View/Open - CORA - University College Cork

Any attempt to locate the origins of diversionary penal measures proves to be an
impossible task, according to Vass (1984: 7). A particular difficulty presents when
comparing contemporarypenal measures with those of earlier periods (Kilcommins, 2002).
For example, in contemporary criminal law the theft of a horse under Section 4 of the
Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offices) Act 2001, might warrant on summary
conviction an fine of up to £1,500 or 12 months imprisonment or both; historically the
same offence was a felony for which the penalty was death. The use of the death penalty
was not always imposed and Vass (1984) has identified a number of diverse alternatives
which emerged between the 16 th and 18 th centuries as modes of punishment in their own
right but which also served as expedients for economic stringencies such as prison
overcrowding and the attendant costs, the need to provide manpower in the emergent
colonies and the establishment of sufficient military and naval strength in time of war,
through the process of impressments.
The historical antecedents of community service have been closely evaluated by a number
of writers such as Anthony Vass (1984) Kenneth Pease (1980) (1981) (1977) (1975) and
Young (1979). A number of alleged precursors to community service have been identified
in the literature and in particular to punishments which obliged the convicted person to
provide a significant contribution of personal service whether by way of manual labour or
military skill for the benefit of the State. These included bridewells, workhouses, hulks,
transportation andimpressment.
While Pease (1980: 1) has suggested slavery could be seen as one of the less reputable
forbears of community service, cultural acceptability of slavery as a punishment in 21 st
century Western societies would be immediately and universally rejected. Nonetheless, a
claim of a direct lineage of community service from the former practice of slavery
challenges a contemporary researcher to view community service as a continuation of
former severe punishments which have now been repackaged in a more culturally
acceptable manner.
Garlandhas suggesteda contextual framework of penalitythus:
The intensityof punishments, the means which are usedto inflict pain and forms of
sufferingwhich are allowedin penal institutions are determined not just by
considerations of expediencybut also byreference to current mores and sensibilities.
24