Probation pp 153-178 | Cite as

What Is the Impact of Probation on Satisfying the Public’s Desire for Justice or Punishment?

  • Rob Allen
Chapter

Abstract

In the Netherlands in 2007, a television documentary alleged that community sanctions were being used for very serious crimes such as homicide and rape. There was an extremely negative public response. An academic study showed that the actual behaviour involved in the ‘very serious crimes’ was much less serious than their label might have suggested, and that a period in prison had in most cases been imposed alongside the community supervision. But as a result, recidivists and serious cases were excluded from community sanctions and the assumed lack of public acceptance of them has resulted in continued efforts to stress their punitive nature (Boon and van Swaaningen 2013, p. 18).

References

  1. Allen, R. (2002). There must be some way of dealing with kids. Youth Justice, 2(1), 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, R. (2008, December). Changing public attitudes to crime and punishment: Building confidence in community penalties. Probation Journal, 55(4), 389–400.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, R. (2014). Justice reinvestment: Empty slogan or sustainable future for penal policy? London: Transform Justice.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allen, R., & Hough, M. (2007). Community penalties, sentencers, the media and public opinion. In R. Morgan & L. Gelsthorpe (Eds.), The handbook of probation. Cullompton: Devon.Google Scholar
  5. Allen, R., & Hough, M. (2008). Does it matter? Reflections of the effectiveness of institutionalised public participation in the development of sentencing policy. In A. Freiberg & K. Gelb (Eds.), Penal populism, sentencing councils and sentencing policy (pp. 224–239). Cullompton and Devon: Willan.Google Scholar
  6. Almond, P. (2015, Spring). Circles of support and accountability: Criminal justice volunteers as deliberative public. British Journal of Community Justice, 13(1), 25–39.Google Scholar
  7. Armstrong, S., McIvor, G., McNeill, F. & McGuinness, P. (2013) International Evidence Review of Conditional (Suspended) Sentences, SCCJR Research Report No. 01/2013 Retrieved from http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/publications/international-evidence-review-of-conditional-suspended-sentences/
  8. Ashcroft, Lord (2011) Crime, Punishment & The People Public opinion and the criminal justice debate. Retrieved from http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/crime-punishment-and-the-people.pdfGoogle Scholar
  9. Boon, M., & van Swaaningen, R. (2013). Regression to the mean: Punishment in the Netherlands. In V. Ruggiero & M. Ryan (Eds.), Punishment in Europe. Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke.Google Scholar
  10. Bridges, A. (2010). History of HMI probation. Retrieved June 25, 2015, from https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/about-hmi-probation/statement-of/#.VYuUpPlVhHx
  11. Canton, R. (2009). Taking probation abroad. European Journal of Probation. University of Bucharest, 1(1), 66–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Casey, L (2008). Engaging communities in fighting crime: A review by Louise Casey. London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
  13. Costelloe, M., Chiricos, T., & Gertz, M. (2009, January). Punitive attitudes toward criminals Exploring the relevance of crime salience and economic insecurity. Punishment & Society, 11(1), 25–49.Google Scholar
  14. Coulsfield, L. (2004). Crime, courts and confidence: Report of an independent inquiry into alternatives to prison. London: Esmee Fairbairn Foundation.Google Scholar
  15. Council of Europe. (2010). Recommendation CM/Rec (2010) 1 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the Council of Europe Probation Rules (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 January 2010 at the 1075th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies) Strasbourg.Google Scholar
  16. Cuthbertson, S. (2013). Analysis of complete ‘You be the Judge’ website experiences. Analytical Summary May 2013. London Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
  17. Daily Telegraph. (2006, March 21). Regrets not enough if probation service cannot cope.Google Scholar
  18. Demker, M., Towns, A., Duus-Otterstrom, G., & Sebring, J. (2008, July). Fear and punishment in Sweden: Exploring penal attitudes. Punishment & Society, 10 (3), 319–332.Google Scholar
  19. Durnescu, I., Enengl, C., & Grafl, C. (2013). Experiencing supervision. In F. McNeill & K. Beyens (Eds.), Offender supervision in Europe. Basingstoke Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  20. Dzur, A. (2014). Repellent institutions and the absentee public. In Ryberg, J, & Roberts, J. (2014). Exploring the normative significance of public opinion for state punishment. In J. Ryberg & J. Roberts (Eds.), Popular punishment. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gounev, P. (2013). Soft and harsh penalties in Bulgaria. In V. Ruggiero & M. Ryan (Eds.), Punishment in Europe. Basingstoke Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Grimshaw, R. & Oliveira, M. (2008). Independent evaluation of the fourth year of LCCS: July 2007–June 2008. Report on the national results Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.Google Scholar
  23. Halliday, J. (2001). Making punishments work. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  24. Hartnagel, T., & Templeton, L. (2012, October). Emotions about crime and attitudes to punishment. Punishment & Society, 14(4), 452–474.Google Scholar
  25. Herzog-Evans, M. (2013). What’s in a Name? Penological and Institutional connotations of probation officers’ labelling in Europe. Eurovista, 2(3), 121–133.Google Scholar
  26. Hough, M., Bradford, B., Jackson, J., & Roberts, J. (2013). Attitudes to sentencing and trust in justice exploring trends from the crime survey for England and Wales. London: Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
  27. Hough, M., Jacobsen, J., & Millie, A. (2003). The decision to imprison. London: Prison Reform Trust.Google Scholar
  28. Hough, M., Roberts, J., Jacobson, J., Moon, N., & Steel, N. (2009). Public attitudes to the principles of sentencing. London: ICPR.Google Scholar
  29. Justice Committee. (2010). Cutting crime: The case for justice reinvestment. HMSO.Google Scholar
  30. Justice Committee. (2011). The role of the probation service. London HMSO.Google Scholar
  31. Labour Party. (2015). A better plan to secure safer communities London Labour Party.Google Scholar
  32. Lulei, M. (2012). Experiencing and practising offenders supervision in Slovakia. Retrieved from http://www.offendersupervision.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Practising-OS-in-Slovakia-Sept-2012.pdf
  33. Maguire, N., & Carr, N. (2013). Changing shape and shifting boundaries. European Journal of Probation, 5(3), 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Maruna, S., & King, A. (2008). Selling the public on probation. Probation Journal, 55(4), 337–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maruna, S., & King, A. (2009). Once a criminal, always a criminal? ‘Redeemability’ and the psychology of punitive public attitude. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 15, 7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McNeill, F. (2011, March). Probation, credibility and justice. Probation Journal, 58(1), 9–22.Google Scholar
  37. Ministry of Justice. (2011). Breaking the cycle response. London HMSO.Google Scholar
  38. MORI (2002) Perceptions of the National Probation Service: Research study conducted for National Probation Service Home Office London Google Scholar
  39. Prison Reform Trust. (2011 September). Public want offenders to make amends London Prison. Reform Trust Retrieved from http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/public%20want%20offenders%20to%20make%20amends.pdf
  40. RCP. (2002). What do the public really feel about non-custodial penalties? London: Esmee Fairbairn Foundation.Google Scholar
  41. Reid J (2006). Probation Review non-negotiable Unpublished Speech. Retrieved from http://www.crimlinks.com/News2006/Nov72006.html.
  42. Rethinking Crime and Punishment. (2003). Media and the shaping of public knowledge and attitudes towards crime and punishment, London Esmee Fairbairn Foundation.Google Scholar
  43. Roberts, J. (2002). Public opinion and the nature of community penalties: International findings. In J. Roberts & M. Hough (Eds.), Changing attitudes to punishment: Public opinion, crime and justice. Cullompton: Willan.Google Scholar
  44. Robinson, G. McNeill, F. & Maruna, S. (2013). Punishment in society: The improbable persistence of probation and other community sanctions and measures. In Simon & Sparks (Eds.), The Sage handbook of punishment and society.Google Scholar
  45. Robinson, G., McNeill, F., & Maruna, S. (2013). Punishment in society: The improbable persistence of community sanctions. In J. Simon & R. Sparks (Eds.), The Sage handbook of punishment and society. London and New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  46. Rosenberger, J. & Callanan, V. (2011, December). The influence of media on penal attitudes. Criminal Justice Review, 36(4), 435–455.Google Scholar
  47. Ryberg, J, & Roberts, J. (2014). Exploring the normative significance of public opinion for state punishment. In J. Ryberg & J. Roberts (Eds.), Popular punishment. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Senior, P. (2013, September). Community engagement: Innovation; past, present and future. Probation Journal, 60, 242–258.Google Scholar
  49. Silverman, J. (2012). Crime policy and the media. the shaping of criminal justice, 1989–2010. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Singer, L., & Cooper, S. (2009, December). Improving public confidence in the criminal justice system: An evaluation of a communication activity. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 48(5) 485–500.Google Scholar
  51. TNS System Three. (2007). Community sentencing: Public perceptions and attitudes (Summary Research Report). Scottish Executive Social Research. Retrieved from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/11/15102229/6
  52. Uutitset, (24 June 2015). Police blast return of prison sentences for low-level crime. Retrieved from http://yle.fi/uutiset/police_blast_return_of_prison_sentences_for_low-level_crime/8101719
  53. Uzelac, S. & Zakman-Ban, V. (2012). Attitudes of Croatian public towards probation. Unpublished paper quoted in Durnescu et al (2013).Google Scholar
  54. Van Gelder, J.-L., Aarten, P., Lamet, W., & van der Laan, P. (2011). Unknown, unloved? Public opinion on and knowledge of suspended sentences in the Netherland. Crime and Delinquency. Retrieved from http://cad.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/11/16/0011128711426537.full.pdf
  55. Van Kesteren, J., Van Diijk, J., & Mayhew, P. (2014). The international crime victims surveys: A retrospective. International Review of Victimology, 20(1), 49–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Victim Support (and Make Justice Work). (2012). Out in the open: What victims really think about community sentencing. London: Victim Support.Google Scholar
  57. Werth, R. (2013, July). The construction and stewardship of responsible yet precarious subjects: Punitive ideology, rehabilitation, and ‘tough love’ among parole personnel. Punishment& Society, 15, 219–246.Google Scholar
  58. Windlesham, D. (1996). Response to crime (Vol. 3). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rob Allen
    • 1
  1. 1.Justice and PrisonsLondonUK

Personalised recommendations