With 'treatment' discredited, the Probation Service urgently needs to declare cogently and coherently what it stands for. 'Alternatives to Custody' is no satisfactory answer. The author reviews the myopia of our sluggish sentencing culture with its inconsistencies, complacency and habit-ridden assumptions, and articulates a modest but progresive stance for the Service.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
See particularly Allen, F.A. , The Borderland of Criminal Justice, Chicago, 1964;
2.
Flew, A., Crime or Disease?, Macmillan, 1973
3.
, Bean, P., Rehabilitation and Deviance, RKP, 1976 .
4.
Fitzmaurcie &Pease, K. , The Psychology ofjudicial Sentencing , Manchester University Press, 1986 , pp. 143ff.
5.
Rutherford, A. , Growing out of Crime, Pengum , 1986, especially pp. 54 ff.
6.
Allen, F.A. , op. cit
7.
. Mitford, J., The American Prison Business, Pengum, 1975.
This is the starting point in the philosophical literature. See Acton, H B. (ed.), The Philosophy of Pumshment , Macmillan, 1969.
10.
See Ryan, M. , The Politics of Penal Reform, Longman, 1983.
11.
Noted by Bean, P., Punishment, Martin Robertson , 1981, but by very few others.
12.
See note 3
13.
With apologies to David Downes for appropriating, but not, I hope, misappropriating the metaphor of his pamphlet, Law and Order: Theft of An Issue, Fabian Society, 1983.
