Advertisement

Rehabilitation After Punishment

  • Daniel Marshall
  • Terry Thomas
Chapter

Abstract

Personal information held on people who have completed a period of punishment is subject to movement in opposite directions. This information may be restricted in disclosure in the interests of aiding rehabilitation and the future safety of the former offender or it may be disclosed widely in the interests of crime prevention and public protection. Information in the form of criminal record histories may also be disclosed to employers wishing to screen applicants for work in order to safeguard children or vulnerable adults that the employment involves working with. Former prisoners may be required to comply with parole conditions and be subject to continuing supervision by probation officers and such other restrictions on their privacy as exclusion zones, internet restrictions and requirements to periodically submit to polygraph testing.

Bibliography

  1. Barrett D (2012) Criminals to Be Named and Shamed by Home Office. Daily Telegraph, 14 October.Google Scholar
  2. BBC News (2013c) ‘Sarah’s Law’ Sees 700 Paedophiles Identified, 23 December (available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25489541 accessed 15 August 2016).
  3. BBC News (2016c) Hundreds of Rapists and Child Abusers Taken Off Sex Offenders Register, 21 March (available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35833760 accessed 18 December 2016).
  4. Bennetto J (2000) Straw Refuses to Allow Public Access to Sex Offender Register. The Independent, 16 September.Google Scholar
  5. Bowcott O (2014) Lie Detector Tests Begin on Sex Offenders. The Guardian, 8 August.Google Scholar
  6. Breed B (1987) Off the Record, London: John Clare Books.Google Scholar
  7. Cabinet Office (2008a) Engaging Communities in Fighting Crime, London.Google Scholar
  8. Clinton W (1996) Remarks on Signing Megan’s Law and an Exchange with Reporters in Public Papers of the Presidents of the US, William J Clinton, Government Publishing Office, 17 May, Washington DC (available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/PPP-1996-book1/PPP-1996-book1-doc-pg763 accessed 10 February 2017).
  9. DoH (Department of Health) (2012) “Striking the Balance” Practical Guidance on the Application of Caldicott Guardian Principles to Domestic Violence and MARACs (Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conferences), London (available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/215064/dh_133594.pdf accessed 6 December 2016).
  10. Dyer C (2003b) Court Blow for ‘Name and Shame’ Drive. The Guardian, 13 June.Google Scholar
  11. Franklin B and Murphy D (1991) Local Rags with a Reputation in Tatters. The Independent, 30 October.Google Scholar
  12. Gannon T, Wood J, Afroditi PA, Vasquesz E and Fraser I (2012) The Evaluation of the Mandatory Polygraph Pilot, University of Kent Ministry of Justice Research Series 14, Canterbury: University of Kent.Google Scholar
  13. Gannon T, Wood J, Afroditi PA, Vasquesz E and Fraser I (2014) An Evaluation of Mandatory Polygraph Testing for Sexual Offenders in the United Kingdom. Sex Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 26(2): 178–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gardiner Report (1972) Living It Down: The Problem of Old Convictions, Justice, NACRO, and the Howard League, London: A Stephens Publication.Google Scholar
  15. Gov.uk (2017c) DBS Checks (Previously CRB Checks) (available at https://www.gov.uk/disclosure-barring-service-check/overview accessed 8 May 2017).
  16. Grubin D (2006) Polygraph Pilot Study: Final Report, London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  17. Halifax Evening Courier (2008) Menace to Be Set Free: But We Can’t Show You What He Looks Like, 27 September (available at: http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/menace-to-be-set-free-1-1918605 accessed 2 February 2017).
  18. Haskins Report (1999) Review of Fit Person Criteria: A Review of the Criteria Used to Judge People’s Suitability for Certain Occupations, Better Regulation Task Force, May, London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
  19. Home Office (1980) The Interception of Communications in Great Britain, Cmnd. 7873, April, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  20. Home Office (1985) The Interception of Communications in the United Kingdom, Cmnd. 9438, June, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  21. Home Office (1989) Press Access to Court Lists and to the Register of Decisions in Magistrates Courts (Circular 80/1989), London.Google Scholar
  22. Home Office (1996) On the Record: The Government’s Proposals for Access to Criminal Records for Employment and Related Purposes in England and Wales, Cm 3308, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  23. Home Office (2002) Breaking the Circle: A Review of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, July, London: TSO.Google Scholar
  24. Home Office (2003) Breaking the Circle: A Summary of the Views of Consultees and the Government’s Response to the Report of the Review of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, April, London.Google Scholar
  25. Home Office (2009) Local Communities to Be Informed of Sentences (Press Release) 3 December, London.Google Scholar
  26. Home Office (2012c) Guidance on Review of Indefinite Notification Requirements Issued Under Section 91F of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, London.Google Scholar
  27. Home Office (2013f) Clare’s Law to Become a National Scheme (Press Release) 25 November, London.Google Scholar
  28. Home Office (2014h) Multi Agency Working and Information Sharing Project – Final Report, July, London.Google Scholar
  29. Home Office (2016d) Guidance on Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, November, London: Public Protection Unit.Google Scholar
  30. ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office) (2011) Data Sharing Code of Practice, May, Wilmslow.Google Scholar
  31. Kelsey T (1992) Man Bitter at Being Barred from Town’s Pubs. The Independent, 13 February.Google Scholar
  32. Logan W (2009) Knowledge as Power: Criminal Registration and Community Notification Laws in America, California: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marshall D and Thomas T (2015a) The Disclosure of Police-Held ‘Non-conviction Information’ to Employers. International Journal of Police Science and Management, December, 17(4): 237–245.Google Scholar
  34. Marshall D and Thomas T (2015b) Polygraphs and Sex Offenders: The Truth Is Out There, Probation Journal. Google Scholar
  35. MoJ (Ministry of Justice) (2014) New Guidance on the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/new-guidance-on-the-rehabilitation-of-offenders-act-1974 accessed 10 February 2017).
  36. MoJ (Ministry of Justice) (2016g) Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements Annual Report 2015/16 Statistical Bulletin, London.Google Scholar
  37. Nash M (2006) Public Protection and the Criminal Justice Process, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. OCJR (Office for Criminal Justice Reform) (2009) Publicising Sentence Outcomes: Guidance for Public Authorities on Publishing Information (Including Via the Internet) About Individual Sentencing Outcomes Within the Current Legal Framework, December, London.Google Scholar
  39. PA (Press Association) (2012) Karen Matthews ‘Released from Prison’. The Guardian, 5 April.Google Scholar
  40. Ponsford D (2009) Sex Killer Wins Pictures Ban After Sunday Life Legal Battle. Press Gazette, 8 January (available at http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sex-killer-wins-pictures-ban-after-sunday-life-legal-battle/ accessed 26 February 2017).
  41. Pubwatch (2017) FAQ (available at http://www.nationalpubwatch.org.uk/faq/#faq-1459 accessed 11 February 2017).
  42. Rozenberg J (2005) Maxine Carr Gets Anonymity for the Rest of Her Life. Daily Telegraph, 25 February.Google Scholar
  43. SEU (Social Exclusion Unit) (2002) Reducing Re-offending by Ex-Prisoners, London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.Google Scholar
  44. Smyth L (2008) Sex Killer Ken Callaghan Could Be Permitted to Work with Women. Belfast Telegraph, 11 September.Google Scholar
  45. Sweney M (2009) Irish Court Stops Paper Printing Photos of Murderer. The Guardian, 7 January.Google Scholar
  46. Thomas T (2007) Criminal Records: A Database for the Criminal Justice System and Beyond, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thomas T (2011) The Registration and Monitoring of Sex Offenders: A Comparative Study, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Unlock (2017) The Calculator (available at http://www.disclosurecalculator.org.uk/go accessed 13 March 2017).
  49. Wainwright M (2008) How the Shannon Matthews Kidnap Plot Fell Apart. The Guardian, 4 December.Google Scholar
  50. Watson D (2006) Yob Shamed … on the Back of a Bus. Daily Express, 15 July.Google Scholar
  51. West Yorkshire Police (2017b) ‘In the Dock’ – Web Site (available at https://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/camera-alerts/in-the-dock accessed 11 February 2017).
  52. Yorkshire Post (2013) Landmark Register Victory for Child Sex Offender, 11 March (available at http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/landmark-register-victory-for-child-sex-offender-1-5485857 accessed 12 February 2017).

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Marshall
    • 1
  • Terry Thomas
    • 2
  1. 1.School of LawLiverpool John Moores UniversityLiverpoolUK
  2. 2.School of Social SciencesLeeds Beckett UniversityLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations