Introduction
The England and Wales criminal justice system (CJS) is a ministerial department under the Ministry of Justice, which oversees the administration of justice in the country. It is an elaborate governmental infrastructure consisting of such institutions as the police, prosecution service, courts, and prison establishments. Over the years, the United Kingdom’s CJS has been re-engineered and synchronized with the government policy of repressing crime innovatively while preserving societal confidence in the system. The judicial proceedings operate within a defined framework of principles, which emphasize the punishment of convicts, crime suppression, rehabilitation of offenders, public protection, and reparation through interventions targeting groups overrepresented in the country’s criminal caseload. Although CJS seeks to reduce crime, reform perpetrators, and protect the public, the achievability of these objectives can be enhanced by integrating effectiveness, efficiency, and fairness as the fundamental components of the process.
The Purpose of Sentencing in England and Wales and the Achievability of the Process’ Principles
In England and Wales, the CJS is a network of government agencies under the Ministry of Justice established with aspirations to control crime by imposing sentences on offenders. Sentencing is a form of punishment and an indispensable component of CJS and is designed to achieve such objectives as suppression of criminal behavior, rehabilitation of offenders, protection of the public, and reparation (van Ginneken and Hayes, 2016). Notably, attaining these aspirations is a delicate balance between realizing adequate denunciation and censure of the criminal conduct and discouraging recidivism and perpetration of crime by other individuals. These goals constitute the foundational principles of the CJS, which function as the instrumental frameworks for punishing the guilty, protecting the public, and minimizing the potential for reoffending. Forsberg and Douglas (2020) contend that the sentencing goal has been re-engineered progressively to become more rehabilitative and restorative than punitive in most jurisdictions, including England and Wales. Therefore, the CJS achieves sentencing objectives by prioritizing the factors which diminish the potential of recidivism while ensuring that offenders are punished.
England and Wales penalize criminals through incarceration, a widely practiced strategy to deprive convicts of their freedom. Comparatively, England and Wales have some of the highest imprisonment rates globally, with a prisoner population of 182 per 100,000 people in 2016 (Abramovaite et al., 2019). The popularity and widespread application of this strategy are attributed to its relatively high degree of achieving the desired outcomes of sentencing, particularly deterrence, punishment, crime reduction, and public protection. England and Wales have integrated technology as an innovative approach to incapacitating criminals by enhancing surveillance through electronic monitoring devices in various stages of the criminal proceedings (Belur et al., 2020; Richter, Ryser, and Hostettler, 2021). The tracking of convicted offenders has been proven to significantly reduce reoffending by depriving offenders of their liberty through constant tracking.
Additionally, various studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of incarceration in suppressing crime, rehabilitating offenders, minimizing recidivism, and protecting the public. England and Wales’ CJS have integrated programs in their correctional facilities designed to change the behavior of convicted individuals. Bullock and Bunce (2018) note that offender rehabilitation is a fundamental component of contemporary sentencing practices in England and Wales, where the judicial officers stress the desirability of prisons as the place for inmate reform. For instance, most correctional facilities have a dedicated education department offering various courses and qualifications to inmates (Szifris, Fox, and Bradbury, 2018; Crabbe, 2016). Moreover, detaining convicts significantly reduces crime since the offender are restrained, protects the public by isolating convicts, and enhances their rehabilitation by enrolling them in educational programs within the correctional facilities. Therefore, incarceration is one of the main approaches through which England and Wales realize sentencing objectives.
In many jurisdictions, sentencing officers strive to meet the legitimate public desire of punishing the wrongdoers effectively. In this regard, all sentences involve a component of sanction in the form of penalties or losses imposed on the offender. Consequently, the punishment ought to adequately denounce the criminal conduct, hold the suspect accountable, and reinforce adherence to the established laws. This implies that retribution is considerably an indispensable element of effective sentencing. Forsberg and Douglas (2020) corroborate this view and illustrate the inherent deficiencies of a purely rehabilitative CJS. England and Wales’ sentencing framework emphasizes the retributive aspect by underscoring the essence of punishment to the wrongdoers as an expression of society’s disapproval of the behavior. However, the imposed retribution should be proportional, commensurate to the committed transgression, and address the gravity of the offending behavior. In this regard, the CJS seeks to achieve the ideals of sentencing by ensuring the observance of these tenets.
Achievability of the Principles
The CJS in England and Wales has undergone tremendous changes and increasingly adopted sentencing guidelines of the 21st century. In this regard, the system has been re-engineered to ensure the achievability of the set principles through the incorporation of such programs as Youth Offending Teams. For instance, there is a progressive inclination of sentencing patterns reflecting the circumstances under which individuals committed an offense and a continuous deemphasis of punishment (Forsberg and Douglas, 2020). These patterns manifest the extent to which the conventional sentencing objectives are significantly unachievable and somehow at cross-purpose with each other. Apel and Diller (2017) and Sangero (2020) contend that a significant proportion of the crimes leading to imprisonment fall under the category of offenses for which severe punishment achieves a weak deterrent effect. For instance, multiple empirical studies illustrate how incarceration is inimical to crime reduction and recidivism due to the antisocial prison experiences and the endured post-release stigma compared to noncustodial sentences.
In the past, the general assumption was that inmates would obtain education and other skills to enhance their employability, ultimately converting them to responsible citizens. However, studies indicate that prisoners undergo a process of prisonization, which makes them more dangerous than before imprisonment (Sangero, 2020; Friehe and Miceli, 2017). van Ginneken and Hayes (2016) notes that this is an inherent attribute of CJS occasioned by the challenges of accurately aligning the gravity of the crime to the severity and proportionality of the punishment. In this regard, it is apparent that the foundational structure of CJS makes the attainability of some of the principles of the system unachievable. The competing interests of crime suppression significantly undermine the effectiveness of the CJS and the accomplishment of the sentencing ideals.
Key Principles of Criminal Justice Policy and where they Fit within Government Scheme
In England and Wales, some of the principles of the criminal justice policy align with the government plan of suppressing crime, reforming offenders, and protecting the public from individuals classified as dangerous to society. The sentencing principles, which form the foundation on which judicial decisions are made, have been developed through elaborate government-sponsored legislation and common law practices. These tenets, including parsimony, totality, proportionality, and parity, function as guidelines for all crimes and offenses. For instance, Pina-Sanchez et al. (2019) indicate that the recent transformation of the CJS has triggered considerable inflation in the sentencing severity and a disproportionate rise in the number of inmates. More specifically, the average length of custodial sentences grew by 47% from 1999 to 2017. Similarly, the prison population rose by 92.4% between 1993 and 2016, despite declining overall crime rates and sentencing caseloads over the same period (Pina-Sanchez et al., 2019). This pattern reflects the government’s intention of enhancing consistency by ensuring the imposition of similar sentences for matching offenses committed under homogenous circumstances.
However, the severity of punishment undermines the principle of proportionality, which requires the imposed sentences to be commensurate with the gravity of the offending behavior. For instance, Guilfoyle and Marder (2021) illustrate the negative effect of mandatory sentences within the jurisdiction of England and Wales. Despite the establishment and implementation of the guidelines, inconsistencies are sentencing are still widespread. However, Pina-Sanchez et al. (2019) argue that these relatively stringent provisions reflect the growing public disdain and intolerance for criminal behaviors. For instance, the obligatory minimum and life sentences have been extended to a broader range of offenses, a phenomenon attributed to the guidelines (Burton et al., 2021). From this perspective, the government’s policy on sentencing contradicts various principles of criminal justice strategy.
Factors Determining Criminal Justice Intervention when Dealing with Offender Behavior
Criminal justice interventions are the deliberate crime prevention approaches implemented to address the specific risk factors contributing to offender behavior. For instance, in England and Wales, young people from ethnic minorities, particularly Blacks and Asians, are overrepresented in the CJS (Robertson and Wainwright, 2020). In this regard, racial identity ranks prominently among the factors influencing the interventions targeting offender behaviors. Moreover, the socioeconomic environment is a critical consideration widely acknowledged to stimulate the emergence of antisocial tendencies. This implies that the high crime rates among young people from socioeconomically disadvantaged families reflect the susceptibility to offending occasioned by the challenges in their upbringing. Such other factors as disrupted family or parental conflicts should also be considered when developing interventions targeting offenders.
Interventions for the Management of Offenders in the Community
The management of offenders in the community primarily involves probation, a post-conviction sentence in lieu of imprisonment in a correctional facility. In England and Wales, the practice is mainly responsible for supervising offenders serving their sentences outside correctional facilities as an innovative approach to reducing recidivism and minimizing the financial pressures of imprisoning convicts (Tidmarsh, 2020). Such other alternatives as community service, deferred or suspended sentences, house arrest, treatment programs, and inpatient rehabilitation. For instance, a sentencing officer may allow a convict to serve a portion of their jail term undergoing treatment while debarred or prohibited from undertaking such activities as going to bars. Notably, these interventions have been enhanced by the accelerated rollout of electronic monitoring technologies and the changing dimensions of sentencing objectives in the 21st century.
Considerations and Approaches of Dealing with Young, Male, Female, and Ethnic Minority Offenders
In England and Wales, there is an elaborate structured approach to dealing with young offenders and those from ethnic minority groups. For instance, the Youth Offending Teams are creations of the CJS and work with young people to help them stay away from crime. Bateman (2019 notes that these entities consider various risk factors, including gender, racial identity, and socioeconomic background. This is informed by the overrepresentation of these groups in the country’s caseload. In this regard, the background of the young people arrested over various offenses, their previous interactions with the law, and possible risk factors are critical considerations when working with these groups. The approaches include running and managing local crime deterrence initiatives, assisting youths at the police station after being arrested, supervising them when serving community sentences, and keeping contact with them when in custody.
Roles and Responsibilities of Agencies Dealing with Offenders Post-Sentencing
The probation service, the parole board, and the youth offending teams are the most prominent agencies working with offenders post-sentencing. The former’s roles and responsibilities entail the preparation of presentencing reports to support the determination of the most appropriate penalty, helping offenders in noncustodial sentences meet the probational terms, and preparing qualified offenders for release. The Parole Board evaluates the risk of releasing an inmate early and determining the safety of setting such convicts free. This implies that the Bord is responsible for managing the safety of the public and the inmate. Similarly, the Youth Offending Teams supervise and support offenders under 18 and help them reduce the potential of recidivism.
Legal Constraints Placed Upon the Judiciary When Sentencing
Although judges typically consider such factors as the circumstances under which an offense was committed, the defendant’s criminal history and age, their determination of the sentence to impose are regulated by the sentencing guidelines. For instance, in England and Wales, judicial officers handling murder cases are required to consider specific statutory factors and even impose defined mandatory penalties (Dai, 2020). In this regard, the judges’ position is regulated by various legal instruments, limiting the extent to which judicial officers exercise their discretion.
Conclusion
Within the jurisdiction of England and Wales, the sentencing of offenders seeks to punish the guilty, reduce crime, reform the convicts, and protect the public. The system achieves these objectives through incarceration, assisting inmates depart from criminal behaviors, and isolating convicted persons from the society. Numerous programs and interventions have been developed and integrated in the CJS to deal with specific groups of offenders, including the young, male, female, and ethnic minorities.
Reference List
Abramovaite, J. et al. (2019) ‘Alternatives to custody: Evidence from police force areas in England and Wales’, The British Journal of Criminology, 59(4), pp. 800−822.
Apel, A. B., and Diller, J. W. (2017) ‘Prison as punishment: A behavior-analytic evaluation of incarceration’, The Behavior Analyst, 40(1), pp. 243−256.
Bateman, T. (2019) ‘Children in England and Wales who feel they were ‘treated fairly’ by their Youth Offending Team are significantly more likely to report being less likely to reoffend’, Youth Justice, 19(1), pp. 72−82.
Belur, J. et al. (2020) ‘A systematic review of the effectiveness of the electronic monitoring of offenders’, Journal of Criminal Justice, 68, pp. 1−18.
Bullock, K. and Bunce, A. (2020) ‘The prison don’t talk to you about getting out of prison’: On why prisons in England and Wales fail to rehabilitate prisoners’, Criminology & Criminal Justice, 20(1), 111−127.
Burton, M. et al. (2021) Sanders & Young’s Criminal Justice. 5th edn. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Crabbe, J. C. (2016) ‘Education for offenders in prison’, Journal of Pedagogic Development, 6(3), pp. 1−7. Web.
Dai, X. (2020) ‘Legal constraints and judicial discretion in sentencing practice: Appraisal analysis of the sentencing remarks for Terri Palmer’, Text & Talk, 40(3), pp.269−292.
Forsberg, L. and Douglas, T. (2020) ‘What is criminal rehabilitation?’, Criminal Law & Philosophy, pp. 1−24.
Friehe, T. and Miceli, T. J. (2017) ‘On punishment severity and crime rates’, American Law and Economics Review, 19(2), pp. 464−485.
Pina-Sanchez, J. et al. (2019) ‘Have the England and Wales guidelines affected sentencing severity? An empirical analysis using a scale of severity and time-series analyses’, The British Journal of Criminology, 59(4), pp. 979−1001.
Richter, M., Ryser, B., and Hostettler, U. (2021) ‘Punitiveness of electronic monitoring: Perception and experience of an alternative sanction’, European Journal of Probation, pp. 1−20.
Robertson, L. and Wainwright, J. P. (2020) ‘Black boys’ and young men’s experience with criminal justice and desistance in England and Wales: A literature review’, Genealogy, 4, pp. 1−14.
Sangero, B. (2020) ‘From Beccaria to negation of incarceration for non-violent property offenses’, Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law, 37(3), pp. 329−344. Web.
Szifris, K., Fox, C., and Bradbury, A. (2018) ‘A realist model of prison education, growth, and desistance: A new theory’, Journal of Prison Education and Reentry, 5(1), pp. 41−62. Web.
Tidmarsh, M. (2020) ‘The probation service in England and Wales: A decade of radical change or more of the same?’, European Journal of Probation, 12(2), pp. 129−146.
van Ginneken, E. F. and Hayes, D. (2016) ‘Just’ punishment? Offenders’ views on the meaning and severity of punishment’, Criminology & Criminal Justice, 17(1), pp. 62−78.