Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:01 pm
Time: 9:01 pm
Results for sentencing (u.k.)
4 results foundAuthor: Solanki, Aikta-Reena Title: Fine Art or Science? Sentencers Deciding Between Community Penalties and Custody for Young People Summary: This report presents the findings of a study of sentencing decisions made by U.K. courts to identify why some young people are sentenced to custody and others to community sentences. The research examines cases involving young offenders aged 10 to 17, and explores the issues that may have an impact on sentencing at an individual level. It gives an account of the sentencing decisions made by a sample of 62 sentencers, including magistrates, district judges and Crown Court judges across 16 youth offending team areas in England and Wales. It documents their approaches to sentencing and decision-making process, as well as offering an insight into their attitudes towards custodial and non-custodial penalties. The research highlights a wide range of differenc factors that were reported by sentences to encourage or discourage the use of custody in borderline cases that were deemed to lie on the brink between a custodial and community sentence. Details: London: Youth Justice Board, 2009. 85p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 118822 Keywords: Community Based CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile OffendersJuvenile Offenders, Sentencing (U.K.)Sentencing (U.K.) |
Author: Howard League for Penal Reform Title: The Never-Ending Story: Indeterminate Sentencing and the Prison Regime. Research Briefing Summary: The Imprisonment for Public Protection sentence (IPP) was poorly planned and implemented and resulted in unjust punishments, particularly for those sentenced prior to 2008. Despite the abolition of the sentence in 2012, serious implications for the prison estate remain - There are currently 5,809 people in prison serving an IPP; over half (3,570) have passed their tariff date - Urgent action needs to be taken to enable the safe release of people serving post-tariff IPPs into the community - The analysis is based on information provided by 103 senior prison governors, whose responses drew almost exclusively on their experience of working with IPP prisoners. The majority reported that IPP sentences had a negative impact on prisoners, prison staff, and the prison regime - The findings suggest that there are insufficient resources to deliver IPPs effectively. Resource shortages often lead to resentment between IPP prisoners and other prisoners and may threaten the safety and stability of the prison regime - Ninety-two per cent reported that IPPs decreased staff job satisfaction as they undermined staff credibility, prevented staff treating all prisoners fairly, and often meant staff were unable to assist prisoners in progressing through their sentences - The majority recommended that the government enable post-tariff IPP prisoners to be safely managed into the community. To achieve this, respondents said it was necessary to increase resources, enhance the role of probation, alter the release process for IPP prisoners and convert IPP sentences with short minimum terms to determinate sentences. Details: London: Howard League for Penal Reform, 2014. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 14, 2014 at: https://d19ylpo4aovc7m.cloudfront.net/fileadmin/howard_league/user/online_publications/never-ending_story_IPP.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://d19ylpo4aovc7m.cloudfront.net/fileadmin/howard_league/user/online_publications/never-ending_story_IPP.pdf Shelf Number: 104822 Keywords: Imprisonment for Public ProtectionIndeterminate SentencesPunishmentSentencing (U.K.) |
Author: Mews, Aidan Title: The impact of short custodial sentences, community orders and suspended sentence orders on re-offending Summary: Community orders and suspended sentence orders represent a substantial proportion of sentences given in England and Wales - about 13 per cent of all adult sentences imposed in 2013. This study examined the impact on adult re-offending outcomes of these court orders and requirements imposed as part of those orders. It also looked at the effects over different follow-up periods to explore the impact over time. The study builds on previous analyses of community requirements, using more data, a more thorough matching process, and examining more combinations of requirements. Approach Offender data from 2008 to 2011 (inclusive) were used. A propensity score matching approach was followed, matching offenders given particular sentences with other, similar ones given other sentences. This method used data from Offender Assessment System (OASys) assessments, probation and re-offending, and tax and benefits systems. This is a well-tested approach to looking at impact, but one that cannot decisively discount the potential for an unmeasured factor to influence results. Key findings - - Short-term custody (less than 12 months in prison, without supervision on release) was consistently associated with higher rates of proven re-offending than community orders and suspended sentence orders ('court orders'). Over a 1 year follow-up period, a higher proportion of people re-offended having been sentenced to short term custody than other, similar people given a community order (around 3 percentage points higher) or a suspended sentence order (7 percentage points higher). In addition, short term custody was associated with up to 1 more re-offence per person on average than both community and suspended sentence orders. - However, the impact appeared to vary over different follow-up periods. Over a three year period, while it was still the case that more people re-offended having been sentenced to short term custody rather than a 'court order', this difference decreased. The benefits of the 'court orders' on reducing re-offending were felt predominately in the first year of follow-up. - The benefit of 'court orders' over short term custody was seemingly increased when OASys variables were not used in the matching method, suggesting that these variables include influential factors associated with re-offending and/or the likelihood of being given a particular sentence. The analysis indicates that it is important to include OASys scores in the matching process, and that their omission leads to an upward bias in the estimate of impact. They should therefore be used routinely in similar analyses, even though that entails limiting the analysis to the subset of cases for which an OASys assessment is available. - There was evidence of particular requirements and groups of requirements having greater benefits in terms of reducing re-offending compared to short term custody. - Supervision requirements were generally associated with reduced proven re-offending where they were used. - There were examples where activity requirements and accredited programme requirements were associated with reductions in re-offending, but overall the impact was uncertain. However, these requirements were examined collectively, and particular activities / programmes may have had a more positive impact on re-offending. In addition, using proven re-offending as a sole outcome measure may not pick up all potential benefits of these requirements. - The impact of using combinations of requirements together was difficult to predict. Sometimes, the impact of requirements changed when used with certain others. For example, activity requirements had an uncertain impact when used with a curfew on community orders. When supervision was added to the activity as well, a significant reduction in re-offending was found. However, when a programme requirement was added to this, the impact returned to being uncertain. - There may be differences in impacts associated with suspended sentence orders and community orders, with outcomes mostly non-significant for suspended sentence orders. Some characteristic of either or both of these orders may make particular requirements more / less effective (the data used in this study do not allow a full explanation of what precisely is driving the effects). Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2015. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Analytical Series: Accessed January 29, 2015 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/399389/impact-of-short-custodial-sentences-on-reoffending.PDF Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/399389/impact-of-short-custodial-sentences-on-reoffending.PDF Shelf Number: 134491 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationRecidivismReoffendingSentencing (U.K.) |
Author: Trebilcock, Julie Title: No winners: The reality of short term prison sentences Summary: Every year over 60,000 adults receive a short prison sentence of less than 12 months. These prisoners usually serve half of their sentence in custody and the remainder in the community. Although they can be returned to prison during the second half of their sentence if they commit another crime, they are not subject to post-release supervision or intervention from probation (unless they are aged between 18 and 21 years). While in prison, the short time available often means there is little opportunity to adequately address the needs of this population, with limited access to offending behaviour programmes, education and work (Lewis et al, 2003; National Audit Office, 2002, 2008, 2010; Social Exclusion Unit, 2002). On release, short sentence prisoners often face a number of barriers to their resettlement, highlighting that 'those serving short sentences, receive little practical support, before release or afterwards' (Social Exclusion Unit, 2002). This is despite the fact that short sentence prisoners have the highest re-conviction rates amongst adult prisoners (Lewis et al, 2003; National Audit Office, 2010). In 2009, the Commission on English Prisons Today called for 'radical and transformational change' and for short prison sentences to be replaced with community penalties (Howard League, 2009:6). In the same year a motion was passed by the Prison Governors' Association (PGA) to abolish prison sentences of 12 months and under on the basis that they do not work. Since then, a number of other key stakeholders have also expressed concern about the ineffectiveness of short prison sentences, including NAPO (the Trade Union and Professional Association for Family Court and Probation Staff) and the Howard League for Penal Reform. Following the new coalition government and Kenneth Clarke's appointment as the Justice Secretary, a full review of sentencing and rehabilitation policy was promised (Hansard, 2010) leading to the publication of a green paper entitled Breaking the cycle: Effective punishment, rehabilitation and sentencing of offenders in December 2010 (Ministry of Justice, 2010a). It is within this context that this research sought to give further consideration to the reality of short term imprisonment from the perspective of both prisoners and prison staff. In May 2010 the Howard League for Penal Reform, in collaboration with the PGA, commissioned a piece of research to consider the reality of short term imprisonment from the perspective of prisoners, prison staff and prison governors. The research was interested to explore three key research questions: - What are the day-to-day experiences and views of male prisoners serving short term prison sentences of 12 months and under? - What are the views of prison staff working with male prisoners serving short term prison sentences of 12 months and under? - What are the views of PGA members and other key stakeholders regarding short term prison sentences of 12 months and under? In order to explore these key questions the study relied on a number of interlinked investigations. These were: - an interview survey of short sentence prisoners; - an interview survey of prison staff; - an electronic questionnaire survey of PGA members; and, - an electronic questionnaire survey of other key stakeholders. This research was conducted with prisoners and prison staff in three male prisons in one National Offender Management Service (NOMS) region. The three study sites were selected on the basis that they all held male prisoners serving prison sentences of 12 months and under. At each site fieldwork was completed by an independent academic and a small team of retired prison governors. Interviews ranged from between 30 and 60 minutes. A total of 44 interviews with short sentence prisoners and twenty-five with prison staff were conducted. This report presents the findings of the interview surveys with short sentence prisoners and prison staff only. The findings from the electronic questionnaire surveys of PGA members and other key stakeholders will be reported elsewhere. Details: London: Howard League for Penal Reform, 2011. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 19, 2015 at: https://d19ylpo4aovc7m.cloudfront.net/fileadmin/howard_league/user/pdf/Publications/No_Winners.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://d19ylpo4aovc7m.cloudfront.net/fileadmin/howard_league/user/pdf/Publications/No_Winners.pdf Shelf Number: 134973 Keywords: InmatesPrisonersPunishmentSentencing (U.K.)Sentencing ReformShort Term Imprisonment |