Thinking about penal equivalents
| Published date | 01 October 2005 |
| Date | 01 October 2005 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1462474505057120 |
| Author | Voula Marinos |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Thinking about penal
equivalents
VOULA MARINOS
Brock University, Canada
Abstract
Authors have pointed to multiple dimensions of crime and punishment, and in particu-
lar, the need to understand both the roles of instrumental and expressive elements. The
latter dimension – the expressive or symbolic purpose of punishment – has been viewed
as a specific reason for the relatively low success rate of decreasing the use of impris-
onment, particularly with respect to public acceptability. I argue that in addition, there
has not been adequate attention paid to the roles of factors such as the nature of the
offence and the age of the offender. The purpose of this article is to offer a lens through
which to think about penal equivalents, and the nuances of various connections among
multiple dimensions of punishment. What is lacking from criminal justice literature
and legislation is a broader framework for understanding the relationship among
purposes of sentencing, sanctions, offences and offenders – how a specific sanction is
seen as accomplishing specific purposes only with respect to certain offences and
offenders. The present analysis draws on a random sample of residents in Ontario,
Canada about their views of the acceptability of fines and community service orders
as penal substitutes for custodial sentences across different offence and offender
scenarios.
Key Words
community service orders • fines • intermediate sanctions • public attitudes •
sentencing
INTRODUCTION
The notion of penal equivalency – between sanctions and as substitutes for sentences
of imprisonment – has been relatively under-conceptualized. Sentencing reform strate-
gies in various parts of the world have assumed that interchangeability – the substitu-
tion of community-based sanctions for sentences of imprisonment1– can be
accomplished in relatively simplistic ways. Some proposals have assumed that punish-
ments can be substituted simply by adjusting the severity of penalties – a unidimen-
sional approach to punishment and criminal sanctions. Many others implicitly or
441
PUNISHMENT
& SOCIETY
Copyright © SAGE Publications
London, Thousand Oa ks, CA
and New Delhi.
www.sagepublications.com
1462-4745; Vol 7(4): 441–455
DOI: 10.1177/1462474505057120
07_marinos_057120 (jk-t) 2/9/05 9:13 am Page 441
To continue reading
Request your trial