View/Open - CORA - University College Cork

on this issue. Strictly speaking one is limited to a commentary that some judges utilise the
sanction and others do not. However, the responses from the judges in the focus groups
and interviews did point to a desire on their part to allowthe use of communityservice for
less serious offences which are disposed of at present bywayof fine, probation orders and
discharges. To some extent this suggests a residual reluctance on their part to fullyembrace
the community service order as a real alternative to the custodial sentence. The desire on
the part of some judges to allow community service orders to be made independently of
any pre-custodial requirement may also be criticised on the basis that a more punitive
penalty might replace a less punitive penalty such as payment of a fine or attendance at
probation. As noted previously, the judges also referred to perceived structural problems in
the operation of community service schemes which dampened their enthusiasm to utilise
the sanction more often. In particular, these touched upon a concern that community
service schemes may not be organised to optimise the community service potential of the
sanction. Instead of harnessing the individual specifically to a task, the schemes are
arranged around sites which yield the least satisfactory outcomes for the community and
the offender. This in turn may lead to higher levels of dissatisfaction with the work and
higher levels of breach. Moreover quite a few judges were critical of the discretionary
practices of the Probation Service in the operation of the community service schemes
specificallydelayin bringing a non- compliant offender back to court for breach of a court
order.
Some courts particularlyat the higher jurisdictional levels have adopted the approach of re-
entry of the case for mention to specifically deal with the issue of non-compliance. This
suggests that these courts retain ownership or control of the sanction until the offender is
finally discharged by completion of the community service order. Courts of summary
jurisdiction could not realistically adopt this approach due to the volume of cases which
need to be dealt with in these courts. However, the infrequent use of communityservice in
some of the summarycourts maybe attributed to the courts inabilityto either monitor the
offender on community service directly or indirectly through the agency of the Probation
Service.
Perhaps another way of viewing these issues is to focus upon the sanction of
imprisonment itself. The custodial sentence, whatever maybe claimed about its purpose, is
invested with certainty. The offender is committed to prison and subject to the right of
398