1. Alternatives to imprisonment

2. The 3 studies in alternatives to imprisonment
1) Probation: Mair and May 1997
2) Restorative justice: Sherman and Strang 2007
3) “Looking death worthy”: Eberhardt et al 2006

3. Study 1 - Probation: Mair and May 1997

4. 1) Probation: Background
In 1896 the temperance society of the Church of England started the probation service by giving alcoholics a gift of 5 shillings to help them reform.
At that time alcohol was seen as the ‘root of all evil’.
The recipients of the gift had to sign the pledge (to give up alcohol) and follow the teachings of the bible to keep them away from temptation and crime.

5. 1) Probation: Background
The modern probation service supervises over 200,000 offenders and there were 4 main types of community sentences:
1) Community Rehabilitation Order
Available for 16 years + males and females, maximum length is three years. Such an order will be supervised by the Youth Offending Team or Probation Service (depending on your age). You will be required to attend appointments as directed by the officer who is supervising your order.
2) Community Punishment Order
Available for 16 years + males and females, requires the young person to undertake practical work in the community under the supervision of the Probation Service for a maximum of 240 hours as specified by the court.
3) Community Punishment and Rehabilitation Order
Available for 16 years + males and females, combines both community punishment and community rehabilitation elements and is usually supervised by the Probation Service.
4) Drug treatment and testing orders
Drug Treatment and Testing Orders (DTTO) are imposed by courts where someone's offending is clearly linked to problem drug misuse. It is different to other community-based sentences such as probation and Community Service as the focus of a DTTO is to address problem drug use to reduce the risk of further offending and harm.

6. 1) Probation: Background
Approximately 90% are male and 25% aged between
70% of clients are on community sentences, the remaining 30% are on licence after being released early from prison sentences.
Any breach of probation is taken very seriously and can lead to a custodial sentence.

7. 1) Probation: Background

8. Probation…
Does it actually work?

9. Mair & May (1997) – Investigation of the experiences of offenders on probation orders.
- Aim: - To investigate the experience of offenders on probation orders across England & Wales
- Procedure: offenders were chosen at random from 22 different probation offices, these represented all age groups and offences.
There was a 40% drop out rate, with a disproportionate number of these coming from London.
Interviews were conducted by independent researchers, questions were mainly closed, likert scale and multiple choice.

10. Mair & May (1997) – Investigation of the experiences of offenders on probation orders.
- Results: - 88% felt probation was useful. 60% thought their probation officer would help them individually.
However, only 37% said probation would stop them re-offending.
- Conclusion: - Probation is seen as useful by offenders. But, over a third of offenders went on to re-offend.
Other factors need to be considered such as socio-economic status, unemployment, family, peers etc.

11. Evaluation – of study
G – Large sample, 3299 from 22 probation offices. 40% failed to turn up, mainly from London meaning smaller offices over represented. All crimes and age groups represented. A cross-section of offices was used so aimed to be representative initially.
R – Interviews conducted by independently employed researchers (no bias), self-report method used, lots of closed questions producing lots of objective quantitative data (however they may have given socially desirable responses to look better).
A – Quantitative data can be quantitatively analysed and patterns can be spotted between the results and common themes identified (does probation work on certain age groups, race, etc.)
V – High ecological validity, however is it testing what it states its testing? (40% drop out rate and smaller offices over represented).
Reductionist as other factors of the offenders need to be considered such as socio-economic status, unemployment family, peers, etc. (may not just be probation that prevents re-offending).
Ethnocentric as based in England and Wales (can this be compared to USA?)
Useful, 88% of the sample felt probation was useful. 60% felt the probation officer would help them solve problems in their lives. However, only 37% said probation would stop them re-offending.

12. Evaluation – is probation suitable as an alternative to prison?
This is not a suitable alternative because…..
Only 37% felt that this would stop them re-offending altogether
Too many failed to turn up to appointments, continued to re-offend – felt it wasn’t designed to help them stop re-offending!
This is a suitable alternative because….
88% of the sample felt probation was useful .
60% felt the probation officer would help them solve problems in their lives
What is your own conclusion?

13. Study 2 - Restorative justice: Sherman and Strang 2007

14. 2) Restorative Justice - Background
Historically, the offender is seen as having committed a crime against the state.
However, crimes have victims and victims often feel that their experiences and expectations are not taken into account by the justice system.
Restorative justice aims to redress this balance, crime is seen as being against a person or organisation and victims are allowed to be part of what happens.

15. 2) Restorative Justice - Background
Restorative justice has to be voluntary for all parties and seeks a positive outcome. It is respectful and not degrading for either offender or victim.
Restorative justice aims to provide victims with: -
- An opportunity to explain the impact of the crime (impact statements)
- An acknowledgement of the harm caused
- A chance to ask questions
- Some control and choice
- Peace of mind about the future.

16. 2) Restorative Justice - Background
There are different types of mediation with victim and offender mediation being the main one (direct and there is also indirect).
But does it work (and is it better than probation as a way to stop recidivism)?

17. 2) Restorative Justice - Background
Initially a major analysis on restorative Justice and its use around the world was published by the Smith Institute (a leading independent think tank based in London).
Sherman and Strang followed on from this.

18. Study 2 - Sherman & Strang (2007) Review of restorative justice and its effectiveness in preventing re-offending.
Aim: - To look at restorative justice in practice and measure its effectiveness in terms of re-offending.
Procedure: - A content analysis was carried out on 424 academics papers on restorative justice (secondary data).
From these 36 studies were found that compared re-offending rates for those who were part of restorative justice programmes and those that were not.

19. However, restorative justice is not effective in all cases.
Study 2 - Sherman & Strang (2007) Review of restorative justice and its effectiveness in preventing re-offending.
Results: - Restorative justice is more effective when there is a personal victim and tends to work for violence and property crime.
However, restorative justice is not effective in all cases.
The clearest benefits are for the victim, it reducing post traumatic shock syndrome and helps them come to terms with the crime.

20. Study 2 - Sherman & Strang (2007) Review of restorative justice and its effectiveness in preventing re-offending.
Conclusions: - There is strong evidence to suggest that restorative justice is effective in some cases.
There is support for its increased use, especially with young, first time offenders.
It is also now being used in schools (

21. Evaluation - Study
G: The study claims to be free from ethnocentric bias however mainly based on American and Western articles. They do not consider enough the individual cultures within each Western country (a small sample of Aboriginals in Canberra found an increase based on arrest rates).
It also does not work on all crimes (mainly personal victims)
R: The content-analysis provides broad coverage but being conducted by researchers with a vested interest may make the findings somewhat subjective and selective.
A: Can be applied practically to crimes involving personal victims (more effective with personal victims so limited use). Useful - Reductions in violence and property crime were evident throughout the studies.
Can reduce victims post traumatic stress / shock and help them come to terms with being a victim.
V: high in ecological validity as looked at 36 studies specifically related to the application of RJ (but to Westernised so is it testing what it states its testing?
Reductionist - as there may be other factors involved in reducing recidivism rates.

22. Study 3 Background - Eberhardt et al (2006): Investigation of the relation between stereotypically black features in offenders and the likelihood of receiving the death sentence.
The issue of the death penalty is very a tricky and well debated subject.
Eberhardt et al (2006) suggest that in the USA the more stereotypically ‘Black’ your features are the more likely you are to be given a death sentence for your crime.
This may seem an alarming idea, but think back to early theories by Lombroso which suggested that criminal shared certain physical characteristics.
It is a fact that the Criminal justice system is dominated by white people and that many of the states which still have the death penalty are Southern states where discrimination and prejudice were historically worse.
The southern states of America (where the death penalty happens) has a history of prejudice & discrimination.
Researchers have found that murderers of white victims are more likely to get the death sentence than murderers of black victims and being black and killing a white victim is even more likely to lead to a death sentence.

23. Further research on the death penalty:
In contrast, 58 countries retain the death penalty for ordinary crimes, including Belarus as the only European country and the United States as the only country in the G8.
A primary reason given to justify the retention of capital punishment is the prevention or deterrence of recidivism.
It may act as a specific deterrent by discouraging offenders from re-offending or as a general deterrent aiming to prevent crimes from being committed in general by making examples of specific offenders.
In particular, according to ‘deterrence theory’, the threat of capital punishment should act to discourage the commission of capital offences (i.e., crimes punishable by death, such as homicide) more effectively than the prospect of long-term or life imprisonment.
an extensive survey given to leading criminologists asking for their expert opinions regarding whether the death penalty served as a more effective deterrent than long-term imprisonment showed a strong consensus: The experts agreed that the death penalty has no additional effect on deterring capital crimes
“As long as the evidence for a serious deterrent effect of the death penalty is so weak, it can hardly be used as a justification for this kind of punishment.” – Gebhard Kichgässner

24. Study 3 - Eberhardt et al (2006): Investigation of the relation between stereotypically black features in offenders and the likelihood of receiving the death sentence.
Aim: - To investigate whether there was support for the hypothesis that black offenders with stereotypically black features were more likely to get the death sentence than white offenders.

25. Study 3 - Eberhardt et al (2006): Investigation of the relation between stereotypically black features in offenders and the likelihood of receiving the death sentence.
Aim: - To investigate whether there was support for the hypothesis that black offenders with stereotypically black features were more likely to get the death sentence than white offenders.
Procedure: - An analysis of the database of death-eligible cases in Philadelphia between 1979 and 1999.
In 44 cases a Black man had killed a white victim. Photographs of these 44 were shown to naïve raters who were asked to rate their facial features for stereotypical Black features between 1-11, 11 was very stereotypical.
The 51 raters from Stanford University included 32 white, 15 Asian and four of other ethnicities

26. Study 3 - Eberhardt et al (2006): Investigation of the relation between stereotypically black features in offenders and the likelihood of receiving the death sentence.
Results: - It was found that the most stereotypically Black defenders were 57.5% more likely to receive the death penalty, than the less stereotypical defendants at 24.4%.
In a second study where the victim was also Black, no significant effect was found, suggesting Black victims are seen as less important.

27. Study 3 - Eberhardt et al (2006): Investigation of the relation between stereotypically black features in offenders and the likelihood of receiving the death sentence.
Conclusion: - This suggests that stereotypically looking Black men are seen as some how more ‘Death Worthy’.
Black physical traits are associated with criminality and it appears that they influence sentencing decisions.

28. Lab experiment so high in control which increases reliability.
Study 3 - Eberhardt et al (2006): Investigation of the relation between stereotypically black features in offenders and the likelihood of receiving the death sentence. Evaluation
Strengths – suggests explanations for the causes of discrimination in the courtroom and how race could be a negative factor.
Lab experiment so high in control which increases reliability.
Weakness – However lacks ecological validity so may not be applied to real life situations. Based in the USA would the results be different in the UK (in relation to stereotypically black features receiving a harsher sentence?)
It doesn’t reduce crime – most criminal states e.g Louisiana / Texas have the DP!

29. In the exam:

30. June 2011
Describe one piece of research into ‘looking death worthy’. [10]
To what extent can research into alternatives to imprisonment be considered ethnocentric? [15]

31. June 2012
How can probation serve as an alternative to imprisonment? [10]
Evaluate limitations of research into alternatives to imprisonment. [15]

32. June 2013 How is restorative justice used after a guilty verdict? [10]
To what extent are alternatives to imprisonment effective? [15]

33. Sherman and Strang: Restorative Justice
This is not a suitable alternative because…..
Not true for all crimes
More effective when there was a “personal” victim – therefore only has limited use.
This is a suitable alternative because….
Reductions in violence and property crime were evident throughout the studies.
Can reduce victims post traumatic stress / shock and help them come to terms with being a victim.
Eberhardt etc – Death Penalty
This is not a suitable alternative because…..
Its racist - most stereotypically black were the most likely to receive the death 57.5 death penalty. Compared to the less stereotypically black defendants = 24.4 % were given the DP!
It doesn’t reduce crime – most criminal states e.g Louisiana / Texas have the DP!
This is a suitable alternative because….
????
Mair and May: Probation
This is not a suitable alternative because…..
Only 37% felt that this would stop them re-offending altogether
Too many failed to turn up to appointments, continued to re-offend – felt it wasn’t designed to help them stop re-offending!
This is a suitable alternative because….
88% of the sample felt probation was useful .
60% felt the probation officer would help them solve problems in their lives

34. Results:
Eberhardt:
May and Muir:
Sherman and Strang:
What’s the link??
Works and reduces
Has no impact?
Makes recidivism worse?

35. Evaluate the effectiveness of alternatives to prison in preventing recidivism 15 marks
What do we mean by effective?? Effective for what?
Alternatives to prison are effective because..
Stop Offending – situational ex
Save money
Give a chance for training and rehab – cognitive / developmental ex - G and N
Prevent over-crowding in prisons – Dooley
Keeps people out of “bad places” - Zimbardo
Alternatives to prison are in effective because..
They do not stop offending – dispositional ex / biological ex
Therefore how much money is saved?
Ethics – shouldn’t people be punished for their crimes – morality e.g Kohlberg – people need to be taught r+w
What crimes are they effective for?
You could simply build more prisons.