Suchergebnisse

This short article is a comment on the recent proposal of a What Works Centre for probation ( Sanders, Jones and Briggs, 2021 ). Any new 'What Works' initiative needs to be informed by the patchy and uneven history of research on the effectiveness of probation in England and Wales. Problems have included, at various times, failure to keep up with research in other countries; over-dependency on government departments to conduct and fund research; poor planning and/or implementation of experimental projects; excessive managerialism, and failure to engage practitioners in a research culture. Unless they are avoided, these problems will hamper any new initiative.

One of the advertised aims of the 'Transforming Rehabilitation' (TR) reforms in England and Wales was to extend compulsory post-custody supervision to prisoners serving short sentences who were outside the scope of existing resettlement provision. It is now well established that the arrangements introduced by TR for this group of prisoners have not been successful, having delivered high and often unmanageable caseloads, little help to service users and a greatly increased chance of recall to prison. The need which the reforms purported to meet remains unmet. There is little point in poorly designed and delivered provision; on the other hand, resources for the foreseeable future are not likely to support large increases in expenditure when so many parts of the criminal justice system require investment. This article draws on research from the 1990s onwards on provision for this group of prisoners, and in particular, the 'Pathfinder' projects of 1999–2003, as examples of what can be achieved on a voluntary basis. It is suggested that future provision for this group in England and Wales should be based on a more selective and individualized provision, with less coercion and more choice for service users.

This article reviews the history of the probation service's contribution to sentencing and revisits the changing theories and understandings that have influenced this role at different times. Through most of its history probation was seen as an alternative to punishment and required the consent of the probationer. Since the 1990s these fundamental assumptions have been changing, and the article explores some of the social and political context of these changes. It argues (with the help of John Augustus, Charles Dickens and others) that the probation service's input of social information into sentencing has been a contribution to social justice, but recent changes in the reporting role have made this much more difficult. Finally, some suggestions are made about how probation's traditional input into sentencing might be restored.

AbstractThis article is based on the 14th Bill McWilliams Memorial Lecture, delivered at the Institute of Criminology in Cambridge on 22 June 2011. It contrasts the present and likely future state of probation services in England and Wales with their good standing and reputation in the third quarter of the 20th Century, and considers whether there are core features of probation which can be identified in its earlier theory and practice which help to account for this. It traces the recent history of probation services in England and Wales in the context of social and political changes, and questions how much a probation service which moves away from help towards punishment can still have in common with earlier visions. Finally, some future possibilities are discussed, together with the political conditions which might help or hinder them.

Tenter de mesurer et de contrôler le risque est devenu une préoccupation centrale de la justice pénale. Les auteurs critiques ont souligné combien pratiquer l'évaluation du risque peut entrer en contradiction avec le principe de proportionnalité et ont également avancé que son utilisation peut accroître le niveau général de punitivité et d'inégalité sociale. Quant aux promoteurs et aux partisans de l'évaluation du risque, ils mettent en lumière ses avantages, par exemple le socle qu'elle offre aux mesures de réhabilitation. Cet article discute le développement de l'évaluation du risque dans les pratiques de la justice pénale britannique et avance que ses conséquences, tant positives que négatives, ont été les effets, non seulement des pratiques elles-mêmes, mais également des politiques au service desquelles elles ont été déployées.

Over the last decade the development of evidence-based approaches based on 'What Works' has become a central principle of probation policy, but has also been subject to a number of criticisms. These have included arguments that the new methods pathologize offenders, that they ignore social causes of crime, that they ignore diversity, and that they are being implemented before their efficacy has been demonstrated. This article responds to these and other criticisms in the light of available evidence and concludes that the future for evidence-based practice looks more promising than some critics have suggested.

Recent studies of probation's effectiveness have relied largely on reconvictions, but there is widespread interest in other possible measures of impact (for example, on attitudes or on social problems) which might provide more immediate and relevant evaluative information for practitioners. This paper reviews information generated by the CRIME‐PICS instrument in the Mid Glamorgan 'STOP' experiment and compares it with reconviction data. Some relationships are identified between components of CRIME‐PICS scores and subsequent reconvictions. The paper comments on the potential and feasibility of this kind of instrument in evaluation and makes suggestions about future research.

Current 'just deserts' models in criminal justice draw part of their support from a loss of faith in consequentialist aims of sentencing such as rehabilitation. Recent evidence concerning the effectiveness of rehabilitative efforts suggests a need to reconsider this aspect of 'just deserts' arguments. A more socially contextualised understanding of 'justice' is needed to make sense of the place of rehabilitative aims, but this also requires a more explicit linkage than currently exists between the goals of criminal justice and those of wider social policy.

Abstract: This paper reports the main findings of a local study which compared sentencing outcomes for offenders sentenced in the Crown Court with and without social inquiry reports. The results suggest that for middle‐risk adults aged over 20, the availability of a report can increase the likelihood of a custodial sentence. This may have implications for report writers' approach to recommendations.