View/Open - CORA - University College Cork

CONCLUSION
Throughout this chapter the operationalization of the penalty of community service has
been examined to discern which features of the community service order were best suited
to the stated objectives of the penal policy underpinning the measure and which were not.
The instrumental role of the Probation Service was critically examined including the
discretionary practices and professional orientation of the field probation officer. The
adoption bythe Probation Service of the supervisoryfunction of communityservice orders
transformed a major aspect of the service from that of friend of the accused to one of
penal agent of the court. This transformation occurred also at a time of professional
reorientation of the Probation Service, when the era of penal welfarism was drawing to a
close. While the theoretical underpinnings of the Probation Service were challenged bythe
“nothing works” movement, perhaps the same measure of criticism may be levied at the
introduction and operationalization of communityservice orders. Did communityservice
orders work? This issue was examined primarily against the criticism that community
service should be seen to displace the prison sentence, thereby contributing to the
reduction in the number of persons committed to prison. As noted, the rate of
displacement from prison by the use of community service orders was 49% leading to the
conclusion that community service missed the target by 51% if displacement from prison
was the only or primary objective of the sanction. Moreover, by this standard, 51% of
offenders were inappropriately sentenced and exposed to breach proceedings of a more
punitive nature. The conclusions byPease and Young that judicial entrenchment, which is
not easilyamenable to direction, maybe a feature which would act as a counter-productive
force when dealingwith newpenalties is an important insight for this study.
The effect of the new penalty on recidivism and criminal behaviour in general, was
examined with conflicting results presented. Some community service schemes promote
more optimal outcomes if the offender identifies with the work and is personally
challengedbyit.
116