View/Open - CORA - University College Cork

(ii) PUNISHMENT
Reference has already been made to the dissatisfaction expressed among sentencers with
extant non-custodial sentences. The fine on the one hand was deemed inappropriate due
to either the ability of the offender to pay the fine without undue financial hardship or the
inability of the offender to pay the fine which might ultimately be paid by his/her parents.
The use of probation as a non-custodial measure was increasingly called into question.
The punitive element of the community service order promised partial deprivation of
libertyfor the period of time the offender was required to attend at the communityservice
scheme. This “fine on time” (Pease 1981:3) was regarded as a deprivation of leisure-time
onlyand was not to interfere with employment, education or training. Moreover the strict
requirement to attend at the communityservice scheme on appointed days and on time put
the onus on offenders to take control of their lifestyle to meet the requirements of the
community service order. Unacceptable absences from the scheme would, according to
certain standards, lead to breaches and the application of either a financial sanction of fine
for non-compliance or a revocation of the community service order with the distinct
possibility of a custodial sentence. These latter mechanisms point to the disciplining and
conditioning elements of a punitive sanction.
Leisure-time is a relatively recent normative feature of modern social and economic life.
The 44-hour working week became standard in Britain in the period 1946-1949 (Roche
1988), and this was succeeded by a reduction to a 5-day week in Britain between 1949 and
1965. (Roche and Redmond 1994:18, Roche 1988:140-141). Although the opportunityfor
greater leisure grew increasingly in the late 1960s, Radzinowicz and King had pointed out
“leisure is still a highly valued commodity, a time for freedom. As an alternative to the
complete deprivation of freedom implicit in imprisonment, the partial deprivation of
leisure seems a goodcompromise” (Radzinowicz andKing1977:302).
Community service orders, while they may in some cases be demanding, are not intended
to be punitive in the sense of degrading or unpleasant. However, some concern has been
58