Lord Phillips, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, has set out a detailed case for the use and effectiveness of community sentences for non-violent and non-serious offenders.
Speaking at Oxford University, he argued that:
“A properly planned and resourced community sentence is a hardship for the offender, but one that is focused on the root causes of his offending. More importantly: community sentences provide a visible demonstration of reparation to the community in which the offence occurred. The community is able both to influence and to understand the nature and type of sentence performed.”
Lord Phillips reflected on the public perception of community sentences, and contrasted this with some of the stark realities of the criminal justice system.
The public fear that sentences are growing ever more lenient, when in fact the last 20 years has seen a marked increase in the length of the average sentence for serious offences (89% of those convicted of robbery receive a custodial sentence). Even those serving sentences of less than 12 months increased by 31% in the ten years to 2004.
Lord Phillips stressed that community sentences were not to be used for punishing offenders committing serious crimes or those who posed a threat to society. However, for lesser offences he hoped that there would be better appreciation and support for community sentences as a tough yet constructive option for addressing underlying offending behaviour.
Lord Phillips rejected any notion that community sentences represent a ‘soft’ option for punishing offenders:
“Community sentences are designed to be onerous: they restrict the offender’s liberty as well as incorporating ways in which offenders can make amends for their actions.
“They will only be used where offenders will not pose a risk to the community and where the evidence suggests a community order will be more effective both as a deterrent and in preventing re-offending than a short custodial sentence.”
The Lord Chief Justice stressed that a number of ingredients were required for community sentences to be truly effective, and that it was critical that these were adequately resourced, or the good intentions would fall at an early hurdle:
- an unpaid work requirement – typically projects such as removing rubbish or graffiti in public places, but potentially offering retraining skills to improve employment prospects (former offenders in settled employment were two thirds less likely to re-offend)
- an activity requirement – making offenders report to a set location, where they can receive help with employment or social problems
- a programme requirement – making offenders participate in accredited programmes to deter future behaviour patterns, such as substance abuse
- medical programmes to treat mental health problems or drug/alcohol dependency that directly foster re-offending tendencies.
Lord Phillips felt that it was vital that the community played an increasing role in community sentences – either passively, by simply observing the work that is being done – such as the restoration by offenders of the SS Great Britain in Bristol; or actively by identifying works to be done.
Lord Phillips stressed he was “talking about the large number of inadequate or damaged members of society for whom minor criminality is the only way of life they know. Short spells of imprisonment followed by re-offending is an expensive and ineffective way of dealing with these. Meaningful punishment in the community, coupled with a proper programme of rehabilitation, properly resourced and managed, must be the better option”.
Note for Editors
- Lord Phillips was speaking at The Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford.
- A full copy of his speech can be found on the judicial website.
Ends
