shape social
outcomes and demonstrate an understanding of lessons learnt from initiatives in other
jurisdictions. In order to change the sentencing of women, there needs to be an appreci-
ation of the values and beliefs that sentencers bring with them to the task of sentenc-
ing female offenders, as well as a recognition of the influences that stem from the
broader political environment and the more narrowly defined organizational impera-
tives existing within the criminal justice system.
THE GROWTH OF CUSTODY FOR WOMEN
Since the early 1990s the numbers of women in prison have grown in different juris-
dictions across North America, Europe and Australia, due mainly to increased sentence
severity (Cameron, 2001; Hannah-Moffat, 2002; Covington and Bloom, 2003;
Almeda, 2005). In England and Wales the female prison population has doubled in size
over the last five years, not because of an upsurge of female crime but because of a
significant shift in sentencing practice.2 Over the 10-year period, 1992–2002, the
official rate of female criminality did not change substantially,3 the number of women
and girls found guilty or cautioned for an indictable offence experienced a slight
decline,4 but due to a reduction in the use of cautions more women appeared before
the courts in the second half of the decade than during the first, and proportionately
more of them received a custodial sentence.5 There is little evidence to show that this
was due to a shift in the seriousness of their offending. Even though the numbers of
women convicted of drugs offences doubled over this period, they still accounted for
only 11 per cent of all women convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence in 2002.6
Rather, the increased use of custody in both the magistrates’ and the Crown courts was
most marked for the common female offences of theft, handling stolen goods and fraud.
But it is in the magistrates’ courts where the shift towards custody has been most
striking, growing 5-fold from 2 per cent of all sentences in 1992 to 12 per cent in 2002.
The average length of magistrates’ sentences, however, has remained remarkably
unchanged throughout this time, at just over 2 months. In the Crown Court, where
the use of imprisonment for women has almost doubled, the punitive net of custody
has also been cast more deeply, to the extent that the average length of sentence for
women has increased from 18 months in 1992 to 25 months in 2002.7
But the vast majority of women (and men) receive sentences considerably shorter
than this, and it is the potential of the sentencing reforms in the Criminal Justice Act
2003 to reduce the use of short sentences of 12 months or less, that is the subject of
review here. Specifically, two features of the new framework are examined which poten-
tially militate against the reduction of custody for women: first, the reformulation of
the concept and role of proportionality in sentencing decisions; and second, the replace-
ment of existing sentences of 12 months or less with a new range of custodial options.
421
06_player_057119 (jk-t) 2/9/05 9:12 am Page 422
PUNISHMENT AND SOCIETY 7(4)
PROPORTIONALITY IN SENTENCING
A fundamental...
Copyright © SAGE Publications
London, Thousand Oaks, CA
and New Delhi.
www.sagepublications.com
1462-4745; Vol 7(4): 419–439
DOI: 10.1177/1462474505057119
PUNISHMENT
& SOCIETY
The reduction of
women’s imprisonment
in England and Wales
Will the reform of short prison sentences
help?
ELAINE PLAYER
King’s College, London, UK
Abstract
The Government published a separate strategy for women offenders and established
the Women’s Offending Reduction Programme to co-ordinate cross-government initia-
tives that target women’s offending and the criminogenic factors that underpin it. In
order for preventive strategies to be taken forward the reduction of women’s imprison-
ment has been identified as a priority. Yet the Government has presided over a period
of unprecedented growth in the female prison population and its criminal justice
policies convey contradictory messages about the use of custody for women. The future
capacity of the female estate has been expanded by the commissioning of two new
women’s prisons and the sentencing reforms contained in the Criminal Justice Act 2003
fail to apply a brake on the courts’ increasing use of imprisonment. This article
examines the ways in which the new legislation fails the test of ‘joined-up’ government
by undermining its own strategy for female offenders and exposing larger numbers of
women to the risk of imprisonment.
Key Words
Criminal Justice Act 2003 • sentencing • women’s imprisonment
Despite its advocacy of ‘joined-up policies’ for ‘joined-up problems’ the British govern-
ment’s record on the treatment of women offenders manifests important contradictions.
As part of a cross-government initiative1 to address issues of gender equality, the Home
Office published a separate strategy for women offenders, creating the Women’s Offend-
ing Reduction Programme that would co-ordinate ‘efforts across the criminal justice
system to reduce women’s offending, as well as efforts in other areas of government to
tackle criminogenic factors for women, relating to family ties, health, housing,
419
06_player_057119 (jk-t) 2/9/05 9:12 am Page 420
PUNISHMENT AND SOCIETY 7(4)
employment and training’ (Home Office, 2001a: 6). The development of the
Programme also forms part of the Government’s plans to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of the criminal justice system in punishing offenders and reducing their
re-offending. An independent review of the correctional services in England and Wales
had concluded that existing resources, particularly the use of imprisonment, were poorly
targeted and consequently ineffective in reducing recidivism (Carter, 2003). It recom-
mended that prison sentences should be reserved for serious dangerous and highly
persistent offenders; that less serious offenders should be more effectively managed
through intensive community supervision; and very low-risk offenders, ‘convicted of
less serious offences with a low probability of offending’, should be fined or required
to make reparation through pre-court diversion (2003: 39). Following Carter’s recom-
mendations the Government introduced a new organizational structure in June 2004
incorporating the Probation and Prison Services under a single authority, the National
Offender Management Service (NOMS) (Home Office, 2004a). This has responsibility
for the development, co-ordination and delivery of all correctional services and facili-
ties, in prisons and in the community, working in partnerships across government
departments and with the private and voluntary sectors. The Women’s Offending
Reduction Programme has a self-evident role to play in this new managerial context in
ensuring the availability of community-based facilities and the appropriateness of inter-
ventions and programmes that are tailored to meet the needs of women.
The Programme runs over three years, with annual reviews and a final evaluation to
inform future steps. Its strategic plan was published in 2004 and is concerned with how
women are dealt with at every stage of the criminal process, from arrest to resettlement
(Home Office, 2004b). A clear priority is the reduction of custodial sentences and
encouraging greater use of community disposals and diversion at pre-court and pre-
sentence stages. The significance of moderating prison sentences for women was
acknowledged when the Programme was first established in The Government’s strategy
for women offenders (Home Office, 2001a). In one of his less publicized statements, the
Home Secretary of the day admitted that: ‘We need alternatives to custodial sentences,
not least because many families are torn apart, to the detriment of society as a whole,
when a mother is sent to prison’ (Home Office, 2001a: 1).
In his introduction to the Programme’s strategic plan, the Minister for Correctional
Services and Reducing Offending, reinforced this message: ‘The ultimate measure of
success of the Programme will be a reduction of offending by women and fewer women
held in custody’ (Home Office, 2004b: 1–2). Yet alongside these Ministerial statements
and the Government’s published strategy for women offenders there exists a contradic-
tory message about the use of custody for women. While presiding over a period of
unprecedented growth in the size of the female prison population, the Home Office
has commissioned the building of two new women’s prisons. In addition, its reforms
to the sentencing framework contained in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, fail to intro-
duce an effective brake on the courts’ increasing use of custody and instead, expose
larger numbers of women to the risk of a prison sentence.
In this article the potential impact of these legislative changes on the custodial
sentencing of women in England and Wales will be examined. Its purpose is not to
assess whether women will necessarily be treated better or worse than men. Rather, it
seeks to point to the present weakness of the Government’s strategy to reduce the use
420
06_player_057119 (jk-t) 2/9/05 9:12 am Page 421
PLAYER
The reduction of women’s imprisonment
of custody for women. It argues that changing sentencing practice in a system that places
considerable value on judicial discretion requires a set of ‘joined-up’ policies that under-
stand and effectively intervene in the decision-making process. The concept of joined-
up government implies an awareness of the interactive contexts that shape social
outcomes and demonstrate an understanding of lessons learnt from initiatives in other
jurisdictions. In order to change the sentencing of women, there needs to be an appreci-
ation of the values and beliefs that sentencers bring with them to the task of sentenc-
ing female offenders, as well as a recognition of the influences that stem from the
broader political environment and the more narrowly defined organizational impera-
tives existing within the criminal justice system.
THE GROWTH OF CUSTODY FOR WOMEN
Since the early 1990s the numbers of women in prison have grown in different juris-
dictions across North America, Europe and Australia, due mainly to increased sentence
severity (Cameron, 2001; Hannah-Moffat, 2002; Covington and Bloom, 2003;
Almeda, 2005). In England and Wales the female prison population has doubled in size
over the last five years, not because of an upsurge of female crime but because of a
significant shift in sentencing practice.2 Over the 10-year period, 1992–2002, the
official rate of female criminality did not change substantially,3 the number of women
and girls found guilty or cautioned for an indictable offence experienced a slight
decline,4 but due to a reduction in the use of cautions more women appeared before
the courts in the second half of the decade than during the first, and proportionately
more of them received a custodial sentence.5 There is little evidence to show that this
was due to a shift in the seriousness of their offending. Even though the numbers of
women convicted of drugs offences doubled over this period, they still accounted for
only 11 per cent of all women convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence in 2002.6
Rather, the increased use of custody in both the magistrates’ and the Crown courts was
most marked for the common female offences of theft, handling stolen goods and fraud.
But it is in the magistrates’ courts where the shift towards custody has been most
striking, growing 5-fold from 2 per cent of all sentences in 1992 to 12 per cent in 2002.
The average length of magistrates’ sentences, however, has remained remarkably
unchanged throughout this time, at just over 2 months. In the Crown Court, where
the use of imprisonment for women has almost doubled, the punitive net of custody
has also been cast more deeply, to the extent that the average length of sentence for
women has increased from 18 months in 1992 to 25 months in 2002.7
But the vast majority of women (and men) receive sentences considerably shorter
than this, and it is the potential of the sentencing reforms in the Criminal Justice Act
2003 to reduce the use of short sentences of 12 months or less, that is the subject of
review here. Specifically, two features of the new framework are examined which poten-
tially militate against the reduction of custody for women: first, the reformulation of
the concept and role of proportionality in sentencing decisions; and second, the replace-
ment of existing sentences of 12 months or less with a new range of custodial options.
421
06_player_057119 (jk-t) 2/9/05 9:12 am Page 422
PUNISHMENT AND SOCIETY 7(4)
PROPORTIONALITY IN SENTENCING
A fundamental...
To continue reading
Request your trial