Since the early 20th century, the Scottish penal system has gone through numerous transformations as the society changes and grows, including the important period where Scotland struggled to create it’s own identity, separate from the rest of the UK. These developments have been pivotal in regards to the modernization of the Scottish Criminal Justice system, which is often described as being made up of a complex set of processes and involves many different bodies . Over the past decade, the main problem at hand is that Scotland, a relatively small country in the scheme of things, has a serious problem with imprisonment , meaning that we have a higher imprisonment rate than nearly anywhere else in Western Europe. Recent research has shown that …show more content…
Following the completion of the Second World War, Scotland (and the rest of the UK) was a place where a boost in the welfare state led to penal welfarism being key, which Garland argues that ‘reform and social intervention were plausible responses to crime and that alternatives to prison were healthy’ . This ideology meant that during this period the overall consensus was that rehabilitation was more heavily used, as prisons were in many ways considered counterproductive, and a last resort. Penal welfarism focused on helping people change their behaviour and reintegrating offenders back into the community. Garland explains that significant governmental effort was ‘expended on the task of creating alternatives to incarceration and encouraging the sentencers to use them’ . For most of the twentieth century a secular shift away from custodial punishment was evident. During the 1950s and 1960s, law and order was thought to be an issue out with the control of political parties and it was the shared opinion that the people who held the specific knowledge about it, not the politicians in question, should be the ones to sort crime, so there was no real link between governance and the control of criminality. There is the opinion that the penal welfare system was able to flourish within the …show more content…
Between the years of 1968 – 1995, there was a high level of welfarism in regards to juvenile justice in Scotland. The Children’s Hearing System was established in Scotland as a result of the report of the Kilbrandon Committee, published in 1964 . The Kilbradon Committee was set up in Scotland in 1961 as a result of concerns in the late 1950s and early 1960s that change was needed in the way society dealt with children and young people. This included those children with delinquent behaviour, those in need of care or protection, those beyond parental control, and those who persistently truant. This similarity was their common need for special measures of education and training as the normal upbringing processes had failed or fallen short for some reason. They considered that the most powerful and direct influences lay within the family and the home and that any measures used to ‘treat’ children and therefore change their behaviour had to involve where possible working closely with parents. A form of social education was required which sought to strengthen, support and build on the existing family resources by working persuasively and cooperatively with children and parents helping them towards a fuller understanding of their situation. On 15 April 1971 children’s hearings took over
The Punishment Imperative, a book based on the transition from a time when punishment was thought to be necessarily harsh to a time where reform in the prion system is needed, explains the reasons why the grand social experiment of severe punishment did not work. The authors of the book, Todd R. Clear and Natasha A. Frost, strongly argue that the previous mindset of harsh punishment has been replaced due to political shifts, firsthand evidence, and spending issues within the government. Clear and Frost successfully assert their argument throughout the book using quantitative and qualitative information spanning from government policies to the reintegration of previous convicts into society.
As some criminologists have debated, the methods and approaches to crime control have failed miserably. They are of the opinion that the criminal justice system fails in achieving its aims in rehabilitating criminal offenders. For example, a report made in the U.K claimed that 58 per cent of the prisoners released in 1997 were convicted of another crime (SEU, 2000). Some argue that it seems for the criminal justice system there is only one answer to crime control, a prison sentence. Nevertheless, some question how accurate this method is for some crimes in society. That is to say, that for certain crimes, taking the consumption of marijuana as an example, a prison sentence is not the solution, rehabilitating individuals should be the main priority and in certain cases if not the only
Question 1. Both Thomas Mathiesen and Stanley Cohen argue that alternative criminal justice responses that were presented after the 1970s were not real alternatives (Tabibi, 2015a). The ‘alternatives’ which are being questioned are community justice alternatives generally, and Restorative Justice specifically. The argument here is that Restorative Justice cannot be a real alternative because it is itself finished and is based on the premises of the old system (Mathiesen, 1974). Moreover, Restorative Justice is not an alternative, as it has not solved the issues surrounding the penal system (Tabibi, 2015a). Cohen (1985) supports this sentiment, and suggests that community based punishment alternatives have actually led to a widening and expansion
The major goal of the Australian prison at the beginning of the 20th century was the removal of lawbreakers from their activities in society (King, 2001). The Australian legal system relies on deterrence (Carl et al, 2011, p. 119), that is, a system that has two key assumptions: (i) specific punishments imposed on offenders will ‘deter’ or prevent them from committing further crimes (ii) the fear of punishment will prevent others from committing similar crimes (Carl et al, 2011, p. 119). However it is not always the case that deterrence is successful as people commit crime without concern for punishment, thinking that they will get away with the crime committed (Jacob, 2011). Economists argue that crime is a result of individuals making choices
Throughout history, it has become very clear that the tough on crime model just does not work. As stated by Drago & Galbiati et al. In their article: Prison Conditions and Recidivism, although it is...
In more recent years, numbers of the UK prison population have been on the rise – less serious crimes have been more severely punished - whereas the number of financial penalties issued to offenders have been falling (Cavadino & Dignan, 2013). In 1975, approximately 40.000 people were imprisoned, that number has risen to 83.842 in 2013 (Berman & Dar, 2013). The prison population more than doubled in that time, whereas the overall population merely grew with 14% (World Bank, n.d.), thus, the relative growth of the prison population is significantly disproportional.
Historically, criminology was significantly ‘gender-blind’ with men constituting the majority of criminal offenders, criminal justice practitioners and criminologists to understand ‘male crimes’ (Carraine, Cox, South, Fussey, Turton, Theil & Hobbs, 2012). Consequently, women’s criminality was a greatly neglected area and women were typically seen as non-criminal. Although when women did commit crimes they were medicalised and pathologised, and sent to mental institutions not prisons (Carraine et al., 2012). Although women today are treated differently to how they were in the past, women still do get treated differently in the criminal justice system. Drawing upon social control theory, this essay argues that nature and extent of discrimination
Many observers have drawn a simple correlation between these two trends. Putting more offenders in prison caused the reduction in crime. The Sentencing project has just completed a study that examines this issue in great detail and concludes that any such correlation is ambiguous at best. In examining the relationship between incarceration and crime in the 1990s the picture is complicated by the seven year period just prior to this, 1984-91. In this period, incarceration also rose substantially, at a rate of 65%. Yet crime rates increased during this time as well, by 17% nationally. Thus we see a continuous rise in incarceration for fourteen years, during which crime rose for seven years, then declined for seven years. This does not suggest that incarceration had no impact on crime, but any such connection is clearly influenced by other factors. A comparison with other nations is instructive in this rega...
The benefits of corrections include deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation or reform. Mrs. Prescott explained to me that she would “like to think there’s a link” between crime rates and the effectiveness of prisons. As part of the rehabilitation process, prisons like
The Criminal Justice System, a framework the British government set up to manage the treatment of culprits, has three principle objectives to accomplish social request, these are, (1) implementing criminal law, (2) keeping up peace in the general public, and (3) helping casualties. This may appear to be a well-considered framework, yet like some other association, there are blemishes, and one of the real imperfections is separation, and the predisposition that originates from segregation.
In Western cultures imprisonment is the universal method of punishing criminals (Chapman 571). According to criminologists locking up criminals may not even be an effective form of punishment. First, the prison sentences do not serve as an example to deter future criminals, which is indicated, in the increased rates of criminal behavior over the years. Secondly, prisons may protect the average citizen from crimes but the violence is then diverted to prison workers and other inmates. Finally, inmates are locked together which impedes their rehabilitation and exposes them too more criminal
The Criminal Justice System and its agencies encounter challenges while trying to perform their daily activities. The system deals with laws involving criminal behaviour. It dwells on three major agencies: the police, courts, and the corrections. Each agency has its own specific and important roles to contribute to society. This paper will explain both the roles and challenges each agency unfortunately battles.
This essay has identified sanctions imposed on offenders including imprisonment and community corrections. Described how punishment is justified with the just desert and deterrence theory. Discussing the rate of individuals being imprison comparted to community, provided rates for assault which shows crime being maintained and community member feel safe enough to allow for this to
The United States prison system is devoted to justice by hammering out retribution to those who violate the rules of the law. Though this is indeed the just and correct thing to do, crime should be and is followed by punishment, but what then? After serving their time, inmates are returned to the streets knowing only the torment of life. It seems the Scandinavian prison system has tried to change that, and has succeeded with the rehabilitation of inmates by putting rehabilitation over retribution, in order to directly address recidivism. By supporting the philosophy of ‘gentle justice’, the United States may not be able to remove crime entirely but it can definitely cut down on recidivism, and inmates who return to a life of crime. This investigation of the facets of prison life in the United States and Scandinavia is to show how the United States can give social stability by cutting down on crime rates, save money in the long run, and morally and ethically make a difference in the lives of troubled men and...
Offenders are protected today by both the rule of law, ensuring that all offenders are treated equally, regardless of their age, sex or position in the community, and due process, which ensures that all offenders are given a fair trial with the opportunity to defend themselves and be heard (Williams, 2012). Beccaria’s emphasis on punishment being humane and non-violent has also carried through to modern day corrections. It is still the case today that offenders must only receive punishment that is proportionate to the crime they have committed and the punishment is determined by the law. The power of the judges and the magistrates to make decisions on punishment is guided by the legislation and they do not have the power to change the law (Ferrajoli,