Prof Walker argues that the case for strict tariff sentencing is simplistic and sterile, and reasserts that the aim of sentencing must remain the good of the offender or society. Can the Probation Service credibly demonstrate that we contribute to this end, and by what criteria?
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
See, for example, A. von Hirsch et al, Doing Justice (1976, Hill & Wang, New York).
2.
See, for example, A New Penal System (1981, Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, Stockholm ).
3.
See, for example, my Punishment, Danger and Stigma (1980, Blackwell, Oxford).
4.
R. Martinson , 'What Works?' in The Public Interes t (1974, 35, 22ff); and 'New findings: new views' in Hofstra Law Review (1979, 7, 2, 243ff).
5.
R.P.. Morison , QC (Chairman) Report of the Departmental Committee on the Probation Service (1962, Cmnd 1650, HMSO, London), pp8ff.
6.
Walker, N., Farrington, D.P., and Tucker, G., 'Reconviction-rates of adult males after different sentences' in British Journal of Criminology (1981, 21, 4, 357ff).
7.
Folkard, M.S., Smith, D.D., Smith, D.E., Impact Vol II
8.
( 1976, Home Office Research Study No 36, HMSO, London).
9.
Kraus, J., 'A comparison of corrective effects of probation and detention on male juvenile offenders' in British Journal of Criminology (1974, 14, 1, 49ff).
