View/Open - CORA - University College Cork

Manyresponded … byindicating that their work had helped an individual and as far
as they were concerned that was right and sufficient … what was of common
concern here was that efforts shouldbe appropriatelydirected(Flegget al 1976).
The ambivalent policybehind the introduction of community service orders (Young 1979)
which sought to address and satisfya number of conflicting sentencing objectives gave rise
to equallyinconsistent results when these came to be evaluated. The primarystatedaimof
the Home Office that community service should be used as an alternative to custodial
sentences was certainly less emphasised in the Working Committee Report, where the use
of community service was anticipated as a wide ranging intermediate penalty which could
even be substituted for a fine.
The failure to provide a more fixed position for community service in the scale of
sentencing when the measure was debated in Parliament might be partially responsible for
the widespread use of community service orders for offenders who previously would have
received probation or a fine. The proportionate decline in probation orders which
accompanied the introduction and growth of community service orders suggests that the
community service order was used widely as an alternative to this specific non-custodial
disposal. Moreover, the use of the penaltyfor offenders who would be considered less of
a risk to the community service scheme itself and to the wider community (Young 1979)
instead of offenders with established criminal records, who would normally receive a
custodial sentence, suggests that courts deploy a bifurcatory process (Bottoms 1979) in
selectingoffenders for communityservice.
As previously noted, the studies of Pease (1975; 1977) McIvor (1972), and Young (1979)
indicate that less than half of the offenders who were sentenced to community service
would have received a sentence of detention or imprisonment, but were exposed to the
distinct possibility of a custodial sentence in the event of a successful prosecution for
breach of condition or failure to perform the communityservice order. The overall effect
of community service as a penalty for such offenders who would otherwise not have
112