View/Open - CORA - University College Cork

eceived a custodial sentence was, as noted, to widen the net of social control (Cohen
1985) by prematurely introducing such offenders to custodial sanctions, when their
offences andearlycriminal careers wouldnot have warranted such earlyintroduction to the
penalty of “last resort” (Sparks 1971). Paradoxically, the selection of predominantly
“shallow-end” offenders for community service, especially offenders with few or no
previous convictions, may precipitate the incarceration of such offenders, while the cohort
of “deep-end” offenders remains firmly within the custodial system without the
opportunity of decarceration through such measures as community service (Scull 1977;
Worrall 1992; Cohen 1985; Hylton 1981, McMahon 1990). The optimism which
accompanied the introduction of Community service in England and Wales, especially the
hope that Communityservice would herald a genuine alternative to custodyand reduce the
prison population was not to be fulfilled.
Young’s study (1979) of six courts found that courts with a more severe sentencing
practice made less use of community service orders when compared with other penalties
selected for comparison. The existing sentiment of sentencers, whether lenient or severe,
appears to have had a greater influence than anyoutside stated policy. In the courts which
made greater use of imprisonment, within his study he speculated there would have been
more scope for the use of community service as an alternative to custody. However, in
general he reports the reverse was true.
In the survey of perceptions and practice among the Irish judges, the courts of summary
jurisdiction were the courts which made most use of the community service order. This
is also borne out by the statistical returns for community service in the District Court and
the Circuit Criminal Courts. One judge of the Circuit Court indicated he would consider
the use of the community service order much more often in the disposal of District Court
appeals (which are heard in the Circuit Court) whereas he was much less inclined to use
community service in the case of indictable offences on conviction in the Circuit Criminal
Court:
113