View/Open - CORA - University College Cork

present difficulties for the Probation Service in enforcingcommunityservice on juvenile
offenders when the level of punitiveness relative to adult offenders is perceivedas unduly
harsh. Additionally, the dangers of inducting such juvenile offenders into the custodial
systemthrough breach procedures for non-compliance mayleadto the unintendedresult
of increasingthe number of juvenile offenders in custodywhich wouldnot have been
possible if section 115 and section 116 were not brought into force. While the general
thrust of the Children Act 2001 clearlypoints to a decarcerative policy, the transformation
of communityservice under the same legislation mayprovide a counter-productive force
within the same policystructure which mayincrease the degree of incarceration.
The extent to which the Children Act 2001 mayheralda newapproach bysentencers to the
use of communityservice orders must at this stage remain speculative since the section has
been brought into force onlyrecentlyandthe possibilityof a pattern of such usage by
sentencers has yet to emerge for analysis. Moreover, one can but speculate on the extent
to which this newsentencingdeparture mayinfluence policymakers andlegislators to yield
to the promptings of influential bodies such as the LawReformCommission (1996), the
Expert Group on the Probation Service (1999), O’Malley(2000) and individual members
of the judiciaryto allowthe makingof communityservice orders as standalone penalties
without the requirement to decide upon a prior custodial sentence, before makinga
communityservice order. The implementation of section 115 and section 116 of the
Children Act 2001 mayprovide an interestingpilot studyon net-widening bycomparing
the operation of communityservice under the 1983 andthe 2001 regimes respectively.
In chapter 3 the process of policytransfer in the area of criminal justice was discussed in detail
to explain the influence upon the introduction of communityservice into Irish sentencing
law. In particular, the over-archinginfluence of the former legislative centre for Irelandat
Westminster from1800 to 1922 was seen to have an enduringinfluence upon legislative
measures in a number of areas not just limitedto criminal justice issues (Fanning1978,
O’Mahony2002:6). The experience of policyandlegislative influence froma former
colonial power is not unique to Irelandbut has also been identified in other former
colonies such as Canada andAustralia. The process of constitutional disengagement from
the former colonial power has never been so sudden andcomplete as to place a legislative
function anddutyupon the emergent state to design, as it were froma tabula rasa, new
systems of economic and social organisation and criminal justice. Rather the process of
213