Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 10:37 pm
Time: 10:37 pm
Results for alternatives to imprisonment
6 results foundAuthor: McInnis, Lia Title: Trends in the Use of Suspended Sentences in NSW Summary: "Since they were re-introduced to New South Wales in April 2000, the use of suspended prison sentences has tripled in NSW Local Courts and more than doubled in NSW District and Supreme Courts. The aim of the current study was to assess the extent to which suspended sentences have replaced custodial and non-custodial penalties. In Local Courts, the proportional use of full time and periodic custody sanctions decreased after the introduction of suspended sentences but so did the use of Community Service Orders (CSOs). In the Higher (District and Supreme) Criminal Courts, there appears to have been a small reduction in full-time imprisonment and the use of period detention. The introduction of suspended sentences, however, has also resulted in significant reductions in the use of bonds and CSOs." Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2010. 4p. Source: Internet Resource; Crime and Justice Statistics Bureau Brief, Issue Paper No. 47 Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: Shelf Number: 119366 Keywords: Alternatives to ImprisonmentCourtsProbationSentencing (New South Wales)Suspended Sentences |
Author: Weaver, Beth Title: User Views of Punishment: The Dynamics of Community-‐ based Punishment: Insider Views from the Outside Summary: This report explores the experience of community sentences from the perspective of those subject to them and is part of a larger project on ‘User Views of Punishment’ in which we attempt to document what the punished think of punishment: how it works, what it means and how it fits into the larger context of a person’s life. Where a previous SCCJR research report (No.04/2010) explored research findings with a particular focus on the experience and effects of short prison sentences from the perspective of those serving them, this research report provides highlights of findings from the analysis with a specific focus on the experience and effects of both prison and community sanctions from the perspective of those currently subject to community sanctions, whose penal experience includes short prison sentences. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Centre for Crime & Justice Research, 2011. 35p. Source: Internet Resoruce: Research Report No. 03/2011: Accessed April 18, 2011 at: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/documents/Report%202011%2003%20User%20Views%20of%20Punishment-1.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/documents/Report%202011%2003%20User%20Views%20of%20Punishment-1.pdf Shelf Number: 121373 Keywords: Alternatives to ImprisonmentCommunity Based CorrectionsPunishmentSentencing (Scotland) |
Author: Snowball, Lucy Title: The Profile of Offenders Receiving Suspended Sentences Summary: The aim of this study was to determine whether the profile of those receiving suspended sentences (of any length) changed over the 10-year period from 2000 to 2009 and whether those receiving suspended sentences have different characteristics from those receiving a full-time custodial sentence of the same length (in this case six months). The first question was answered by analysing the distribution of certain characteristics of interest over the 10-year period from 2000 to 2009 amongst offenders who had been given a suspended sentence. The second question was examined by looking at the bivariate relationship between sentence type and offender characteristics and then building a logistic regression model comparing the characteristics of offenders receiving a suspended sentence to those receiving a full-time custodial sentence. The study found that over the period 2000 to 2009, there has been a reduction in the proportion of suspended sentences imposed on property offenders and an increase in the proportion of suspended sentences imposed on persons convicted of driving and traffic and ‘other’ offences. Offenders are more likely to receive a suspended sentence (than a full-time custodial sentence of six months or less) if they are female, older than 35 years of age, have been convicted of an offence that does not involve serious violence, theft or breaching an order, do not have concurrent convictions, do not have prior convictions and are not legally represented. Courts do not appear to reserve suspended sentences for offenders who would otherwise have gone to prison. Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2011. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Bureau Brief, Issue Paper no. 63: Accessed August 18, 2011 at: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/bb63.pdf/$file/bb63.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/bb63.pdf/$file/bb63.pdf Shelf Number: 122425 Keywords: Alternatives to ImprisonmentSentencing (Australia)Suspended Sentences |
Author: Armstrong, Sarah Title: User Views of Punishment: The comparative experience of short prison sentences and community-based punishments Summary: Despite a substantial knowledge base about experiences of prison, there is scant research on the most common penal experience in Scotland – doing a short prison sentence (but see Criminal Justice Forum, 2003). Short prison sentences are one of the characteristic features of imprisonment in Scotland, where the vast majority of custodial sentences issued in a year (ranging anywhere between 75% and 80%) are for six months or less (Scottish Government, 2010). The current Government is pursuing an agenda to reduce the short sentence culture in Scotland, by expanding the use of community-based forms of punishment and creating a legal presumption against the use of very short stays in prison. In addition, there is also growing belief that bringing the voices of ‘users’ into policy deliberations and development are essential for the effective design and delivery as well as the credibility of public services (Weaver, 2010). Prisoners and offenders – like victims, communities, and criminal justice professionals – are a key user group of criminal justice services, and the Government has expressed interest in learning more about the perspectives of various users. In light of these developments, we sought the views of people experiencing typically brief jail sentences as well as the views of those who have experience of community-based sanctions, the intended alternative. This research was proposed to begin filling our gap in knowledge as well as to provide relevant information to policy makers and others involved in or affected by the current reform programme. This report highlights emerging themes of the analysis with a particular focus on the experience and effects of imprisonment. A forthcoming research report will focus on the experiences and effects of community sanctions. We are continuing to review interview transcripts as well as explore the relevant theoretical frameworks being used to interpret the voices of offenders and would be happy to present this work to interested groups. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Centre for Crime & Justice Research, 2010. 35p. Source: Research Report No. 04/2010: Internet Resource: Accessed March 20, 2012 at http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/documents/Report%202010%2004%20-%20User%20Views%20of%20Punishment.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/documents/Report%202010%2004%20-%20User%20Views%20of%20Punishment.pdf Shelf Number: 124589 Keywords: Alternatives to ImprisonmentCommunity Based CorrectionsPunishmentSentencing (Scotland) |
Author: California. Office of the Inspector General Title: Special Report: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's Implementation of the Non-Revocable Parole Program Summary: On October 11, 2009, a major change occurred in California statutory parole requirements with the passage of Senate Bill X3 18. This landmark legislation was intended to help alleviate the endemic overcrowding within California prisons – and the numerous constitutional violations and budgetary demands occasioned by such overcrowding – by providing a system whereby non-violent parole offenders would not be returned to prison unless they were convicted of another felony offense. On April 4, 2011, additional significant legislation was enacted with the passage of Assembly Bill 109. When funded, this legislation will ultimately shift non-violent parolees from oversight by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to oversight by local governmental agencies. Consequently, the nonrevocable parole program established by Senate Bill X3 18 can now be viewed as an interim measure that will be in place only until such time as local governmental agencies assume supervision over non-violent parolees. Effective January 25, 2010, CDCR began placing eligible convicted felons on non-revocable parole, commonly referred to as NRP, in compliance with Penal Code section 3000.03. Before the law’s enactment, when these types of inmates were released from California prisons, they were typically subject to parole terms of one to three years and were under some level of supervision by CDCR. Since the enactment of Penal Code section 3000.03, however, paroled inmates who meet certain criteria must be placed on non-revocable parole. Parolees on non-revocable parole are not supervised. Moreover, unlike supervised parolees, they are not subject to arrest or reincarceration in prison for parole violations. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has very little authority over offenders once they are placed on non-revocable parole. In the interest of public safety, then, and to comport with the legislative intent that only qualified, non-violent offenders be placed on non-revocable parole, the screening process used to determine an inmate’s eligibility for non-revocable parole must be accurate. The screening process for non-revocable parole excludes the following inmates and parolees: registered sex offenders; offenders with current or prior serious, violent or sexually violent felony convictions; offenders who are known prison gang members; and other offenders determined to have a high risk to reoffend. To determine an inmate’s risk of reoffending, CDCR has developed a validated risk assessment instrument referred to as the California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA).1 However, flaws in the CSRA’s implementation have resulted in flawed assessments. The CSRA has understated some offenders’ risk of reoffending; some of these high-risk offenders have been placed on nonrevocable parole. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) estimates that approximately 23.5 percent of the offenders assessed for possible placement on non-revocable parole between January and July 2010 were scored inaccurately, and that approximately 15 percent of the more than 10,000 offenders placed on non-revocable parole were inappropriately placed on non-revocable parole during that same time period.2 Over 450 of these ineligible offenders carry a high risk for violence, and some of these ineligible offenders may have already been discharged from nonrevocable parole after completing 12 months of parole, thereby precluding CDCR from taking action to correct the parolee’s inappropriate placement on non-revocable parole. It should be noted, however, that CDCR reports it has improved scoring tables used in the automated scoring process and that these corrections would have reduced the error rate from approximately 23.5 percent to approximately eight percent if these corrections had been in place before July 2010. Details: Sacramento: Office of the Inspector General, 2011. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 17, 2012 at: http://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/BOI/Special%20Report%20California%20Department%20of%20Corrections%20and%20Rehabilitations%20Implementation%20of%20the%20Non-Revocable%20Parole%20Program.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/BOI/Special%20Report%20California%20Department%20of%20Corrections%20and%20Rehabilitations%20Implementation%20of%20the%20Non-Revocable%20Parole%20Program.pdf Shelf Number: 125319 Keywords: Alternatives to ImprisonmentParoleParole RevocationParolees, JuvenilesPrison OvercrowdingRisk Assessment (California) |
Author: Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission Title: Technical Report on Alternatives to Incarceration for Drug-Related Offenses Summary: Convinced that responses to the drug problem should be comprehensive, centering on public health and human rights perspectives, the Government of Colombia, with the support of the Inter‐American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD), is committed to encouraging the debate on alternatives which allow for a focus on the individual, moving beyond approaches solely based on repression. The Report on the Drug Problem in the Americas, undertaken by the Organization of American States (OAS), confirms that the use of a punitive approach in response to consumption has meant that the populations most vulnerable to problematic use have been discouraged from access to timely information, public health services, and treatment and prevention programs in general. Furthermore, academic studies and reports from civil society organizations have indicated that indiscriminate repression, including applying severe sanctions for consumption and possession of small quantities, has especially affected the lowest levels of the drug trafficking chain. This situation has aggravated the problem of prison overcrowding that a number of countries in the region are facing. In this context, drug policy has come into conflict with the respect for human rights. The situation of women and their increasing participation in drug-related crimes is especially worrying. Given this reality, it is necessary to understand crime as a social phenomenon and not a fact of nature. For this reason, the State's reaction to crime must start with the analysis of its origins within the community, since only by determining the reasons which bring some members to engage in criminal activity, can it be addressed adequately. The reflexive use of criminal law - frequently manifested in the proliferation of new crimes, increases in sentences, and the indiscriminate incarceration of a large number of offenders - can create fleeting sensations of relief in a society. However, the use of criminal law as the State's only reaction not only leaves the origin of the problem intact, but also places large burdens on the resources of the justice system, and more importantly, in the eyes of a community that could see its actions as inefficient, increases the perception that its repeated intervention no does help to address the problems it seeks to solve. With regard to the fight against drugs, the last four decades show that policies have been developed on the assumption that activities related to all illicit substances should be controlled in the same way, with the understanding that all of the links in the drug trafficking chain merit the same treatment. This perception is mistaken and requires reconsideration in order to allow for differential approaches and responses by the State, not only for different types of drugs, but also for the different types of people who are part of the problem. Details: Washington, DC: Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission, 2016. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: (OAS. Official Records Series ; OEA/Ser.L) Accessed September 3, 2016 at: http://www.cicad.oas.org/apps/Document.aspx?Id=3203 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.cicad.oas.org/apps/Document.aspx?Id=3203 Shelf Number: 140137 Keywords: Alternatives to ImprisonmentDrug Abuse and CrimeDrug Abuse TreatmentDrug Offenders |