# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Do retributive and restoritive justice processes address different symbolic concerns 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Real and percived changes in crime and deviance 

# data[].attributes.headline
Sex Crimes, Children, and Pornography: Public Views and Public PolicyShow all authorsDaniel P. Mears, Christina Mancini, Marc Gertz, Jake Bratton First Published December 20, 2007 Research Article https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128707308160

# data[].attributes.subject
Sex Crimes, Children, and Pornography: Public Views and Public PolicyShow all authorsDaniel P. Mears, Christina Mancini, Marc Gertz, Jake Bratton First Published December 20, 2007 Research Article https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128707308160

# data[].attributes.headline
A Theory of Differential Punishmentby Boeglin, Jack; Shapiro, ZacharyVanderbilt Law Review, 10/2017, Volume 70, Issue 5We conclude by arguing that in these instances, where differential punishment is unjustified, offenders should be punished as if they had not brought about the harmful result that would otherwise subject them to heightened punishment.ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)Publication Title:Vanderbilt Law ReviewPublisher:Vanderbilt University, School of LawVolume:70Issue:5Pages:1499 - 1559Date:10/2017ISSN:0042-2533EISSN:1942-9886Subjects:Punishment, Victim-offender relationship, Models, Criminal law, Legal ethics, Criminal sentences, Differences, Criminal justiceLanguage:EnglishCopyright:COPYRIGHT 2017 Vanderbilt University, School of Law

# data[].attributes.subject
A Theory of Differential Punishmentby Boeglin, Jack; Shapiro, ZacharyVanderbilt Law Review, 10/2017, Volume 70, Issue 5We conclude by arguing that in these instances, where differential punishment is unjustified, offenders should be punished as if they had not brought about the harmful result that would otherwise subject them to heightened punishment.ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)Publication Title:Vanderbilt Law ReviewPublisher:Vanderbilt University, School of LawVolume:70Issue:5Pages:1499 - 1559Date:10/2017ISSN:0042-2533EISSN:1942-9886Subjects:Punishment, Victim-offender relationship, Models, Criminal law, Legal ethics, Criminal sentences, Differences, Criminal justiceLanguage:EnglishCopyright:COPYRIGHT 2017 Vanderbilt University, School of Law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Does spending ‘100 years’ behind bars actually help deter crime? BBC Future explores the impact of long prison sentences, and looks at how Norway is taking an opposite approach.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tougher prison sentences reduce crime, particularly burglary, according to ground-breaking research.

The study, by academics at Birmingham University, also found that during periods when police detect more offences, crime tends to fall overall, suggesting that levels of police activity - and therefore of staffing - have a direct impact on criminal activity.

The findings are likely to be seized on by critics of the government's plans for reducing the number of police officers as part of spending cuts.

The research, carried out for Civitas, an independent thinktank, used local sentencing data released by the Ministry of Justice under freedom of information requests to track the effectiveness of penal policy and policing on recorded crime across the 43 forces in England and Wales between 1993 and 2008.

The researchers concluded that prison was particularly effective in reducing property crime when targeted at serious and repeat offenders. They concluded that an increase of just one month in the average sentence length for burglaries - from 15.4 to 16.4 months - would reduce burglaries in the following year by 4,800, out of an annual total of 962,700.

For fraud, an increase in sentences from 9.7 to 10.7 months would result in a reduction of 4,700 offences a year, out of 242,400. The report declares this to be "a substantial effect, especially when we consider that the length of sentence usually corresponds to approximately half the actual time spent in custody".

The study also estimates that a policy of forcing offenders to serve a higher proportion of their sentences in prison would have a further dramatic effect on cutting crime, in part because more offenders would be behind bars for longer. If offenders were made to serve two-thirds of their sentence in custody, rather than the current half, it suggests that there would be 21,000 fewer recorded burglaries and 11,000 fewer recorded frauds in England and Wales.

The findings tend to support the thrust of policies followed by the last Labour government, which increased funding to the police and concentrated on the roughly 100,000 persistent offenders responsible for a high proportion of crime. This approach increased the prison population, but it also led to reductions in overall levels of crime.

By contrast, the current justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke, often questions the relationship between criminal justice policy and the level of crime and suggests that economic factors may be just as, if not more, important. Clarke has been involved in a long-running dispute with one of his Tory predecessors, Michael Howard, whose mantra that "prison works" became associated with his time at the Home Office.

In 2010 Clarke questioned whether tough penal policy cut crime: "No one can prove cause and effect. The crime rate fell [under Labour], but was this the consequence of the policies of my successors as home secretary or, dare I gently hint, mine as chancellor of the exchequer at the beginning of a period of growth and strong employment? We will never know."

The report says there is "unequivocal" evidence that more sustained and effective policing cuts crime. "More detection is associated with substantial reductions in crime. It plays a sustained role in preventing crime," says the study, which found that a 1% increase in the detection rate would prevent 26,000 burglaries, 85,000 thefts, 2,500 robberies and 1,800 frauds a year.

However, the director of campaigns at the Howard League for Penal Reform, Andrew Neilson, questioned the claims.

"The effect of prison on reducing crime has never been proven and this research falls short of doing so," Neilson said. "There are numerous international examples of jurisdictions which have experienced both falls in crime and falls in prison numbers.

"Research by the last government supports claims made since by Kenneth Clarke that factors such as a benign economy and improved home security had greater roles to play in the fall in crime in England and Wales than an increase in the use of imprisonment."

Neilson also said that the research ignores the "clear failure of prison as spelled out in reoffending rates". He added: "Lengthening prison sentences at additional cost when prisons are already failing will not provide lasting solutions to crime."
"Acquisitive Crime: Imprisonment, Detection and Social Factors" will be published at civitas.org.uk on Monday

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Longer prison terms really do cut crime, study shows

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Increasing sentences for burglary and fraud would lead to fewer offences, research for Civitas suggests

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Arguments in favour of capital punishment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A breakdown of the arguments given in favour of keeping (or reintroducing) the death penalty.

# data[].attributes.headline
Social Justice ResearchJune 2008, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 119–137 | Cite asOn Justifying Punishment: The Discrepancy Between Words and Actions

# data[].attributes.subject
Social Justice ResearchJune 2008, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 119–137 | Cite asOn Justifying Punishment: The Discrepancy Between Words and Actions

# data[].attributes.body
Kevin M. Carlsmith

Two studies conducted with nationally representative samples reveal that people support laws designed on the utilitarian principle of deterrence in the abstract, yet reject the consequences of the same when they are applied. Study 1 (N = 133) found that participants assigned punishment to criminals in a manner consistent with a retributive theory of justice rather than deterrence. The verbal justifications for punishment given by these same respondents, however, failed to correlate with their actual retributive behavior. Study 2 (N = 125) again found that people have favorable attitudes towards utilitarian laws and rate them as “fair” in the abstract, but frequently reject them when they are instantiated in ways that support utilitarian theories. These studies reveal people’s inability to know their own motivations, and show that one consequence of this ignorance is to generate support for laws that they ultimately find unjust.

comments

People seem to support punishment methods but not their outcomes and that people who do justify punishment fail to justify properly - there is no correlation. this shows the punishment debate to be flawed in itself and therefore not an effective system.

Does link to the UK because people from the UK were asked

Data were collected via an online experimental survey with a broadly representative sample of adults (N = 133). The sample came from a standing panel of participants coordinated by Study Response at Syracuse University, who were offered a chance to win various cash lotteries. Subsets of this panel (N = 95,574) have been used in a variety of peer-reviewed publications, and the panel overall is highly representative of Western countries’ demographics (Stanton & Weiss, 2002). This particular sub-panel of respondents was 54% female with a median age of 41 years. Thirty-six percent were employed full-time, 13% were employed part-time, 23% were retired or unemployed by choice, and 6% were unemployed and searching for work. Thirty percent had only a high-school diploma, 43% had some college experience, 20% completed a baccalaureate degree, 6% had post-baccalaureate experience, and less than 5% were full time students. Eighty-four percent of the sample was Caucasian, and 60% were US residents. Non-US respondents consisted primarily of residents of English-speaking countries, including Canada (33%), Australia (28%), and the UK (13%).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sensitive reform is needed; better staffing has been promised. But it would be quite wrong to engage in any liberal rethink of the criminal justice system that would betray both public and prisoners. Punishment and rehabilitation are two sides of the same coin. Punishment does not, as the proposed legislation implies, stop after sentencing but continues throughout prison in the form of removal of liberty and rigorous discipline. These, in turn, help to rehabilitate prisoners by forcing them into education and preparing them for life in the outside world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sensitive reform is needed; better staffing has been promised. But it would be quite wrong to engage in any liberal rethink of the criminal justice system that would betray both public and prisoners. Punishment and rehabilitation are two sides of the same coin.

# data[].attributes.headline
Public preferences for sentencing purposes: What difference does offender age, criminal history and offence type make?

# data[].attributes.subject
Public preferences for sentencing purposes: What difference does offender age, criminal history and offence type make?

# data[].attributes.body
Caroline A. Spiranovic, Lynne D. Roberts, David Indermaur, Kate Warner, Karen Gelb, Geraldine Mackenzie

Volume: 12 issue: 3, page(s): 289-306

Article first published online: December 26, 2011; Issue published: July 1, 2012

Abstract

Preferences of 800 randomly selected Australians for retributive and utilitarian sentencing purposes were examined in response to brief crime scenarios where offender age, offence type and offender history were systematically varied. Respondents selected rehabilitation as the most important purpose for first-time, young and burglary offenders. Punishment was endorsed as most important for repeat, adult and serious assault offenders. Multinomial logistic regression analysis revealed that offence history was a stronger predictor of public preferences than offender age or offence type; the odds of choosing rehabilitation compared with punishment were significantly increased by a factor of 6.1 for cases involving first-time offenders. It appears that when given specific cases to consider, the public takes an approach akin to that taken by the sentencing courts as they weigh up the importance of the various purposes for the case at hand. Public preferences are thus broadly consistent with current law and sentencing practice.

comments

While not the UK, Australia is a western democracy with similar Charteristics to Britain and thus some parrells can be drawn - it seems public opionon is split depending on age and number of offenses. This can help the rehabilitation argument as proof that people want punishment for serious offenders but the serious offenders are likely that way because of punishment

# data[].attributes.headline
Bastoy prison - example of success of a rehabilitative 'open prison' 

# data[].attributes.subject
Bastoy prison - example of success of a rehabilitative 'open prison' 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bastoy: the Norwegian prison that works | Erwin James

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Erwin James: Arne Kvernvik Nilsen, the departing governor of a prison with a reoffending rate of just 16%, shares the secrets of his remarkable success

# data[].attributes.body
file:///N:/Downloads/9781315310176_googlepreview.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Despite its barbaric origins in the medieval dungeon and torture chamber, since the late 18th century prisons have combined elements of punishment with elements of rehabilitation. As the French philosopher Michel Foucault put it, punishment shifted over time from the disciplining of the body to the disciplining of the "soul".

# data[].attributes.body
BOOK DESCRIPTION

Through the stories of prisoners and their families, including her own family’s experiences, Maya Schenwar shows how the institution that locks up 2.3 million Americans and decimates poor communities of color is shredding the ties that, if nurtured, could foster real collective safety. As she vividly depicts here, incarceration takes away the very things that might enable people to build better lives. But looking toward a future beyond imprisonment, Schenwar profiles community-based initiatives that successfully deal with problems—both individual harm and larger social wrongs—through connection rather than isolation, moving toward a safer, freer future for all of us.

Incarceration may provide public reassurance that “dangerous” people have vanished and are therefore no longer in existence—but it also permits a different kind of closed-eyed comfort for those safely ensconced in non-prisonerhood. As Angela Davis notes, it veils homelessness.1 (Lacino, running from foster care, living in stolen cars—locked up.) It veils poverty. (Sable, lawyerless, helpless to fight the contorted charges against her—locked up.) It veils illiteracy. (The 97 percent of prisoners who are assessed as not “proficient” in reading and writing—locked up.) It veils drug dependency. (Kayla, passed out on the street, homeless and near death, a needle in her arm—locked up.) And it veils racism—the criminalization of black and brown people, persisting over the centuries under the mask of “justice.”

comments

PUNISHMENT MAKES IT WORSE FOR THE PERSON NOT BETTER - WONT HELP WITH REINTEGRATION WHICH IN TURN WONT HELP REOFFENCE RATES

# data[].attributes.body
file:///N:/Downloads/LLN-2017-0102.pdf