View/Open - CORA - University College Cork

objectives which were claimed for community service are examined with particular
reference to punishment, rehabilitation, reparation and reintegration of the offender. These
rationales may be seen to conflict or compete with one another, which points to the
conclusion that communityservice mayserve manypurposes at once, dependingon who is
makingsuch a claim.
In Chapter 2 the idea of community service in practice is explored. Howis the sanction to
be used and who would supervise its operation? Quite early in the debate in England and
Wales the Probation Service was identifiedas the agencymost suited to select offenders for
community service and to supervise its operation. Thus community service was markedly
different from the traditional probation order. This presents a challenge to the professional
orientation of the probation officer and as will be seen certain stresses and strains on the
probation officers’ function and outlook were to emerge. Was the probationer officer to
apply traditional ‘probationizing’ discretion or was the probation officer to apply strict
“justice” criteria when dealing with an offender performing communityservice? Would the
Probation Service adapt to a national standard and if so what would this mean for
professional standards? Various studies are presented which showhowcommunityservice
may be optimally applied and which factors in a community service scheme may mitigate
against its success. A central issue in this chapter is the claim that community service is
meant to act as a decarcerative procedure. The various studies are referenced to discern if
sentencers utilise the sanction in this way. Moreover, where divergence from this policy is
identified, an attempt is made to explain what is otherwise occurring in the sentencing
domain such as displacement of other non custodial sanctions. Where the sanction is used
either as an alternative to a custodial sentence or otherwise, the efficacy of the sanction
when measured for recidivism is also discussed. The chapter concludes with a discussion
on the community service order as a “normalized” sanction among others. Where the
sanction is misapplied, is it possible to change the practices of the judges and the probation
service to bring about optimal results? These issues are discussed before the chapter
concludes.
In Chapter 3 the community service order is seen to arrive finally in Ireland having
operated in England and Wales for the preceding decade. The practice of taking legislation
“off the shelf” and using it in another jurisdiction is discussed with particular reference to
the dangers of unintended consequences for the recipient jurisdiction. Not surprisingly,
15