12.08.2013 Views

View/Open - CORA - University College Cork

View/Open - CORA - University College Cork

View/Open - CORA - University College Cork

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

In Conclusion<br />

The suspended sentence and the community service order are presented in this study as<br />

direct alternatives to the custodial sentence. The relative underutilisation of the community<br />

service order suggests that the courts generallylook upon the actual custodial sentence as a<br />

separate sentence which must be served if the offence and the circumstances of the<br />

offender ultimately warrant it. Community service orders are made with much less<br />

frequencythan custodial sentences, particularly in respect of minor offences. This suggests<br />

that a significant number of sentencers do not generally equate community service with a<br />

real custodial sentence and hence are reluctant to use it for that purpose. Of those judges<br />

who do use the community service order, the study discloses the presence of a subset of<br />

sentencers within that group, who would occasionally utilise the sanction without strict<br />

compliance with the pre-custodial requirement of Sec.2<br />

Paradoxically the high frequency with which the suspended sentence is used on the other<br />

hand suggests that the suspended sentence is not used as often as is claimed as an<br />

alternative to a real custodial sentence but rather as an approximation to a conditional<br />

discharge at a much lower level of penalty.<br />

In the case of the community service order, a punishment on time is extracted whereas<br />

under a suspended sentence a commitment towards good behaviour is conditionally given<br />

by the offender. Provided the offender complies with the conditions of the bond the<br />

integrity of the sentence remains intact. However, if a breach occurs and the offender is<br />

not brought back to the court the deterrent value of the sanction which has been identified<br />

here as the primary purpose of the sanction is undone. This raises again what Osborough<br />

(1981) has referred to as an awkward question. If both offenders and judges do not believe<br />

that breaches will be brought back for consideration of revocation, can the suspended<br />

sentence have any other purpose other than to symbolise the passing of a custodial<br />

sentence which is never under any circumstances to be served or is the sentence merely a<br />

marker for a subsequent court to take into account when sentencing for a subsequent<br />

offence?<br />

The operation of Section 99 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 may provide the point of<br />

departure fromthis dystopian viewof the operation of the suspended sentence to date.<br />

407

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!