Why Community Sentences are not Used Frequently in Place of Prison - Term Paper Example

Why community sentences are not used frequently in place of prison Introduction Reducing re-offending is a major concern for any correctional system in a country. The main objective of every form of punishment is always to reform behavior thereby reintroduce a rehabilitated individual, one who can uphold the social and cultural values into the society. Serving jail sentences is usually the most preferred form of punishment since it provides a regulated environment for the offenders thereby providing a conducive environment for the rehabilitation of the criminals. Despite such beliefs, official statistics continue to show that community sentencing have up to 15% success rate in preventing re-offending. While such is the case, community sentencing is not always a common mode of punishment owing to the structure and implementation of the punishments as the discussion below proves. Community sentencing just as the name suggests is a mode of punishments where convicts serve the community by undertaking a variety of unpaid tasks. In such cases, the convicts do not go to prison. They live in the community alongside the rest of the society but dedicate some of their time on a daily basis to work in some public institutions and places within the society. In the United Kingdom, the justice system can use the mode of punishment to discourage such offences as assault, destruction of property and benefiting from fraud among others. However, the courts consider the scope of a crime before making a ruling in order to ensure that a punishment is commensurate to the crime and injuries that a criminal causes to the society. Community sentencing is systematic form of punishment that offers a number of advantages key among which is the fact that the mode of punishment discourages recidivism. The criminals account for their offenses by working without pay for a number of days. This way, they suffer immense inconveniences that remind them of the need to change their behavior by avoiding criminal activities. The mode of punishment is particularly suitable for first time offenders. To such offenders, community sentencing serves as a warning, which in turn fosters the fear for imprisonment (Great Britain, 2007). This discourages re-offending. Furthermore, community sentencing is less costly than imprisoning offenders are to the community. The citizens in a country always sustain the operation of such correctional facilities as prisons through the payment of taxes. An increase in the number of prisoners in a country resonates in a higher cost of maintain such facilities thereby making the process of curbing recidivism costly. Community sentencing presents a better and less costly option in which the offender pays back to the community by undertaking a task that would otherwise increase public expenditure. Such is a vital feature that encourages the development of a responsive personality in the offenders since they begin to account for their crimes. This way, they appreciate their crimes possibly reforming their behaviors. Despite the existence of the above advantages and the effectiveness of community sentencing in reducing recidivism, the mode of punishment remains les popular in the United Kingdom. Key among the factors that make imprisonment a more popular mode of punishment is the fact that the legal structures in the country provide effective way of punishing offenders mainly through imprisonment. The United Kingdom has a number of criminal laws that include tort and common laws. The laws outline effective ways of punishing every form of crime in the country. Common law for example uses set precedents thereby limiting the judgments of a case to past judgments. Unfortunately, most of such precedents are varied prison terms for offenders of various crimes. The existence of such laws discourages community sentencing since the judge limits his or her decisions to such past judgments. The existence of a prescribed mode of punishment for every crime in the country makes it difficult for the justice system to use community policing in reforming behavior. The judicial service interprets and implements legislations. This implies that courts punish offenders by referring to the laws of the country. The fact that the laws prefer imprisonment of offenders is therefore a major factor that contributes to the widespread use of imprisonment as a mode of punishment at the expense of community sentencing. Additionally, judges in the United Kingdom have always avoided using community sentencing as a mode of punishing offenders since the mode is risky. Just as the name suggests, community sentencing requires convicts to continue living their lives in the community as usual while serving in public institutions. Such is a risky form of punishment especially to the convicts since they interact with their victims who may decide to revenge against them. Some crimes cause immense pain to the victims who often take such personal. Furthermore, such crimes influence public opinion. The public may harm the convict should the people decide to revenge through mob justice. The government has a constitutional mandate to safeguard the safety of every citizen including the lives of criminals. As such, judges make their rulings after considering every aspect of a case thereby ensuring that they provide the convict with adequate safety a feature that makes imprisonment the most preferred mode of punishment in the country. Another equally factor that explains that widespread use of imprisonment as a mode of punishment is the fact that imprisonment, unlike community sentencing, is commonly understood and an immediate mode of punishment. Rapid dispensation of justice is a factor that that influences the satisfaction of the victims of various crimes. Under imprisonment, criminals go to jail upon conviction. The victims of their actions feel a degree of relief in such judgments since they believe in the need to resolve their cases as soon as possible. This is not always the case in community sentencing where convicts return to the society and live alongside their victims. In such cases, the victims feel dissatisfied with the judgments thereby building a negative public opinion on the mode of punishment. Public opinion influences the acceptance and use of any social phenomenon. When a decision satisfies the demands of the public, the government easily influences such because of the immense public support so far, the public remains skeptic in embracing community sentencing as a mode of punishing criminals. Key among the arguments is that community sentencing is not as embarrassing as imprisonment. Shame is an aspect of punishment that enhances the gratification that victims feel. Community sentencing provides offenders with a unique opportunity to live in the community alongside their victims. While such duties are not always honorary, they remain better than serving a jail term (Great Britain & Great Britain, 2012). As such, community sentencing does not guarantee the satisfaction that victims of various crimes require. The government through the judiciary therefore upholds the satisfaction of both the victims of crimes and the public by showing immense preference to imprisonment as a mode of punishment. Community sentencing is not always as harsh as imprisonment is a feature that influences the preference to the mode of punishing criminals. Punishing a crime requires a harsh punishment that makes the criminal acknowledge his or her mistake. A harsh punishment is likely to act as a discouragement to such crimes in future. While sentencing criminals, judges always strive to use such cases to pass vita lessons to the public thereby striving to curb the recurrence of a form of crime. In order to do this effectively, judges strive to dispense the harshest mode of punishment possible for every category of crime. Community sentencing is a soft option that may not pass any vita lesson to the rest of the society. The fact that community sentencing does not suspend any civil liberties of the criminals is a major factor of the mode of punishment that makes it soft. Such factors influence public opinion about the mode of punishment. An increase in community sentencing would therefore enhance the prevalence of crimes in the society since the rest of the society continues to consider such as liberal and accommodative modes of punishments. An equally important feature of the mode of punishment is the fact that it remains less disruptive thus a soft option. Making a criminal acknowledge his or her crime requires an extremely punitive measure that disrupts their social lives. More than two thirds of convicts who go to prison lose their jobs. Others lose contacts with their families and homes. Such is a holistic mode of punishment that is equally punitive thereby discouraging the recurrence of such crimes (Great Britain., & Great Britain, 2010). Additionally, the mode of the punishment enhances the satisfaction of the victims a feature that accounts for the widespread acceptance of such modes of punishments. In retrospect, community sentencing is an appropriate mode of punishment that promises immense returns. Official statistics show that the mode of punishment is more effective in curbing reoffending than imprisonment. The mode of punishment does not create “colleges of crime” thereby limiting the experiences of the convicts thereby encouraging to reform their behaviors. However, judges have the obligation to protect the public and they often do so by make decisions that satisfy the public. In most cases, community sentencing does not satisfy the public since it is less punitive. The mode of punishment does not disrupt the lifestyle of the criminal. Furthermore, the mode of punishment risks the life of the convict since the society can easily retaliate thereby harming him. References Great Britain., & Great Britain. (2012). Punishment and reform: Effective community sentences. London: Stationery Office. Great Britain. (2007). Towards effective sentencing: Oral and written evidence. London: Stationery Office. Great Britain., & Great Britain. (2010). Cutting crime: The case for justice reinvestment : first report of session 2009-10. London: Stationery Office. Read More