Despite claims that prison 'works', incapacitating offenders whilst performing no worse than community sentences in terms of reconviction rates, a follow-up study of the reoffending of all offenders placed on probation in Kent in 1991 demonstrates the positive impact of supervision upon subsequent offending patterns and the negative effects of previous custodial sentences. Mark Oldfield, Research Officer in Kent Probation Service, analyses the complexity of the findings and suggests that they provide a sustainable argument for the increased use of community penalties.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Quoted in Cullen F. and Gilbert K.Reaffirming Rehabilitation, Anderson, 1982 (p 151).
2.
Oldfield M. 'The McDonaldisation of the Probation Service' Probation Journal41(4), 1994.
3.
Lloyd C. et al Explaining Reconviction Rates: A Critical Analysis, Home Office Research Study 136, HMSO, 1994.
4.
See McGuire J. (ed) What Works: Reducing Reoffending, Wiley, 1995
5.
(but for an alternative view, see Pitt J. 'The End of an Era' Howard Journal of Criminal Justice31(2), 1992).
6.
See Lloyd C. et al p 42.
7.
Murray C. and Cox L.Beyond Probation: Juvenile Corrections and the Chronic Delinquent , Sage, 1979.
8.
See, for example, Eaton M.Women After Prison, Open University Press, 1993.
9.
Cohen S.'Postscript: If Nothing Works, What Is Our work?' Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology27, 104-107, 1994.
10.
Stewart G. et al Surviving Poverty: Probation Work and Benefits Policy, Association of Chief Officers of Probation, 1989.
11.
Graef R.Living Dangerously: Young Offenders in Their Own Words, Harper Collins, 1993.
12.
See, for example, Collison M.'Drugs and Delinquency: A Non-Treatment Paradigm ?' Probation Journal41(4), 1994.
13.
Wootton B.Social Science and Social Pathology, George Allen and Unwin , 1959.
