Conclusion & Recommendation - A Soft Option: Comparative Analysis of the Community-Based Punishments as an Alternative to a Custodial Sentence

5.1 Introduction

In this chapter, conclusion and research recommendations are presented to show the evidences of accomplishing the research aim and objectives. The conclusion has been presented in the light of the literature reviewed and the critical analysis of past studies based on the secondary data related to the variables that have been studied in the current research study. 

5.2 Key Findings

The main research question in the current research was to find out how are the community-based punishments different from the custodial services in restoring offenders with justice, equity, truth, hope and impartiality. The study found that community-based punishments are beneficial for the society for a variety of reasons as these are innovative way in which different kinds and categories of criminals can be dealt with in an effective manner. In response to the research questions’ answer, the study summarized that community-based punishment as a reflection of restorative justice can be implemented in UK as a soft alternative of retributive approach or custodial sentences. It can be depicted that custodial sentences cannot be eliminated from the criminal justice system as large and intense crimes where the offender remains a big danger to the society, punishments and imprisonments are vital approach. On the other side, community-based punishments can be imposed on small criminals or those who show the signs of restoration. The study highlighted that in opting the soft alternative, governments would not only be able to filter offenders but also allow the jails and prisons’ authorities in maintaining their expenditures.

Both the theories as well as critical comparison results identified community punishments as cost-effective approach if implemented with appropriate and complete policy intentions (Allen, 2012; Eley et al., 2016). Community-based punishments are reported to have a positive impact on the individuals of the society who are given the opportunity to go back towards their community, their friends and the relatives to redeem themselves and to regain their integrity and lost pride (McIvor et al., 2013; Subramanian & Shames, 2013). In contrary, custodial sentences are subjected to weaken the protective factors, which are highly necessary to bring the offenders towards restoration. These factors include education, mental and physical health (Grimwood & Berman, 2012). However, the rate of offending was found associated with both the community-based sentences and custodial sentences. In case of community punishments and orders, such offending rates may be lower than the other option in some countries of the world. In summary, UK must analyze the variety of community-based punishments and penalties in order to replace it with the custodial sentences up to certain extent i.e. until it reaps cost-effectiveness and social improvements and relationships benefits for the country. Thus, effective implementation would not be possible without filtering offenders based on criteria of justice, equity, truth, hope and impartiality. 

5.3 Recommendations

The research recommendations extracted from the findings of the current study for UK offenders provide appropriate suggestions to the relevant authorities. UK authorities should take effective measures to ensure that practices considering multiple factors should be implemented in an effective manner to prevent the overcrowdings of the prison, to decrease the overall expenditures, to develop appropriate policy intentions and to pursue the offender filtering process in order to control reoffending rates. Furthermore, they should take effective measures in ensuring that the individuals who have been provided with this form of punishments should be helped to enable them to identify and realize their mistakes so that they can become a valuable asset for the society. Rehabilitation under restorative justice is only successful when it walks besides retributive justice and custodial sentences for the high profile and big criminals. The authorities must consider the importance of restorative justice approach and the community-based punishments as a path for developing strong relationships between the victims and offenders in such a way that offender realize their wrong acts as wrong and avoid doing any such act in future. For this purpose, needs of both victims and offenders must be aligned simultaneously in the criminal policies and laws. 

5.4 Future Research Path

A future research can be initiated in investigating the consistency in the criminal polices of UK and the factors necessary for effective implementation of community-based punishments as an alternative to custodial sentences. The investigation may encompass study of resource availability, expenses and expenditures, educational standards, community engagement and support and the public acceptance to given offenders a recognized place and opportunity to restore. 

5.5 Conclusion
Thus, with the end of the study, it can be concluded that current research aim and objectives were achieved successfully.

Results & Findings - A Soft Option: Comparative Analysis of the Community-Based Punishments as an Alternative to a Custodial Sentence

4.1 Introduction

The current chapter pertains to present secondary data findings and the discussion and analysis with an aim to conduct detailed comparative analysis of the data that has been gathered for the community-based punishments and the custodial services. The data for the current research study has been gathered from secondary sources that have been identified as relevant for the current research study. By summarizing the key factors, benefits and effectiveness of community-based punishments over the custodial sentences, the chapter also includes a coherent discussion on the research objectives. Furthermore, the chapter includes the development of conclusion based on the secondary data that has been gathered for the purpose of research and for deriving valid findings for the current dissertation writing service. 

4.2 Comparative Analysis of Community-based Punishments and Custodial Sentences

Numerous research articles, books and authority reports published by the different countries’ government have researched and summarized numerous similarities and differences, which justify the community-based punishments as the better and soft alternative for the custodial sentences and imprisonments. 

4.2.1 Differences between community-based punishments and custodial sentences
4.2.1.1 Offenders Filtering

One of the major differences highlighting the effectiveness of the community-based punishments over imprisonment is filtering of offenders. Department of Corrections, (2012) in their authority report discussing the criminal justice system of New Zealand and spotting out the differences in non-community based alternatives to imprisonment stated that criminal justice system of custodial sentences does not consider significance of managing offenders through filtering them. The filters can be placed on the type and intensity of the crime or the age of the criminals. Additionally, the authors further added in context of the alternative non-custodial punishments to deal with the more serious statistics of sentencing in the country. Among the different non-custodial punishments highlighted in this study, include “These include infringements or fixed penalties, police diversion, police warnings and cautions, and family group conferences (for young offenders)”.

In consistence with the opinions of Department of Corrections, (2012), authors Henrich et al., (2010) also acknowledged the need to categorize and classify the criminals based on the intensities of their crimes and subsequently impose different type of punishments on them. As stated by Henrich et al., (2010) community-based punishments is beneficial for small criminals so that these small criminals do not get into contact with other big and serious criminals that have done murder or something for which they were thrown into the prison. It can be examined that there are numerous individuals that consider the need and importance of some sort of imprisonment as necessary in some conditions specifically when the offender is demonstrably a continuing danger to community. 

4.2.1.2 Overcrowding Issues

Another difference between the custodial sentences and the community-based punishments is the overcrowding. Ardley, (2005) in his research has confirmed the effectiveness of community-based punishments in decreasing the number of prisoners and as a result, prison becomes less packed. In the similar context, less security is required in the prisons when the small criminals are transferred to the community rehabilitation centre and this can help police to focus on the security of the jail as well. Authors of dissertation writing believe that harsher imprisonments are unable to curb crime rates. Taylor, (2011) also said that overcrowding of the prisons is a key challenge faced by the European and Britain countries. It can be depicted that prisons are there for the protection of public however, the rights and needs of the offender also come out as crucial element. Overcrowded prisons are unable to fulfill the needs of all the offenders simultaneously. 

4.2.1.3 Cost and Expenditures of Punishment

Travis & Sparrow, (2010) in their study have substantiated that on average imprisonment costs £38,000 a year to send someone to prison. The higher cost of the imprisonment can be controlled through community-based punishments. Such punishments as an alternative can help jail authorities incurring less cost in the management of the activities related to prisons and jails. Researches have found parole and conditional imprisonment as effective alternative for the offenders.

In contrary, authors Rix et al., (2010) have highlighted the community-based punishments such as Fine Payment Work orders and probation as effective only when the authorities implementing these concentrate highlight on the responsible factors such as “untrained placement supervisors; the lack of clarity and consistency in monitoring attendance and responding to non-compliance; and the relatively high administrative costs” (p.5). 

4.2.2 Similarities between community-based punishments and custodial sentences
4.2.2.1 Reoffending

The inability of the custodial sentencing in filtering criminals in past studies have also reported reoffending as the critical issue demanding implementation of community-based punishments. There are several contrasting statistics about the increasing rate of reoffending both in non-custodial convictions and in community-based punishments. Grimwood & Berman, (2012) within their research have reported the statistics of the Ministry of Justice in England and Wales. They pointed out that reoffending rates in the country are rising for the offenders “who were released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, received a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine in a given twelve month period (p.23)”. It shows the ineffectiveness of the community sentencing in dealing with the crime rates. There are several underlying factors and reasons behind reoffending such as moral implications of criminality and experiences in the prison.

Grimwood & Berman, (2012) argued that it can be depicted although custodial sentences are necessary for helping an addict in solving his addiction problems. The sentences are also seen as helpful in teaching range of both cognitive and practical skills to the prisoners. However, such skill learning and development is also possible within the community-based punishments. Grimwood & Berman, (2012) also argue that prison sentences have the potential to weaken the protective factors such as education, mental and physical health. Likewise, such a decrease in the protective support can reduce the rehabilitation of the offenders. 

4.2.2.2 Need for Policy Intentions

Additionally, McIvor et al., (2013) have emphasized that both the custodial sentences and the community need strong policy intentions for better implementation. Authors in discussing the experience of introducing unpaid work for offenders stated that this type of community-based punishment is effective for those who are unable to pay fines. Authors argue that implementation with strong policies have positive effects on the level of default at each stage of the enforcement process. 

4.3 Discussion of Research Findings

Both literature review and critical analysis findings can be analysed to achieve the key aim of the current research and to accomplish research objectives. The key guiding aim of the research was to investigate Community-Based Punishments as an Alternative to a Custodial Sentence. The objective of the study was to analyse the concepts behind the two options and the effectiveness and benefits of the community-based punishments as a soft alternative to the custodial sentences. The comparative analysis findings confirmed the evidences gathered from the other European countries.

Both literature and comparative analysis described that the community-based punishments are related to the punishments awarded by the judiciary in which the culprit is not sent to jail (Alarid, 2016; Eley et al., 2016). The community punishments are based on restorative justice while the custodial sentences are focused on the retributive approach. The findings confirm restorative justice as an approach considering crime as a social subject affecting social interrelationships (Rodriguez, 2007)while retributive approach considers crime as a legal offence subjected to proportionate punishments i.e. custodial sentences (Cullen et al., 2000; Markel, 2009).

Both types of punishments are sub-divided according to the needs of the victims and offenders in different European countries (Ardley, 2005; McIvor et al., 2013; Department of Corrections, 2012). However, under community-based punishments, criminals are being sent back to the community to perform different community services and to ensure little punishments from the society in order to offer that culprits chance to redeem themselves. The discussion further highlighted that these sorts of punishments are primarily offered to those individuals that are not involved in dangerous crimes and do not have the past history when it comes to getting involved in any illegal activity or activities that can be termed as anti-state. It has been identified through the discussion that these kinds of punishments can consider to be beneficial for the authorities who are facing different issues related to overcrowding of jails due to an excessive amount of criminals that have been put into these jails (Grattet et al., 2009; Groot & Van Den Brink, 2010; Garvey, 2014). Therefore, the establishment is looking towards these kinds of punishments for the individuals involved in minute crimes. The rationale behind this activity is also related to providing opportunities to the individuals who have not been involved in criminal activities before a chance to improve themselves. Furthermore, custodial sentences are not able to rehabilitate the offenders and ultimately helpful in reducing the reoffending rate (Grimwood & Berman, 2012). It was also found that both of the punitive approaches are based on the policy intentions and implementation measures planned and acted upon for successful implementation of the alternatives. 

4.4 Conclusion

From the comparative analysis of the community-based punishments and the custodial sentencing highlighted that community-based punishments are beneficial for the society in general as they are helpful for guiding the criminals in improving themselves and leading a better life than what they have been doing before. However, such efforts are not effective and successful until appropriate factors highlighted above are taken into account. The chapter concludes that community-based punishments are generally imposed in cases different from the custodial sentencing cases. Therefore, similarities and differences between these two punitive approaches comes out as necessary for the successful implementation of community-based punishments within UK, as a soft alternative. The next chapter of the study presents research conclusion and recommendations.

Research Design & Methodology - A Soft Option: Comparative Analysis of the Community-Based Punishments as an Alternative to a Custodial Sentence

3.1 Introduction

Methodology forms an important constituent in the research, where the conclusion needs to be drawn from the critical review of the secondary academic data and resources. The methodology of comparative analysis incorporates the research design, articles selection strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, data collection methods and data analysis methods (Kumar, 2010). A separate section of the chapter also incorporates ethical considerations.

3.2 Research Design

Research design refers to the plan of research through which the stated aim and objectives set for this criminology thesis could b achieved (Creswell, 2013). The research design of the present study is based on the qualitative method and theoretical evaluative analysis of the community penalty. It looks into the comparative analysis of the restorative justice approach and the retributive justice approach to show the relative effectiveness of the community based punishments and custodial sentences (Flick, 2011). The design tends to investigate how the community-based punishments able to rehabilitate offenders. This is a library-based study using information from forums and websites. Academic journals are located using Coventry University library catalogue and other criminological databases to relate to restorative justice, retributive justice, community penalties, offender treatment and many more. Thus, the current researches design offers much more than a simple methodological investigation (Vogt et al., 2012). The comparative analysis design considers it as an ethical issue because as a desk-based study it raises much less risk compared to the empirical studies (Merwe et al., 2009; Eley et al., 2016; Allen, 2012) have also employed the comparative analysis research design within their studies in investigating community-based punishments within different European countries.

Additionally, the exploratory research design has been adopted to ensure that benefits of the community-based punishments are explored in an effective manner in comparison to the custodial sentences through the current research study. Furthermore, the research has adopted qualitative approach in providing a detailed account of the benefit that community-based punishments have for the individuals as well as for the overall community as well. 

3.3 Articles Selection Strategy

Subsequent to the choice of comparative analysis research design, it was very important to determine the appropriate article selection strategy. Data research strategy in the current study was ethnographic content analysis. The reason behind the choice of this strategy is the fact that the research was required to be based on secondary content solely. Therefore, all the relevant information was gathered past researches and journal articles.

For comparative analysis of the community-based punishments and custodial sentences, the study needed to focus on the selection of appropriate research articles. Keywords based strategy was used to search relevant data from sources. The main keywords used included “community-based punishments”, “effectiveness of community-based punishments”, “factors considered for community-based punishments”, “custodial sentences”, “effectiveness of custodial sentences”, “factors considered for custodial sentences”, “similarities between community-based punishments and custodial sentences” and “differences between community-based punishments and custodial sentences”. By using all the chosen keywords, the inclusion and exclusion criteria were set for the current investigation. 

3.4 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria 

3.4.1 Inclusion Criteria

All the sources used for the comparative analysis of the custodial sentences and the community-based met all the listed parameters prior inclusion in the current study.

· The scope of selected source must be to compare custodial sentences with the community-based punishments

· The material and information must be published in English

· The material and information used must be global

· Only those articles and materials were included, which were published after 2006

· Extensive range of sources qualified for the inclusion (although research articles were preferred yet authoritative reports and forum-based discussion were included)

· Coventry University library catalogue and other criminological databases were used for search 

3.4.2 Exclusion Criteria

· All those studies and articles were excluded, which were published in a non-English language or published before 2006

· The source or material that was confined to investigation in a specific geographical boundary, country or territory was excluded

· The study with limited focus on any one of the variable (either community-based punishments and custodial sentences) were excluded 

3.5 Data Collection Methods

In pursuance of the identified article selection strategy given in the above section, the current study was based on the secondary data collection only since there was no involvement of the primary Study participants. A secondary source of information refers to the kind of information that is obtained through secondary sources such as online sources, journal articles, and books, etc. The source of data that has been adopted in a current research study is a secondary source of information. Through the adoption and use of secondary sources of data collection, the research has developed concrete findings on the issues that have been taken up for this particular research study. The research investigation looked at books and articles that analyses different effects about restore offenders relative to the ones kept in police custody or in the imprisons. Websites like Google Scholar or library databases will help in finding information about my topic. All the data sources were analysed and discussed critically.

3.6 Data Analysis Methods

The data collected was analysed using the ethnography content analysis method. By using the most frequently using words and terms in the collected articles and sources, respective codes and categories were developed. The main categories of the analysis investigated are specified below.

· Similarities between community-based punishments and custodial sentences

o Reoffending

o Need for Policy Intentions

· Differences between community-based punishments and custodial sentences

o Offender’s Filtering

o Overcrowding Issues

o Cost and Expenditures of Punishment 

3.7 Ethical Considerations

According to Melewar et al., (2014), ethical considerations are the most important component of the research methodology regardless of the primary or secondary data based research design. Since the current study was focused on secondary data analysis, therefore, all the information, which has been acquired in the research, was kept confidential. The three specific ethical considerations were looked into the current study. These include interpretation of the information, identification of the appropriate sources of data collection and ownership of the data. By focusing on the unbiased and non-prejudiced presentation of the research findings, current study has also focused on the fair presentation of the information (Garvey, 2014). Besides, academic researchers have realised identification of appropriate data sources as one of the vital element in the secondary data based studies (Denscombe, 2014). Therefore, current research study has also given strict focus on the choice of valid and authentic sources of data collection such as journal articles and books. Similarly, in maintaining the sensitivity in using secondary data in the current study, complete ownership of data was taken into account by providing complete in-text citations and final reference list (Myers & Venable, 2014). 

3.8 Conclusion

Based on the research design and methodology chosen, it can be analysed that comparative design was expected to help in achieving the central guiding aim and objectives of the study effectively. The ethnographic research strategy adopted; whereas, the explanatory research design chosen both were capable of achieving the aims of secondary-data based research successfully. The ethical considerations that have been identified include appropriate interpretation of the data along with finding authentic sources of data collection to validate the findings of a particular research study. The outcomes and findings extracted from the previous studies shed light on numerous similarities and differences. These collected data findings are explained and critically discussed in the subsequent chapter.

Literature Review on A Soft Option: Comparative Analysis of the Community-Based Punishments as an Alternative to a Custodial Sentence

LITERATURE REVIEW

Numerous academic theories and approaches are present today that describe the similar and contrasting views of dealing with the crimes and criminals in a society. Community-based punishments and the custodial sentences are between the two dominant approaches for most of the criminologists. Several theories and approaches underlying the principles behind the communal and custodial punishments are developed and debated heavily. The chapter reviews all the relevant theoretical approaches along with the evidences from the past studies investigating similar issue in other European countries. 

2.1 Theoretical Punitive Approaches 

2.1.1 Restorative Justice Approach

Past and existing researchers both realise the restorative justice as one of the vital punitive approach compatible with the needs of contemporary societies. According to Maiese, (2003), restorative justice is a forward-looking preventive response to the crime. For him, crime must be seen in a social context. Therefore, restorative justice feeling does not only look at the victim requiring healing but also realises healing for the offender too. Walgrave, (2013) believe that restorative justice approach pertains to refer the concept of community responsibility in remedying the conditions contributing towards the crime. Vanfraechem et al., (2015) acknowledge the main concept behind restoration approach as the way to help criminals restore because the theory underlying it assumes regenerating as the best approach for preventing crimes.

According to the findings of Wenzel et al., (2008) the theory of retributive justice highlights the idea that individual should be given the punishment exactly in accordance with the extent and severity of the crime which he has committed. It is further stated that this kind of practices is adopted to punish the culprit to the extent which he has committed a particular crime, not more not less. It has also been argued through this theory that individuals who have suffered from crime along with the friends and relatives of those victims will not be ready to co-operate with the society and its rules and regulations if the criminal is not brought to justice. The theory can be related to the concept of community-based and courts based punishments in a way that these two punishments are also largely dependent and are provided keeping in view the extent to which the individual has committed the crime (Markel, 2009; Markel & Flanders, 2010). 

2.1.2 Retributive Approach

Completely in contrast with the restorative justice, the theoretical approach of retributive justice considers punishment proportionately with the crime committed as the best way of justice to the victim and his family. Proponents of this punitive approach realize it as a way to repair of justice through a unilateral imposition of punishment. According to this theory, whoever does a wrongful or illegal act deserves punishment in response but appropriate to the damage he or she has done.

According to Meltsner, (2010) court-based punishment or custodial sentences are the practical punitive system underlying the principles of the retributive approach. According to this practice, big criminals who have been involved in illegal activities or any other capital crimes must be sent to prison or asked for court-based penalties. The individuals sent to jail are ordered to stay in jail for a specific period. They are asked simultaneously to complete their punishment along with other assigned tough works and routines. Jails cannot be overcrowded at any cost it can cause such a big mishap that there would be a regret for many years coming. Prisoners present in the jail are unpredictable and can go down to any stage to do any work which is illegal, and we cannot hope for any positive work from them because their minds are full of criminal activity which needs to be cleaned (Johnson & Johnson, 2012; Meltsner, 2010). These Court punishments are only for big criminals so that only particular group can stay there. In the view of Franklin et al., (2006), there are advantages and disadvantages of court based punishment. Advantages include the fact that small criminals will not overcrowd Jails because for those communities based punishments are present. There can be a proper check on each prisoner easily, and management will not be facing any difficulties in assigning rooms to prisoners. There can be proper Attendance schedule so that to keep a close on eye on every prisoner as it is the sensitive case and cannot be left freely or given reliability (Ruddell & Mays, 2007; Cullen et al., 2000). After examining the two theoretical concepts behind the punitive approaches, the next section of the chapter reviews academic literature on the different types of communal punishments. 

2.2 Types of Communal Punishments

There are several types of the communal punishments regarded as alternative to the worldwide imprisonment approach. These non-custodial sanctions and penalties are developed for about centuries ago. The three most common types of community-based punishments are Probation, Shock probation, and Parole. Probation is defined as a situation of the time in which a person who has been guilty of committing a crime is permitted to remain out of prison on the condition that the person is able to behave well and is not indulged into committing any more criminal activities (McAra & McVie, 2007). In the view of Rodriguez, (2007) probation is the act of suspending the punishment of a criminal who has been guilty of undertaking illegal activities behaves well and is able to create a good reputation for him into the mind of the authorities who then lets him go before the actual period of punishment expires. According to Stickels, (2007), shock probation refers to the policy through which a judge orders a person who has been convicted of a criminal activity is sent to the prison for a limited amount of time and then terminates his punishment for the remainder of the period in favour of probation. It is further suggested that the main purpose of giving that individual a temporary prison is to make him experience the life that he could face in the prison in the long-term if he does not correct his actions. It is further stated that temporarily awarding these kinds of punishments to the criminals can result in individuals learning from their mistakes without having to encounter long-lasting punishments. The other concept related to court based punishments is referred to as parole. In the view of Grattet et al., (2009), parole refers to the temporary release of a prisoner who agrees to fulfil certain conditions before the completion of his period of sentence. It is also suggested that these sorts of facilities are provided to those criminals who provide their work to the authorities regarding their commitment and fulfilment of promises in the future with respect to presenting themselves in front of the law (Love, 2011).

Other than these approaches, community-based penalties are also present which can be implemented without any court supervision. These include reparation, confiscation, suspension of driving or other licence and fines.­­­­ ­Alarid, (2016) defines reparation as the way in which the offender offers monetary compensation or unpaid services to the victim. Similarly, confiscation refers to the property driven in commission of an offence. Community punishments can also take form of fines and penalties. All these punishments are based on the violation of interpersonal relationships between the offender and the victim. Day, (2003) moreover, highlights the significance of parameters yardsticks in order to examine whether the victims have experienced justice through the community-based punishments.

Thus, the above review of community-based punishments confirm that there are several options available for the UK justice system in order to implement community-based punishments as a soft alternative for the custodial sentences. For substantiating the theoretical arguments, the next section of the chapter critically analyses the evidences from other European countries, already using community-based punishments in place of custodial sentencing. These findings would help in developing the conceptual research framework for the research article review in the results’ chapters to offer comparative analysis of the community-based punishments and custodial sentences. 

2.3 Review of Evidences from European Countries

From the review of past academic researches, it can be examined that most of the authors have agreed on the heavily outnumbered statistics of the criminals who are under community supervision within the European countries. According to Daems et al., (2013) in most jurisdictions of the Europe, number of detainees has decreased up to greater extent after community-based punishments. Germany and Denmark come out as two top European countries pursuing the community-based punishments. Subramanian & Shames, (2013) has confirmed the above argument by pointing out that, “In Germany and the Netherlands, incarceration is used less frequently and for shorter periods of time. Both countries rely heavily on non-custodial sanctions and diversion, and only a small percentage of convicted offenders are sentenced to prison —approximately six percent in Germany and 10 percent in the Netherlands”.

Among the other European countries, UK also has evidences of using some sort of community services for the offenders. These community services are generally limited to the community service programs arranged for the offenders suffering from mental disorders or for the minors and children who have committed the crimes. Daems et al., (2013) argue that cost and expenditures of the reoffending and imprisonment both are extremely concerning for the authorities. Despite long period detainments and heavy criminal sanctions, according to a recent policy paper in the UK, the ‘vicious cycle’ of reoffending by ex-prisoners costs the UK economy between £7-10 billion per year. Similarly, Blay, (2010) has also reported on the community service orders introduced in the Spanish legislation with the 1995 Criminal Code. In Spain, these community-based punishments are allowed as a substitute for the prison sentences up to one year. In case, community based punishment is announced as an alternative for prison sentence, then such orders are imposed with fines. Likewise, authors also reported that in Spain community service orders are mostly announced for two types of offences i.e. road safety offences and family and gender violence offences. Despite, the approach is implemented in the country as soft punishment yet the authorities consider need for the correctional administration for the revised and better implementation of the community-based punishments (Blay, 2010).

Likewise, in discussing the lessons learned from Europe in reducing custodial sentences and imprisonments, Allen, (2012) sheds light on the remarkable experiments of the community punishments and rehabilitation in Finland, in Germany, in Netherlands, as well as on the United States, Texas approach in recognising their expensive prison systems. These countries have acknowledged the holy grains of decreasing crime rate associated with the non-custodial punishments. The countries do not only tend to decrease their prison populations but their declining budgets are self-explaining the effectiveness of the community-based punishments. 

2.4 Summary of Literature Review and Driven Conceptual Framework

These findings confirm the rising impact of community-based punishments all across the western countries and therefore based on these findings, it can be stated that UK needs more retrospective approach and practices in implementing the community-based punishments as an alternative to the custodial sentencing. However, for this purpose, factors causing differences and similarities need to be taken into account. This is the core element investigated in the current research. These theoretical and literature findings suggest the need to perform a comparative analysis of the community-based punishments and custodial referencing for better implementation of the approach in United Kingdom. 

2.5 Conclusion of Chapter

The chapter concludes the detailed meaning, functioning and the types of community-based punishments both in light of the theoretical approaches as well as from the perspectives of the past academic studies. Both restorative justice and retributive justice approaches are opposite to each other. Different countries are applying and implementing these approaches using their own justice models according to the local laws and administration procedure. However, the main purpose behind adopting the model in all the countries is similar i.e. restoration of interrelationships between the offender and the victims and to reduce crime rate by considering crime as social subject. The next chapter of the study presents methodology that would be used for the comparative analysis of the similarities and differences in the community-based punishments and custodial sentences.

Abstract & Introduction - A Soft Option: Comparative Analysis of the Community-Based Punishments as an Alternative to a Custodial Sentence

ABSTRACT

The key guiding aim of the research was to investigate community-based punishments as an alternative to a custodial sentence. United Kingdom has been subjected to the challenges of prison overcrowding, high prison expenditures and increase rate of offending among the custodial sentenced prisoners. For this purpose, the study focused on the concept of community-based punishments and the benefits of community-based punishments on the individuals who have experienced it through the review of European countries examples. The dissertation attempts to identify the similarities and differences of the custodial sentences and community-based punishments further highlighted that the latter option is a best and soft alternative of the former option. Community-based punishments are successfully implemented across the globe with the focus on the restorative justice approach. The option is capable of filtering the offenders according to the intensity and types of their crimes. There are multiple sub-options available for helping the offenders restore themselves towards the society. The soft alternative is also able to develop long-lasting relationships between the offenders and victims and society as a whole. However, it is important to note down that custodial sentences cannot be eliminated from the criminal justice system in order to protect the society from the dangerous criminals.

 
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

The chapter set out the context of the study in front of the readers to justify the rationale behind undertaking the current research on comparative analysis on the literature of community-based punishments and the custodial sentences. The sections in the chapter describe the research context, area of investigation, research problem, study scope and the main aim and research objectives needed to accomplished through the current study.

1.1 Research Context and Problems with Custodial Sentences

The judiciary system in most of the European countries is operating with some mechanism of non-custodial treatments along with the custodial sentences. Legislation and informal magistrate’s decisions favour the alternatives, which are beyond incarceration, as custody is not defined as a best solution for dealing with the offenders (Day, 2003). Community sentence or community-based punishment refers to the Orders of the Court; they have mandatory conditions that must be adhered to. The Court can also impose additional conditions on them. This punishment or sentence is good step for small criminals to give them all necessary punishment but in the society or any particular community. The reason behind such alternative is to avoid interaction between the small criminals and other big and serious criminals that have done murder or a other capital crime (Cullen et al., 2011). In contrary, custodial punishments are the kind punishments, which are directed towards the individuals for putting them into the custody of the police. It is further suggested that custodial punishments are generally directed towards the criminals that have been involved in committing severe crimes. A custodial sentence refers to the judicial sentence, which involves the punishment that consists of keeping the individual in the custody of the law enforcing agencies. These kinds of individuals are kept in the custody of the law enforcing agencies to ensure that they do not cause any threat to the society (Killias et al., 2010).

There are several reasons behind introduction of alternatives to the custodial sentencing. Overcrowding is among the biggest challenges faced. Modern trends in crime and criminal behaviours as well as increase in the authorities’ operations against these minor and major crimes are ultimately leading to overcrowded prisons. Many of the crimes such as illegal drug trafficking, family violence, traffic rule’s violation and sexual abuses are subjected to incarceration. Consequently, the prisons are experiencing too much load of criminals and prison overcrowding is becoming severe problems in order to maintain the legal expenditures of the nations (Day, 2003). In response to the challenge of overcrowding, a large portion of the European countries have brought mounted up the use of alternatives to custodial sentences including “pre-trial release, release on own recognizance, conditional release, restitution, community service or labour, the use of fines or payment by installments and the introduction of conditional and suspended sentences” (Day, 2003, p.13).

In the other context, besides overcrowding, the European countries have started realising that custodial sentences are also limiting the restoring and rehabilitation opportunities for the prisoners. As stated by Cozens et al., (2005) in the modern times, communities these days suffer from wide variety and range of crimes. It is further highlighted that social disintegration of every community leads towards the emergence of the commercial behavior within the society. According to Groot & Van Den Brink, (2010) there are some acts of crimes that are committed on a daily basis particularly petty crimes such as violation of traffic rules and many such individuals that have committed the crime for the very first time. Restoration of offenders therefore comes out as extremely important in changing the mentality of the community people. Modern situation of crimes in the society concentrates on the high need for restoration justice. Restorative justice is one of unique theoretical approach in the field of criminology, which is beyond the implementation of the passive legal principles. The concept disregards punishment as the vital solution for the offender while considers justice as a fundamental principle. Both the needs of victims as well as offenders are taken into account under restorative justice in contrary to the punitive approaches (Maiese, 2003). It is important to differentiate the restorative justice approach to the other approach such as Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), which aims to bring the disagreed parties to an agreement.
Despite the presence of great direction in theoretical context, practically European judicial systems including United Kingdom, lack resources to implement community based punishments. Problems can also be analysed with respect to limited acceptance at the authority and society levels both. Critics in England and Wales argue on the reoffending statistics of the offenders who were given community penalties and sentences earlier. People believe that community-based punishments result in unacceptably high rate of offending (BBC News, 2013). To identify community-based punishments as a soft alternative, there are still few evidences describing its effectiveness in comparison to different types of custodial sentences. For better implementation of the option, it is also necessary to examine the challenges and issues differentiating criminals qualifying themselves for community-based punishments and those who deserve custodial services. It is also necessary to consider the other factors needed for implementation of the community-based practices in the U.K.

1.2 Research Scope, Aim, Objectives and Question

The key guiding aim of the research was to investigate Community-Based Punishments as an Alternative to a Custodial Sentence. The research tends to include the secondary data about the individual countries, which have been experiencing the soft option of community-based punishments. For this purpose, research has reviewed the concept of community-based punishments and the benefits of community-based punishments on the individuals who have been made subject to it. The stated research aim will be accomplished by analyzing and discussing the existing community-based punishments. The main objective is to focus on restoration of offenders by giving them community punishments. This could only be achieved with the comparative analysis of the effectiveness of community-based punishments and custodial sentences. For this purpose, the study has also objectified the arguments using the relevant criminology theories such as restoration justice, community penalties theories, and the problems of custodial sentences requiring a shift towards soft option alternative especially in UK. Additionally, the current criminology thesis tends to seek the answer to the following research question: How are the community-based punishments different from the custodial services in restoring offenders with justice, equity, truth, hope and impartiality?

1.3 Research Layout

The remaining part of the thesis is divided into following chapters. Chapter Two Literature Review critically analyses the range of criminology theories such as restorative justice approach behind community-based punishments and revengeful and retribution punitive approaches behind custodial sentencing. It also reviews the published academic journals relevant to the scope of the research, and adds to its authenticity. Chapter Three Dissertation Methodology offers insight into the chosen research methodology used for data collection and data analysis in the current study. It highlights the philosophical stance applied in searching the reliable and valid results and answers to the research questions. Chapter Four Results presents and analyses the findings of the secondary research articles selected to investigate the chosen phenomenon i.e. comparative analysis of the community-based punishments with the custodial sentences. The chapter further discusses the secondary and primary research findings together. In the last, Fifth Chapter, Dissertation Conclusion and research recommendations are given to summarise the key research insights and suggestions for implementation of community-based punishments in UK.