Community sanctions: Offenders’ perceptions about their appropriateness
Abstract
This study analyzed offenders’ perceptions about distinct sanctions and their adequacy for different crimes, checking if these ideas apply to their crime. We covered a total of 163 adult offenders who were sanctioned with a non-custodial order. The results show that participants tended to express a punitive attitude toward crime, apart from their offenses. Participants who committed driving or drug trafficking offenses were those that revealed congruence regarding the adequacy of the sentence and the usefulness of the sanction imposed. Regarding sentences’ purposes, we noticed most participants considered punishment and general deterrence as the primary purposes. The main contribution of this study lies in its educational value about the cognitive particularities and specific needs of each type of offender. Not attending to offenders’ perceptions regarding sanctions may function as an obstacle for an efficient implementation of the Justice, in terms of their adherence to the sanctions, and consequently their rehabilitation.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
Aebi MF, Delgrande N, Marguet Y (2015) Have community sanctions and measures widened the net of the European criminal justice systems? Punishment and Society 17(5): 575–597.
Andrews D, Bonta J (2017) The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. 6th ed. London: Routledge.
Armstrong S, Weaver B (2013) Persistent punishment: User views of short prison sentences. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 52(3): 285–305.
Banks C (2017) The purpose of criminal punishment. In: Banks C (ed.) Criminal Justice Ethics: Theories and Practice. 4th ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, pp. 238–265.
Barry M, Weaver B, Liddle M, et al. (2016) Evaluation of the user voice prison and community councils. Final report. Available at: https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/65046/
Benson ML, Alarid LF, Burton VS, et al. (2011) Reintegration or stigmatization? Offenders’ expectations of community re-entry. Journal of Criminal Justice 39(5): 385–393.
Blackwell BS (2000) Perceived sanction threats, gender, and crime: A test and elaboration of power-control theory. Criminology 38(2): 439–488.
Blowers AN, Doerner JK (2015) Sentencing outcomes of the older prison population: An exploration of the age leniency argument. Journal of Crime and Justice 38(1): 58–76.
Bottoms AE (2017) Punishment in non-custodial sentences: A critical analysis. Criminal Law Forum 28: 563–587.
Brown D (2020) Community sanctions as pervasive punishment: A review essay. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 9(2): 183–199.
Brown S, Esbensen F, Geis G (2019) Criminology: Explaining Crime and Its Context. 10th ed. London: Routledge.
Capdevila M, Puig M, Ferrer B, et al. (2016) La Reincidencia En Medidas Penales Alternativas [Recidivism in Community Sanctions And Measures]. Barcelona: Centre d’Estudis Jurídics i Formació Especialitzada.
Castro-Rodrigues A, Sacau A (2012) La influencia del género en las decisiones de los tribunales: del paternalismo judicial a los papeles familiares. Revista Estudos Feministas 20(1): 119–132.
Castro-Rodrigues A, Sacau A, Oliveira JQ, et al. (2018) Prison sentences: Last resort or the default sanction? Psychology, Crime and Law 25(2): 171–194.
Chatsverykova I (2016) Severity and leniency in criminal sentencing in Russia: The effects of gender and family ties. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice 41(3): 1–25.
Cullen FT, Gendreau P (2001) From nothing works to what works: Changing professional ideology in the 21st century. The Prison Journal 81: 313–338.
Cullen FT, Jonson CL, Mears DP (2017) Reinventing community corrections. Crime and Justice 46(1): 27–93.
Cullen FT, Jonson CL, Nagin DS (2011) Prisons do not reduce recidivism: The high cost of ignoring science. Prison Journal 91(3): 48–65.
Doerner JK, Demuth S (2014) Gender and sentencing in the federal courts: Are women treated more leniently? Criminal Justice Policy Review 25(2): 242–269.
Durnescu I (2016) Experiencing supervision from ‘sparing the first offenders’ to ‘punishment in the community’ and reparing the harm done. In: McNeill F, Durnescu F, Butter R (eds) Probation: 12 Essential Questions. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 197–216.
Easteal P, Bartels L, Mittal R (2019) The importance of understanding the victims “reality” of domestic violence. Alternative Law Journal 44(1): 11–16.
Focquaert F, Raine A (2012) Ethics of community-based sanctions. In: Barton-Blessa SM (ed.) Encyclopedia of Community Corrections. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 144–148.
General Directorate of Social Reintegration (DGRSP) (2006) Penas e Medidas na Comunidade [Sentences in the Community]. Available at: https://dgrsp.justica.gov.pt/Justi%C3%A7a-de-adultos/Penas-e-medidas-na-comunidade/Medidas-na-Comunidade
Ginneken E (2016) The pain and purpose of punishment: A subjective perspective. What is Justice? Re-imaging penal policy, No. 22. The Howard League of Penal Reform. Available at: https://howardleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/HLWP-22-2016.pdf
Ginneken E, Hayes D (2016) “Just” punishment? Offenders’ views on the meaning and severity of punishment. Criminology and Criminal Justice 17(1): 62–78.
Glitsch E, Knuth D (2015) Key aspects of successful rehabilitation after repeated or serious driving offenses. Traffic Injury Prevention 17(4): 336–345.
Hayes D (2015) The impact of supervision on the pains of community penalties in England and Wales: An exploratory study. European Journal of Probation 7(2): 85–102.
Haynes S, Cares A (2015) Victims’ and offenders’ views about crime and justice. Sociological Focus 48(3): 228–248.
Hester R, Frase RS, Roberts JV, et al. (2018) Prior record enhancements at sentencing: Unsettled justifications and unsettling consequences. Crime and Justice 47: 209–254.
Indermaur D (1994) Offenders’ perceptions of sentencing. Australian Psychologist 29(2): 140–144.
Killias M, Villetaz P (2008) The effects of custodial vs non-custodial sanctions on reoffending: Lessons from a systematic review. Psicothema 20(1): 29–34.
Kolber A (2009) The subjective experience of surprise. Columbia Law Review 47(4): 471–472.
Leiber MJ, Beaudry-Cyr M, Peck JH, et al. (2017) Sentencing recommendations by probation officers and judges: An examination of adult offenders across gender. Women and Criminal Justice 28(2): 100–124.
Mcginnis JH, Carlson KA (1982) Offenders perceptions of their sentences. Journal of Offender Counseling 5(3–4): 37–41.
McNeill F (2010) Probation, credibility and justice. Probation Journal 58(1): 9–22.
McNeill F (2013) Community sanctions and European penology. In: Daems T, Smit D, Snacken S (eds) European Penology. 1st ed. London: Hart Publishing, pp. 1–17.
Manjunath A, Gilham R, Samele C, et al. (2018) Serving a community sentence with a mental treatment requirement: Offenders’ perspectives. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health 28(6): 491–502.
Matos R, Machado C (2012) Criminalidade feminina e construção do género: Emergência e consolidação. Análise Psicológic, XXX: 33–47.
Milani A, Moghadam MR (2015) Functions of alternative punishments to imprisonment in reducing the criminal population of the state prisons. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences 46: 39–50.
Moore K, Stuewig J, Tangney J (2013) Jail inmates’ perceived and anticipated stigma: Implications for post-release functioning. Self and Identity 12(5): 527–547.
Moreira JJS, Martins P (2018) Análise Estatísitca [Statistics Analysis]. Sombras E Luzes 1: 169–222.
Nagin D (2018) Deterrent effects of the certainty and severity of punishment. In: Nagin D, Cullen F, Johnson C (eds) Deterrence, Choice, and Crime. 1st ed. London: Routledge, pp. 157–186.
Penal Reform International (2018) Global prison trends. No.4. Penal Reform International. Available at: https://cdn.penalreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/PRI_Global-Prison-Trends-2018_EN_WEB.pdf
Rowe M, Irving A, Soppitt S (2018) The legitimacy of offender management programmes in a post-TR landscape. Safer Communities 17(2): 69–80.
Sampson R, Laub J (1995) Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Canadian Journal of Sociology 74(1): 1–29.
Sandu A, Ignătescu C (2017) Retributivity and public perception on the non-custodial sanctions. Românească Pentru Educaţie Multidimensională 9(3): 103–128.
Silva A, Fé E (2009) Álcool na Estrada: Consulta de Alcoologia do Programa STOP na Unidade de Alcoologia de Lisboa. Revista Toxicodependências 15(3): 31–38.
Smit D, Snacken S, Hayes D (2015) “One cannot legislate kindness”: Ambiguities in European legal instruments on non-custodial sanctions. Punishment and Society 17(1): 3–26.
Steiner B, Makarios MD, Travis LF (2015) Examining the effects of residential situations and residential mobility on offender recidivism. Justice Quarterly 61(3): 375–401.
Stouwe T, Asscher J, Hoeve M, et al. (2016) Social skills training for juvenile delinquents: Post-treatment changes. Journal of Experimental Criminology 12(4): 515–536.
The Centre for Social Justice (2004) Sentences in the Community. Reforms to Restore Credibility, Protect the Public and Cut Time. London: The Centre for Social Justice.
Uggen C, Staff J (2001) Work as a turning point for criminal offenders. Corrections Management Quarterly 5(4): 1–16.
United Kingdom Department of Justice (2011) Consultation on a Review of Community Sentences. Belfast: Department of Justice.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) (2012) Introductory Handbook on the Prevention of Recidivism and the Social Reintegration of Offenders. New York: UNODC.
Villettaz P, Gillièron G, Killias M (2014) The Effects on Re-Offending of Custodial Versus Non-Custodial Sanctions. Stockholm: National Council for Crime Prevention.
Villettaz P, Killias M, Zoder I (2006) The effects of custodial vs. non-custodial sentences on re-offending: A systematic review of the state of knowledge. Campbell Systematic Reviews 11: 1–92.
Weaver B, Armstrong S (2011) User views of punishment the dynamics of community-based punishment: Insider views from the outside. SCCJR Research Report No.03. Available at: https://www.sccjr.ac.uk/publications/user-views-of-punishment-the-dynamics-of-community-based-punishment-insider-views-from-the-outside/
Williams A, May DC, Wood PB (2008) The lesser of two evils? A qualitative study of offenders’ for prison compared to alternatives. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 46(3–4): 71–90.
Wodahl EJ, Ogle R, Kadleck C, et al. (2013) Offender perceptions of graduated sanctions. Crime and Delinquency 59(8): 1185–1210.
Biographies
Joana Andrade is researcher at Psychology Research Centre (CIPsi) in the School of Psychology at University of Minho – Braga, Portugal.
Ana Rita Cruz is a researcher at Lusofona University, Hei-Lab, and Assistant Professor at Lusofona University – Lisbon, Portugal.
Olga Cunha is a reseacher at Lusofona University and Assistant Professor at Lusofona University – Porto, Portugal.
Rui Abrunhosa Gonçalves is a forensic psychologist and Associate Professor at the School of Psychology in the University of Minho – Braga, Portugal.
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: May 16, 2021
Issue published: August 2021
Keywords
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Journals metrics
This article was published in European Journal of Probation.
View All Journal MetricsArticle usage*
Total views and downloads: 652
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Articles citing this one
Receive email alerts when this article is cited
Web of Science: 0 view articles Opens in new tab
Crossref: 0
There are no citing articles to show.
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
I am signed in as:
View my profileSign out
I can access personal subscriptions, purchases, paired institutional access and free tools such as favourite journals, email alerts and saved searches.
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
