There are various institutions that work to ensure that the rule of law is upheld in any country where it serves as the main governing principle. The judiciary, whose job it is to interpret the law, is one of the structures at action in such a situation. One method the legal system makes sure the law is followed is through sentencing. After being found guilty of a crime, a judge or magistrate will decide what penalty to impose on a particular person. This decision is known as a sentence. Sentencing usually comes at the end of a prosecution, which happens following the occurrence of a crime and police arrest. Considering that a system is as good as the outcomes, one major question that many have sort to address in the past, especially in the UK is the main aims of sentencing in England and Wales?
There are different reasons for which a society punishes crime offenders. This paper focuses on five essential aims for sentencing in England and Wales. These include for the punishment of offenders through retribution, for the reduction of crime, primarily by deterrence, for reforming and rehabilitating offenders, for the protection of the public through incapacitation, and for making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by the offences (Ashworth & Roberts, 2013). One important aspect to note is that the above aims of sentencing focus on adult sentencing as stipulated in the Criminal Justice Act of 2003. Deterrence as an aim of sentencing in England and Wales is derived from the belief that punishment for a crime can deter others from offending (Irwin-Rogers & Perry, 2015). Deterrence in its application focuses on two major perspectives; specific deterrence and general deterrence. Specific deterrence involves punishing an individual offender with the expectation that the person will not engage in crime again. General deterrence concerns the possibility that people, in general, get deterred from committing crimes based on their fear of getting caught and punished in the event they engage in crime (Neild, 2011).
Another major aim of sentencing in England and Wales is for retribution purposes. Retribution involves the aspect of placing sanctions on an individual for committing a particular crime. While others consider it as a ‘payback’ aspect of the committed crime, in reality, retribution is more significant than just payback. It focuses on ensuring that a particular crime offender is punished adequately for a specific crime committed, ascertaining the offender is indeed accountable for the crime committed and for the harm caused on either an individual or the community at large (Ashworth & Roberts, 2013).
Reform and rehabilitation remain one of the essential aims for sentencing in England and Wales. Reforming and rehabilitating offenders involves the changing of the offender’s behavior and mindset as a means of preventing the occurrence of future crimes. Different approaches have efficiently worked towards effecting reformation and rehabilitation including the identification of the factors that influence a person towards committing the crime (Neild, 2011). Once the contributing factors are identified, the offender can then be put under appropriate assistance measures depending on the conditions. An example is in the case of the people who commit crimes as influenced by drug abuse being placed under treatment for drug addiction.
Instances in which successful treatment procedures are administered, the reformed offenders stand higher chances of abandoning the criminal lifestyles. Rehabilitation in its direction at behavior change challenges the actions of the offender by showing them that there are better ways of making similar achievements without resorting to crime Jacobson, Roberts, & Hough, 2008). Two major ways used in reform and rehabilitation processes are receiving training or the joining of education programs targeting such cases.
Crime reduction is yet another aim of sentencing both in England and Wales. When one is sentenced to serve a specific period in prison, it is evident that such an individual will not have an opportunity of committing crime out of jail. Such a sentencing could equally act as an example to others with intentions of committing crimes, and from the punishment given to one offender, the others could refrain. Reduction in crime associates closely with the protection of the public as another aim of sentencing in England and Wales. Incapacitation is one way through which sentencing has contributed towards protecting the society. Through incapacitation, the offender is removed from the community either through imprisonment or home detention thus restricting their activities or being under supervision by probation (Neild, 2011).
In certain instances, reparation is also an aim for sentencing. It involves enabling of courts to give orders to the offender to pay compensation either directly to the affected individuals or indirectly to the community as a means of making amends to their actions (Ashworth & Roberts, 2013). Monies recovered from such proceeds could be used for facilitating community projects or help in the funding of further investigative processes. Typical cases in which reparation is applied is in corruption crimes where asserts achieved through the criminal activities are seized as a punishment to the offenders.
How are the Aims discussed above Reflected in Prison Conditions?
Over the centuries, prisons have evolved to what they are currently. Communities have always sorted the different means through which to protect the public from those who have caused them harm or even pose threats. Besides, through the use of prisons, communication is established on what is considered a wrongful conduct an appropriate punishment for such a case (Jacobson, Roberts, & Hough, 2008). The different aims of sentencing discussed above are the common reason given for the imprisonment of individuals. The designing of prisons has therefore focused on the establishment of a reflection of the aims of sentencing. The prisons have established different departments that work in ensuring that the aims of sentencing in England and Wales are achieved. The reform and pathfinder prisons require that offenders spend their last three months to the completion of their terms in the local resettlement areas (Dhami, 2013). In such particular prisons, the offenders receive additional resources that equip them with essentials of tackling violence and crime, self-harm and suicide as those stand as the major elements affecting released offenders (Jacobson, Roberts, & Hough, 2008).
Since 2015, the government altered the manner in which offenders were managed in the prison facilities as a means of ensuring that the prisons served the purpose and aims associated with the sentencing of offenders. Transforming rehabilitation has brought about the developing of probation services, which are then divided into national probation services and the community rehabilitation companies. The community rehabilitation companies are mandated with the management of low to medium risk offenders, while also responsible for resettlement services whenever a prison offers such a service too (Dhami, 2013). The national probation services are departments that deal with medium to high-risk offenders. In each of the cases involved, there is a link to a particular aim in sentencing that the prison structures develop as a reflection into ensuring the aims are achieved.
Depending on the factors and circumstances under which an individual commits a crime, there is usually a particular approach that prisons give in ensuring that sentencing aims are achieved. For certain cases in which the offenders are considered low-risk individuals, reparation is applied as a means of ensuring that the offender experiences some pain indirectly from the previous criminal actions. The aims of sentencing in England and Wales are also being experienced in the manner in which staffing currently happens in prisons. Unlike the previous years when prisons’ staff job were reserves of the prison wardens, the current state shows the entry of diverse individuals into the prison staff jobs, each with a particular role in ensuring that offenders are served as per the demands of their sentencing (Dhami, 2013). The new staff entrants include psychologists, sociologists, and psychiatrists among others. Ideally, prisons have also had legislation amended to establish sentencing and corrections policies that embody fairness, proportionality, consistency, and opportunity as attributed to by the aims of sentencing (Jacobson, Roberts, & Hough, 2008).
Which Human Rights is it Argued prisoners detained in England and Wales are Deprived of?
Being a prisoner anywhere in the world comes with certain limitations to freedom and rights. While that is the common occurrence, it is equally important to note that just by the fact that one is behind bars does not mean that such an individual loses all their rights (Ohalloran, 2012). While it is evident that some rights are usually removed, others are compromised with those considered to be essential rights remaining. Such a perspective is the true case scenario in England and Wales. Critical to note is the fact that prisoners in England and Wales retain the key human rights that offer protection to all humans including the right to fair trial and the right to be free of inhuman and degrading treatment. Even though the right to life also falls in this particular case, it is dependent on the sentencing that one is serving in prison, as for one serving a death sentence then such a right is deprived (Lazarus, 2004).
Over the years, there has been a growing concern that prisoners detained in England and Wales are deprived of individual rights. One of such that has contributed to numerous controversies is the policy that prevents prisoners from being present during their property search and mail examination (Lazarus, 2004). The right of access to a court, access to legal advice, and to communicate in confidentiality with a legal advisor are others argued that prisoners detained in England and Wales are deprived of. Proper mechanisms have, however, been established in ensuring that such remain at the disposal of all prisoners who wish to access them. There is also the case involving the limitation of journalists from interviewing prisoners. Ideally, such a policy that limits such interviews violates the right to free expression (Ohalloran, 2012). It is evident that there are certain cases in which prisoners are wrongfully detained or imprisoned, and through the interviews of journalists, there is the potential of uncovering the potential miscarriages of justice (Lazarus, 2004). Depriving prisoners of the interview rights, limits their access to justice and fair trial.
The right to vote is one that in its current state is deprived of the prisoner detained in either England or Wales. It is important to state that prisoners serving custodial sentence are never allowed any voting rights in England and Wales, a state termed as ‘civil death’ (Ohalloran, 2012). However, certain exceptions exist for the people on remand; the individuals in custody but awaiting their trials. In their case, the policy that considers them innocent until proven guilty remains, which ideally allows them equal rights as those not in custody. The limitation of prisoner’s voting rights is considered to have its foundation in an outdated conception of punishment, which a majority of nations have today amended. However, for the case of England and Wales, the situation remains static despite the evolution that criminal justice has undergone over the years. To many people today, voting rights for prisoners are considered a rehabilitation activity as the prisoners engage in a democratic process. Rehabilitation remains one of the major aims of sentencing in England and Wales, and as such, the right to vote for prisons should be given reconsideration, most especially for its role in the rehabilitation process.
References
Ashworth, A., & Roberts, J. V. (2013). The Origins and Nature of the Sentencing Guidelines in England and Wales. Sentencing Guidelines, 1-14
Dhami, M. K. (2013). A ‘Decision Science’ Perspective on the Old and New Sentencing Guidelines in England and Wales. Sentencing Guidelines, 165-181
Irwin-Rogers, K., & Perry, T. W. (2015). Exploring the Impact of Sentencing Factors on Sentencing Domestic Burglary. Exploring Sentencing Practice in England and Wales
Jacobson, J., Roberts, J., & Hough, M. (2008). Towards more consistent and predictable sentencing in England and Wales. Tackling prison overcrowding: Build more prisons? Sentence fewer offenders?, 43-62.
Lazarus, L. (2004). The Jurisprudence of Prisoners Rights. Contrasting Prisoners Rights, 199-247.
Neild, J. (2011). State of Prisons in England, Scotland, and Wales: Pages 1-312. The State of Prisons of England, Scotland and Wales.
Ohalloran, K. (2012). England and Wales. Religion, Charity and Human Rights, 157-223
