View/Open - CORA - University College Cork

we consulted about the need for forms of supportive treatment which would enable
this type of offender to be dealt with in the community. (Ibid:para.6).”
Departing significantlyfromthe stated policyof the AdvisoryCouncil for the Treatment of
Offenders (Home Office 1959) to consider policychanges onlyin light of rigorouslytested
procedures and against a critical background of scientific principle (Hood 1974; Bottoms
1979) the Wootton Committee suggested that the Courts should be given new powers
“without more ado” (Home Office 1970:par 7). Eschewing the scientific approach
considered appropriate for all further innovations in the area of penal sanctions, the
Committee embarked upon an experimental approach which they explained in paragraph
7:
Manyof our proposals, however, take the form of recommendations for experiment, in
this context we would emphasise the need for evaluative research in everyinstance in
which an innovation is introduced. We are well aware that everynewform for
sentence which is not definitelyknown to be more effective than existingmeasures
increases the risk of a wrongchoice on the part of sentencers. Moreover, in the
present state of knowledge the possibilityof such mistakes is unlikelyto be
substantiallyreducedbycurrent methods of diagnosis andassessment since these can
seldom predict more than the chances of an offender getting, or not getting, into
further trouble, without beingable to indicate howthese chances might be modifiedby
the imposition of anyparticular sentence. We do not, however, regardthis as a
conclusive objection to the introduction of anynewmeasures; the solution is to
experiment with such measures and to evaluate them. (Ibid: para.7)
The methods of enquiry used by the Committee, although consistent with methods of
other enquiries - to consult and hear submissions - did not commission critical analytical
studies against which the Committee could consider the submissions from interested
parties, such as sentencers, whose views and indeed frustrations with sentencing options at
that time appear to have influenced in no small way the deliberations and final
recommendations of the Wootton Committee.
The consultative process used by the Committee, especially the consultations with
sentencers, must be seen as central to their deliberations and recommendations.
Sentencers explained that the choice of sentence was too limited, which caused sentencers
to impose ineffective penalties where:
42