Easton & Piper: Sentencing and Punishment 2e 
DevelopmentsEaston & Piper: Sentencing and Punishment 2e
Chapter 12
Discussion questions
At the end of Chapter 12 we posed several questions (reproduced below) which raise important issues. We give our comments after each question.
1. Is what is known about the practice of assessment and supervision of offenders in the community evidence that it operates within a post-modern penality?
You might find it helpful to re-read section 12.5.2. in Chapter 12, where we discuss the differences in practice between rehabilitation and risk control. By post-modern penality we refer to the focus on actuarially-based management of risk rather than 'modern' rehabilitative and 'normalising' probation practice. The National Offender Management Service, by its very title, stresses a new focus on management but, government policy nevertheless, promotes the greater used of rehabilitative projects through the new post-release supervision requirements and the new 'flexible' community sentence. The answers can only be found in detailed research on probation practice, and on pages 415-6 of Sentencing and Punishment we refer to some of the findings. The jury is clearly still out on this issue and conclusions are made more difficult by apparent differences between rhetoric and reality.
2. In what ways is the sentencing framework for imposing those penalties which are between fines and prison established by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 a 'better' framework than the one it replaced?
The generic community sentence introduced by the 2003 Act was intended to give the courts greater flexibility in tailoring punishments to the individual offender with the aim of reducing the likelihood of re-offending. To answer this question you need to assess the extent to which the new system does give more flexibility than did the range of community penalties and added requirements available in previous legislation. You should also consider whether it will enhance the opportunities for effective rehabilitation. You might also wish to consider how far the available requirements will increase the amount of punitive control that can be exerted under a community sentence and whether that is acceptable and likely to be effective.
In making these assessments you may find the following recent commentaries and research reports useful:
Bottoms, A. (2008) 'The Community Dimension of Community Penalties' Howard Journal Vol 47(2) 146-169.
Mair, G., Cross, N. and Taylor, S. (2008) The Community Order and the Suspended Sentence Order: the views and attitudes of sentencers. London, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, King's College London.
Patel, S. and Stanley, S (2008) The Use for the Community Order and the Suspended Sentence for Women. London, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, King's College London.
3. How does the New Rehabilitation differ from earlier forms of rehabilitation?
In answering this question you need to consider how the two forms of rehabilitationism would address the issue of sentencing. What would they see as the appropriate criteria for sentence length? Would they favour determinate or indeterminate sentencing? In addition you could consider the implications of each approach for respect for the rights of the person being punished. You may also address their diverging views on the aims of imprisonment. What would be the implications for the type of regime provided within prison and for the obligation on the state to provide suitable offending behaviour programmes? Would either of these approaches allow for coercive treatment and training?
View print version