Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 11:32 pm
Time: 11:32 pm
Results for curfews (u.k.)
1 results foundAuthor: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: It's Complicated: The Management of Electronically Monitored Curfews - A follow-up inspection of electronically monitored curfews Summary: Over the last six years, the use of court-ordered curfews has more than doubled. The maximum period of confinement is now likely to be extended from 12 to 16 hours per day, in an effort to increase public confidence in community sentences. Depriving someone of their liberty is a serious matter, whether this is done by sending them to prison or confining them to their home. The period of detention, in whatever way it is applied, should therefore be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. Sentencing may properly contain an element of punishment but to be effective in reducing offending, it should also promote change and reform. It has become clear that electronically monitored curfews are now being used as an additional punishment for people convicted of minor offences that would not normally attract a prison sentence. Even at this level, however, punishment comes at a price. If the cost of electronically monitored curfews is to be fully justified, they need to be used more creatively and more effectively. This means providing targeted control and restriction and helping offenders to change their behaviour. Our latest inspection shows that curfews applied in recent years have only rarely been used to best effect. In the vast majority of cases in our sample, the curfew was unrelated to the circumstances of the offence. We saw very few instances where it had been imposed specifically to stop the individual from doing something, or was part of a strategy to address their behaviour. Such an approach would require thorough assessment at the pre-sentence stage, something which now only appears to happen in a limited number of cases. As in our earlier inspection, we remain concerned at the enforcement thresholds. Despite our previous comments, these continue to fall far short of what we think the public has the right to expect. We recognise that more rigorous thresholds, as we have advocated, could increase the numbers of minor offenders sent to custody for breach. A greater emphasis on compliance and the proposed introduction of other non-custodial options for breach, as proposed in the current sentencing review, would mitigate such an undesirable outcome. This latest inspection also exposed continuing inaccuracies in information conveyed by courts to the probation service or the electronic monitoring provider. These inaccuracies are sufficiently serious to undermine the efficient management of cases – an even more urgent concern if the Government approves proposals to extend the number of external providers of probation services. The matters raised in this report must be discussed and acted upon. Electronic monitoring, if used effectively, can be used both to punish and to promote change. Right now, it may do the former but rarely the latter. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2012. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 20, 2012 at http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/hmiprob/joint-thematic/electronic-monitoring-report-2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/hmiprob/joint-thematic/electronic-monitoring-report-2012.pdf Shelf Number: 125385 Keywords: Curfews (U.K.)Electronic Monitoring (U.K.)Law Enforcement (U.K.) |