Whilst it cannot be denied that the principals
Whilst it can non be denied that the principals of ‘convict [ ing ] the guilty and protect [ ing ] the innocent’ are without doubt the major implicit in cardinal aims of the English and Welsh condemnable justness system, there are many complex issues involved in the sentencing of wrongdoers which strive to accomplish these simple terminals. It can besides be argued that the first principal is irrelevant since convicting the guilty enables the protection of the inexperienced person and it is this which is the primary purpose of the condemnable justness system.
There can be said to be three chief intents for the sentencing of wrongdoers within the condemnable justness system – requital, disincentive and rehabilitation [ 1 ] . The first of these is clearly intended to guarantee that the wrongdoer has paid for what they have done. It might be considered that this is far more of a public policy procedure than anything that would assist cut down degrees of condemnable activity. There are noteworthy instances where the degree of condemning appears to hold been given with public sentiment in head. In 2002 Patricia Amos, a female parent who did non direct her kids to school, was sentenced to sixty yearss imprisonment at a clip when the authorities were proposing a nexus between hooky and young person offense [ 2 ] . The populace will merely experience that they are being protected if they can see that the wrongdoer has suffered in some manner. Whilst this is the scenario many would wish to see, it does non needfully intend that it is the best method of accomplishing the ultimate end of protection for the inexperienced person.
The 2nd intent of condemning is that of disincentive ; non merely to discourage the felon from reoffending, but besides to discourage those who might see some signifier of condemnable activity. It appears to me to be a small naive to presume that this could hold a cover consequence on the population at big. The first portion of this statement regards the figure of wrongdoers who reoffend following a strong belief. In 2006, in a sample of over 51,000 wrongdoers, 39 % of them reoffended [ 3 ] . This would look to back up the premise that whilst strong belief for a condemnable offense and the subsequent sentencing might discourage some from reoffending there is a important figure for whom it has no consequence. The same can be said for those in the population who have yet to pique. When the decease punishment for slaying was abolished in 1965 [ 4 ] , there were frights that this would ensue in a important addition in the figure of homicides. Statisticss show that this was non the instance, and in fact demonstrate that there was small alteration per million caputs of population following this passage ; in existent fact there were a figure of old ages prior to 1965 when the figure of homicides was higher than the old ages following 1965 [ 5 ] . It seems to me a absolutely sensible premise that the figure of people who might perpetrate a offense but are deterred from making so because of the possible effects is really little. The authorities recognised this fact in the 1990 White Paper ‘Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public’ where it was stated that most wrongdoers are improbable to take a considered rational attack to their actions [ 6 ] .
The 3rd intent of condemning mentioned above is that of rehabilitation. In these cases the justice must make up one’s mind whether the punitory attack is the most suited for the wrongdoer, or whether a sentence intended to assist the wrongdoer reform is the most appropriate. This is mostly at odds with statute law in force sing the sentencing for condemnable offenses, which retains about entirely the retaliatory attack. In recent old ages, partially as a consequence of the turning prison population [ 7 ] , statute law has been brought into force to promote the control of some condemnable activities within the community [ 8 ] . Possibly the most widely known of these is thethe Anti Social Behaviour Order ( ASBO ) designed to maintain the culprit of an anti societal offense within the community but with the countenance of possible imprisonment should they pique the footings of their order. Whilst this attack might cut down the prison population it can barely be considered as rehabilitation, merely another signifier of disincentive. In add-on to these community orders at that place has besides been a move towards to what is known as renewing justness. In this attack the wrongdoer is required to reflect on the effects of their actions and see doing damagess for what they have done. It can besides give the victim the opportunity to run into and obtain an apology from the wrongdoer. Harmonizing the Renewing Justice Consortium [ 9 ] this procedure is non without its successes and it is thought that it can ensue in up to a 27 % decrease in reoffending [ 10 ] .
There can be no uncertainty that the purpose of the condemnable justness system is chiefly to protect the inexperienced person, there must be some uncertainty about whether this is most expeditiously brought about by merely penalizing the wrongdoer. Since it appears that the nature of the possible felon is such that they will non be deterred from their activities, in the most portion, by the possibility of any sentence they may have, in fact for many offenses it is extremely improbable that they would be cognizant of the exact sentence ; and whilst requital might be considered popular within public sentiment, it would look that neither is to the full effectual in protecting the populace. Crime is increasing, although at a decelerating rate [ 11 ] , so hence some alteration is required to change by reversal this tendency. It is clear that in order to accomplish this terminal it is first critical to understand to the full the heads of the wrongdoer and turn to the issues from several foreparts. Whilst it is still a new attack the consequences of renewing justness are assuring, but it can non be the lone hereafter attack. It can be seen that it is merely non plenty to ‘convict the guilty to protect the innocent’ , what is critical is some apprehension of why offense is committed in the first topographic point.
Crime, Justice and Protecting the Populace( 1990 ) Cm 965
The Guardian Newspaper ( 2002 )
Harris, P. ,An Introduction to Law( 2002 ) , London: Butterworths
Home Office Statistics Bulletin,Crime in England and Wales 2006/2007( 2007 )
House of Commons Library,Research Paper 99/56( 1999 )
Ministry of Justice Statistics Bulletin,Reoffending of Adults: From the 2006 Cohort( 2008 )
Ministry of Justice,Does Restorative Justice Affect Reconviction?( 2008 )
National Statistics Online ( www.statistics.gov.uk )Turning Prison Population( 2005 )
Slapper, G. and Kelly, D. ,The English Legal System 7ThursdayEdition( 2004 ) , London: Cavendish