Hong Kong’s Community Service Order (CSO) is anchored in the probation service and has not had to face problems related to the cultural divide and professional rivalry between community service and probation staff similar to England and Wales. CSOs in both jurisdictions differ in offenders’minimum age and in seeking offenders’consent and have been rarely used for young offenders. They have widened the net of social control, and there have been difficulties in positioning them in the sentencing tariff. Although retributive penal practices might have crept into Hong Kong after China’s takeover in 1997, its CSO has retained rehabilitative elements. In England and Wales, the renaming of CSO as the Community Punishment Order reaffirmed its retributive nature, however the Pathfinder projects have taken it back to its origins as a rehabilitative measure. We suggest that CSOs should move further toward restorative justice by the involvement of victims in the choice of community services.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Advisory Council on the Penal System. (1970). Non-custodial and semi-custodial penalties. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
2.
Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame, and reintegration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3.
Buddle, C. (1999, January 30). Influx fears after victory on abode. South China Morning Post, p. 1.
4.
Chan, D. W. T. (1988). Community service orders: Differences in the United Kingdom’s and Hong Kong’s, and re-examination on philosophical bases and current problems in practice. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Birmingham, England.
5.
Davidson, R., &Wang, Z. (2000). The court system in the People’s Republic of China with a case study of a criminal trial. In O. N. I. Ebbe (Ed.), Comparative and international criminal justice systems: Policing, judiciary, and corrections (2nd ed., pp. 205-218). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
6.
Dignan, J. (2003). Alternatives to the prosecution of unruly children and young persons: The position in England and Wales. In T. W. Lo &D. S. W. Wong (Eds.), Child protection and measures alternative to prosecution: Experiences of six overseas countries (pp. 143-200). Kowloon, Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong, Youth Studies Net.
7.
Dobinson, I. (1997). What impact has the return to Chinese sovereignty had on Hong Kong’s criminal justice system? Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 9(2), 180-183.
8.
Dominelli, L. (1984). Differential justice: Domestic labour, community service, and female offenders. Probation Journal, 31(3), 100-103.
9.
Harding, J. (1974). Community service by offenders: The Nottinghamshire experiment. London: National Association for the Care and Rehabilitation of Offenders, in conjunction with the Howard League for Penal Reform.
10.
Harris, R. (1995). Reflections on comparative probation. In K. Hamai, R. Ville, R. Harris, M. Hough, & U. Zvekic (Eds.), Probation round the world: A comparative study (pp. 191-209). London: Routledge.
11.
Harris, R., &Lo, T. W. (2002). Community service: Its use in criminal justice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46(4), 427-444.
12.
Hine, J. (1993). Access for women: Flexible and friendly? In D. Whitfield & D. Scott (Eds.), Paying back: Twenty years of community service (pp. 59-88). Winchester, United Kingdom: Waterside Press.
13.
Ho, T. (1997). Philosophy of community service orders: The experience of the offenders. Unpublished paper extracted from a master’s thesis, University of Hong Kong, Kowloon.
14.
Home Office. (1988). National standards for community service orders. London: Author.
15.
Home Office. (1992). National standards for the supervision of offenders in the community. London: Author.
16.
Home Office. (1995). National standards for the supervision of offenders in the community. London: Author.
17.
Home Office. (1998). Summary probation statistics, England and Wales 1997 (Research and Statistics Directorate Statistical Bulletin 12/98). London: Author.
18.
Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong. (1983). Report on community service orders. Hong Kong, China: Government Printer.
19.
Lo, T. W., & Harris, R. (2000). Research on the operation of community service orders. Unpublished report submitted to the Social Welfare Department, Hong Kong SAR Government.
20.
Lo, T. W., &Wong, D. S. W. (2003). Child protection and measures alternative to prosecution: Experiences of six overseas countries. Kowloon, Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong, Youth Studies Net.
21.
Lo, T. W., Wong, S. W., Chan, W. T., Leung, S. K., Yu, C. S., & Chan, C. K. (1997). Research on the effectiveness of rehabilitation programmes for young offenders: Full report. Hong Kong, China: Government Printing Department.
22.
Mair, G. (1997). Community penalties and the probation service. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, & R. Reiner (Eds.), Oxford handbook of criminology (2nd ed., pp. 1195-1232). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
23.
McGuire, J., & Priestley, P. (1995). Reviewing “what works”: Past, present and future. In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works: Reducing offending: Guidelines from research and practice (pp. 3-34). London: Wiley.
24.
McIvor, G. (1998a). Jobs for the boys? Gender differences in referral to community service. Howard Journal, 37(3), 280-293.
25.
McIvor, G. (1998b). Pro-social modelling and legitimacy: Lessons from a study of community service. In S. Rex &A. Matravers (Eds.), Pro-social modelling and legitimacy: The Clarke Hall Day Conference (pp. 53-62). Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge, Institute of Criminology.
26.
McLaughlin, E., & Muncie, J. (1996). Controlling crime. London: Sage Publications in association with The Open University.
27.
Moloney, N. (1995). Combination orders: Their history, use and impact (Social Work Monograph 137). Norwich, UK: University of East Anglia.
28.
Oldfield, M. (1993). Assessing the impact of community service: Lost opportunities and the politics of punishment. In D. Whitfield & D. Scott (Eds.), Paying back: Twenty years of community service (pp. 30-50). Winchester, UK: Waterside Press.
29.
Raynor, P. (2001). Community penalties and social integration: “Community” as solution and as problem. In A. Bottoms, L. Gelsthorpe, &S. Rex (Eds.), Community penalties: Change and challenges (pp. 183-199). Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.
30.
Raynor P. (2002). Community penalties: Probation, punishment, and “what works.” In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, &R. Reiner (Eds.), Oxford handbook of criminology (3rd ed., pp. 1168-1205). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
31.
Raynor, P., & Vanstone, M. (2002). Understanding community penalties. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
32.
Rex, S. (2001). Beyond cognitive-behaviouralism? Reflections on the effectiveness literature. In A. Bottoms, L. Gelsthorpe, &S. Rex (Eds.), Community penalties: Change and challenges (pp. 67-86). Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.
33.
Rex, S., & Gelsthorpe, L. (2002). The role of community service in reducing offending: Evaluating Pathfinder projects in the UK. Howard Journal, 41(4), 311-325.
34.
Skinns, C. (1990). Community service practice. British Journal of Criminology, 30, 65-80.
35.
Varah, M. (1987). Probation and community service. In J. Harding (Ed.), Probation and the community: A practice and policy reader (pp. 68-82). London: Tavistock.
36.
Vass, T. (1988). The marginality of community service and the threat of privatisation. Probation Journal, 35(2), 48-51.
37.
Walgrave, L. (Ed.). (2002). Restorative justice and the law. Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.
38.
Worrall, A. (1997). Punishment in the community: The future of criminal justice. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
