Society 's Preoccupation With Risk

Criminological theories interpret the competing paradigms of Human Nature, Social Order, Definition of Crime, Extent and Distribution of Crime, Causes of Crime, and Policy, differently. Even though these theories have added to societies understanding of criminal behaviour, all have been unable to explain why punishment or treatment of offenders is unable to prevent deviancy, and thus are ineffective methods of control. The new penology is a contemporary response that favours the management of criminals by predicting future harm on society. However, all criminological theories are linked as they are a product of the historical time and place, and because of their contextual history, they will continue to reappear depending on the current

Talking about making our communities safer, judges have increasing sentences to the offenders and over 90 per cent of offenders who fail to comply are now returned to court for tougher punishment. Re-offending rates are down. There has been a major reduction in the number of re-offences committed by both adults and juveniles a 22.9 per cent fall for adults and an 18.7 per cent fall for juvenile. Public confidence in the criminal justice system has risen in recent years, although corrections still need to do more to demonstrate to communities that the system is on their side in delivering justice. Personally, there is still too wide a gap between the reality about crime and the public’s perception.

Since 2003, the National Probation Service (NPS) has incorporated the Offender Assessment Systems (OASys), (Bracken, 2010). OASys is a standardised, evidence based instrument used to measure the likelihood of recidivism and ROSH. Consideration is also given, to the circumstances of the offence, the type and vulnerability of the victim and the criminogenic needs associated with offending (NOMS, 2010). Robust risk assessments are a mandatory aspects of professional practice (Kemshall, 2007) however, there are no set guidelines which determine criminality (Howard, 2000). ROSH needs to be assessed individually, as no one static, dynamic or acute risk factor is ever indicative of a specific offending behaviours (Powis, 2002). There has been some

The Probation Officer and Offender role has been widely examined, specifically in regards to the effective management of risk (McNeill, 2009, NOMS 2010). Within this, it is recognised that the relationship between these individuals is paramount to the effective management of risk and offending behaviour. There have been numerous working practices introduced throughout the years within the Probation Service to identify effective working practices including the Effective Practice Principles and latterly, Skills for Effective Engagement, Development and Supervision known by the acronym SEEDS (Rex & Hosking, 2013). Whilst these have greatly influenced the work being undertaken by Probation practitioners, the management of risk of

“The Prison and Probation Service has two main goals: To contribute to the reduction of criminality, and to work to increase safety in society. To achieve these goals we work with sentenced persons in order to improve their possibilities of living a life without committing new crimes.” (Linstrom and Leijonram)

Since the 19th century, law enforcement and punishment has developed rapidly into the justice system we rely on today. Obscure laws that had become irrelevant in an industrial and post-industrial era were fast being replaced, and despite its lack of existence at the beginning of the 1800’s, policing standards are, today, high. The necessity for this drastic change in approach to crime has stemmed from the needs of industrial Britain, and the increased awareness of the public, and government, and their perception of crime and punishment. Rather than individual cases having a direct impact on these changes, in general they provide an insight as to the reactions of the public at the time, and along with the myriad of other cases, allow us

This essay will critically reflect on the interventions used in the community to manage offender’s risk by identifying the strengths and weaknesses of communication, between Offender Managers and external agencies. An evaluation will be made of how Offender Managers are able to use feedback from community interventions, to effectively manage an individuals risk throughout supervision sessions and explore different strategies used in order build a relationship and manage compliance throughout an order. This essay will highlight diversity issues raised and how future practice can be improved from reflecting on current work. I will be referring to two case studies drawn from my own practice as a Probation Service Officer (PSO), Mr N and Mr C, and demonstrate how theoretical literature and research has informed decision-making in managing risk and planned interventions.

The legal definition of crime is “an act of violation of a criminal law for which a punishment is prescribed; the person committing it must have intended to do so and must have done so without legally acceptable defence or justification” (Walsh & Hemmens 2008:2). Alternatively, deviance is any social behaviour which departs from that regarded as ‘normal’ or socially acceptable within a society or social context (Jary & Jary 1991:160). The underlining focus of my essay is The Criminal Justice System in England and Wales which is a key public service consisting of various bodies and individuals including: the Police, Crown Prosecution Service, Her Majesty’s Court Service, National Offender Management Services (Probation and Prisons) and Youth Justice Board.

The second supporting argument that Parliament imposes the judiciary to place too much emphasis on incarceration is characterized by the reduction of credit for pre-sentence custody credit. Fortunately, this was amended in 2014. The Truth in Sentencing Act, one of the government’s early “tough on crime” laws was passed in 2009, but became operative on Feb. 22, 2010. This Act contributed to the changes regarding the credit offenders received for pre-sentence detention or “dead-time,” that does not count towards any parole or early release eligibility. This curbed judge’s ability to give a break on sentencing when a convicted offender has spent lengthy time in pre-trial jail custody. This discount in sentencing had evolved to recognize that

The increase in violent rapes and murders being committed by paroled prisoners in Victoria, such as those committed by Adrian Bailey in 2012, and Sean Price in 2015, have led to the tightening of parole laws, removal of suspended sentences, and introduction of new mandatory sentencing laws. However, while these laws can be an effective way of reducing crime, reducing reoffending by 17-20 percent (Helland and Tabarrok, 2007), they also are a departure from the doctrine of the separation of powers (Solonec, 2015). The purpose of this essay will be to assess how detrimental the removal of objective sentencing will be to society, through the implementation of policies such as mandatory sentencing, stricter parole laws, and the removal of

the implementation of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, and the introduction of the Sentencing Council as the single statutory body in charge of issuing guidelines on sentencing. As a result, courts are now required by statute to follow any relevant sentencing guidelines relevant to the offenders case unless they are satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so. The Sentencing Council is in the process of producing sentencing guidelines for a range of offences with the intention of targeting recidivism and creating greater consistency in sentencing while still allowing for a degree of discretion (amongst other aims), but for the purpose of this essay we will examine only the Definitive

From the 19th century to the 20th, crime control state agencies have become instilled with ‘penal welfarism’ and rehabilitation. However since then they’ve been dominated by risk management, incapacitation and retribution. In clarifying this change Garland; the formal organisations of crime control have a tendency to be responsive. Garland states “too often our attention focuses on the state’s institutions and neglects the informal social practices upon which state

It is through the Criminal Justice System’s close collaborations with like-minded agencies such as the Police, Prison and Courts Services, that the public’s concerns and worries are resolved, in order to bring about justice in our communities (Cavadino and Dignan, 2007 as cited in Fox, 2014). With that in mind and out of the way, this essay will aim to explore some of the strengths and weaknesses, which are prominent within the Criminal Justice System. To do this successfully, the Police and the Courts Service will be the key agencies that will be explored in relation to the key Models that shape the whole Criminal Justice System. These Models were founded by Herbert L. Packer (1968) and Michael King (1981).

It can be argued that imprisonment has been widely found to have failed to achieve its stated goals. Rehabilitation as perceived within the prison context is a myth. The predominant objective of control has developed in such a manner as to exclude the successful operation of any rehabilitation process. In looking at the nature and operation of the New South Wales prison system, for example, one is confronted by a system preoccupied with notions of control and security. A very disturbing feature of the system is that the availability of such prison accommodation helps to define the nature of the offender rather than the offender being defined by the nature of his offence (Wilkinson, 1972).

Classical criminology is “usually seen as the first ‘real’ criminology” (Tierney,2009), due to its emergence in the eighteenth century, heralded by scholars Jeremey Bentham and Cesare de Beccaria. It is centred on the ‘act’ rather than the ‘offender’, as well as the use of punishment as a deterrence. Yet whilst classical criminology has evolved slightly over time, it’s narrow minded focus on the ‘offence’ rather than the ‘offender’ can result in the overlooking of crucial details that may have facilitated the offence. Such details can include low-socio economic upbringing, mental health issues or social inequality. Therefore, when dealing with youth crime in Melbourne, only a limited amount of crime is explainable as classical