Advertisement

Preventive Sentencing

  • Nicola Padfield
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Risk, Crime and Society book series (PSRCS)

Abstract

This chapter explores the current sentencing framework for sex offenders in England and Wales: not only the rules for the imposition of indeterminate and determinate custodial sentences, but also the use of Sexual Harm Prevention Orders (SHPOs) and other preventive orders which attempt to control future activities by offenders. It then looks briefly at release and recall rules, and the ‘management’ of sexual offenders in the community in order to question the legitimacy of some current practices. The chapter points out that current priorities which focus on preventive sentencing, the protection of the public and the management of risk allow questions of justice and proportionality to be too easily ignored. Restrictive, preventive, sentences require careful justification in individual cases.

Keywords

Preventive sentencing Risk Ancillary orders 

References

  1. Appleton, C. (2010). Life After Life Imprisonment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashworth, A., & Zedner, L. (2014). Preventive Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cowe, F., & Reeves, C. (2012). Residential Work with Sex Offenders: Places of Collusion and Segregation or Preparation for Resettlement and Reintegration. In F. Cowe, J. Brayford, & J. Deering (eds) (Eds.), Sex Offenders: Punish, Help, Change or Control? Theory, Policy and Practice Explored. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Crassiati, J., & Sindall, O. (2009). Serious Further Offences: An Exploration of Risk and Typologies. Probation Journal, 56, 9.Google Scholar
  5. Danzigera, S., Levavb, J., & Avnaim-Pessoa, L. (2011). Extraneous Factors in Judicial Decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. Available at: http://www.pnas.org/content/108/17/6889.abstract
  6. Digard, L. (2010). When Legitimacy Is Denied: Offender Perceptions of the Prison Recall System. Probation Journal, 57, 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Digard, L. (2014). Encoding Risk: Probation Work and Sex Offenders’ Narrative Identities. Punishment & Society, 16, 428–447.Google Scholar
  8. Hawkins, K. (2003). Conclusion. In L. Gelsthorpe & N. Padfield (Eds.). Exercising Discretion: Decision-making in the Criminal Justice System and Beyond. Cullompton UK: Willan.Google Scholar
  9. Herzog-Evans, M., & Padfield, N. (2015). The JAP: Lessons for England and Wales? Criminal Justice Alliance. http://criminaljusticealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/cja_policy-briefing3_200315.pdf
  10. Laws, D. R. (2016). Social Control of Sex Offenders. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McSherry, B. (2014). Managing Fear: The Law and Ethics of Preventive Detention and Risk Assessment. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Padfield, N. (2010a). Discretion and Decision-making in Public Protection. In M. Nash & A. Williams (Eds.), The Handbook of Public Protection. New York: Routledge/Willan.Google Scholar
  13. Padfield, N. (2010b). The Sentencing, Management and Treatment of ‘Dangerous’ Offenders. Council for Penological Co-operation on ‘Dangerous’ Offenders, Council of Europe: see http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/cdpc/PC-GR-DD/PC-CP(2010)10%20rev%205_E%20_vs%2026%2001%2011_%20-%20THE%20SENTENCING%20MANAGEMENT%20AND%20TREATMENT%20OF%20DANGEROUS%20OFFENDERS.pdf
  14. Padfield, N. (2013). Understanding Recall 2011. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2201039
  15. Padfield, N. (2015). Bradbury: A Tangle of Extended Sentences? Sentencing News, 5–8.Google Scholar
  16. Padfield, N. (2016a). Justifying Indeterminate Detention – On What Grounds? (2016). Criminal Law Review, 795–820.Google Scholar
  17. Padfield, N. (2016b). The Magnitude of the Offender Rehabilitation and “Through the Gate” Resettlement Revolution (2016). Criminal Law Review, 99–115.Google Scholar
  18. Padfield, N. (2016c). Legal Constraints on the Indeterminate Control of ‘Dangerous’ Sex Offenders in the Community: The English Perspective. Erasmus Law Review, 2, 55–66.Google Scholar
  19. Maguire, M., & Raynor, P. (2006). How the Resettlement of Prisoners Promotes Desistance from Crime: Or Does It? Criminology and Criminal Justice, 6, 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Maruna, S. (2001). Making Good: How Ex-Convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maruna, S. (2011). Re-entry and a Rite of Passage. Punishment and Society, 13(1), 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Reeves, C. (2016). Everyday Life in UK Probation Approved Premises for Sex Offenders. In C. Reeves (Ed.), Experiencing Imprisonment: Research on the Experience of Living and Working in Carceral Institutions. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Rickard, D. (2016). Sex Offenders, Stigma and Social Control. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Rook, P., & Ward, R. (2016). Sexual Offences: Law and Practice. London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
  25. Thomas, T., Thompson, D., & Karstedt, S. (2014). Assessing the Impact of Circles of Support and Accountability on the Reintegration of Adults Convicted of Sexual Offences in the Community: Final Report. Leeds University. http://www.law.leeds.ac.uk/assets/files/research/ccjs/CoSA/CoSA-Full-Report.pdf
  26. Von Hirsch, A. (2017). Deserved Criminal Sentences. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  27. Wan, W.-Y., et al. (2014). Parole Supervision and Reoffending (Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice). Canberra: Australian Government, Institute of Criminology.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicola Padfield
    • 1
  1. 1.University of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations