View/Open - CORA - University College Cork

imposed, must be described as punishment, whatever its stated objective; that the
definition of a punishment resides in the result not the motive. This is to confuse
the aims of the sentence with its function. Punishment is something which is
inflicted on an individual with the aim that it will be experienced as unpleasant. A
sentence can have the aim of rehabilitation but also serve the function in some cases
of punishing; or vice-versa. That does not invalidate its description as a measure
with rehabilitative or punitive philosophy. It is onlyrelevant – indeed, it onlymakes
sense – to discuss the philosophical basis of a sentence in terms of the aims for
which it is imposed. (Young1979:34).
(i) REPARATION
Among the many sentencing values to be satisfied by the community service order, the
Wootton Committee considered the performance of community service would “… be
seen as introducing into the penal system a newdimension with an emphasis on reparation
to the community” (Ibid.: par 33). Rarely, if ever, is a community service scheme so
arranged to allow the offender to make direct recompense to the victim of his/her crime.
When speaking on this issue in parliament Mr Silkin suggested it would be one thing for an
offender to make reparation to an old lady from whom he has stolen money; it is quite a
different matter to clean a canal or work in a home for the mentally handicapped in order
to reimburse society in general (H.C. Debates, Standing Committee, G,/2/72:cols.5-3).
Perhaps the claim to reparation was anticipating the advent of Restorative Justice, ideas
which originated in New Zealand in the 1990s where restitution is facilitated by a trained
person to allow closure on a crime done by an offender. However, the attempt at
equivalence in making reparation to society as a whole or indeed to the community in
which a victim may be living on the one hand and the individual victim on the other
cannot be reconciled and must remain a form of symbolic reparation where the victim may
never experience the annulment of the wrongful act done to him/her (Young1979:36).
54