‘We have no awareness of what they actually do’: Magistrates’ knowledge of and confidence in community sentences for women offenders in England and Wales

Abstract

Citation: Birkett, G. (2016). 'We have no awareness of what they actually do':Magistrates' knowledge of and confidence in community sentences for women offenders in England and Wales. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 16(4), pp. 497-512. doi: 10.1177/1748895816632852 This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. for robust and effective sentencing options that enable the majority of non-violent women offenders to be punished in the community. While a laudable ambition, this strategy will only be successful if sentencers are aware of (and support) the options available to achieve this goal. PermanentConsidering government policy in relation to current levels of awareness among the magistracy, this article explores the factors that influence sentencing decisions for women. Highlighting reservations about the suitability of community provision, it also reveals the lack of information and training that magistrates receive on this issue. While there is certainly a willingness to learn and consider more creative options when sentencing women, it is clear that better knowledge of the offender and the options available are needed. Drawing on empirical research conducted with 168 magistrates in England and Wales, this article concludes with a number of practical avenues for improved communication, advocated by magistrates themselves. With many unaware of strategic direction on this issue, the implications for policy and practice are obvious.

Gendering the carceral web: Public sector reform, technology and digital (in)justice

“…The reality is that e-government makes no space for gender, it is a rationally designed interface that is purposefully gender-blind. This is problematic given all that we know about the need for gender-responsive justice and the developments that have been made in the lower courts in recent years (Minson, 2015;Player, 2012;Birkett, 2016Birkett, , 2021. It also risks running counter to the legal and policy developments promised by government a full decade ago (see Equality Act, 2010; Ministry of Justice, 2007).…”

Reducing Prison Sentencing Through Pre‐Sentence Reports? Why the Quasi‐Market Logic of ‘Selling Alternatives to Custody’ Fails

“…Variously referred to as ‘concurrence’, ‘concordance’, or ‘agreement’, as if evidencing one‐way causality, Reports are assumed to have influenced the sentence outcome they suggested (for example, Cole and Angus , p.302; Deane , p.93; Leifker and Sample ; Taylor, Clarke and McArt ). The co‐incidence of a recommendation and sentencing outcome is conflated with judges ‘agreeing with’ the recommendation, or elsewhere as ‘following’ the recommendation (Birkett , p.500). However, the fact that in a formal sense sentence follows a Report does not, in itself, evidence the desired influence (for example, Morgan and Haines ; Parker, Sumner and Jarvis , pp.142–65; Tata et al .…”

“…A long tradition of sentencing and probation literature has proposed that if judicial sentencers are provided with high‐quality information relevant to sentencing then they will make correspondingly less use of custody (for example, Bateman ; Brown and Levy ; Creamer ; Curran and Chambers ; Gelsthorpe and Raynor ; Social Work Services Inspectorate ; Swain ; Taylor, Clarke and McArt ). Recently, for example, Birkett () concludes that the failure to reduce the prison sentencing of women is, in large measure, due to ‘the continued lack of confidence in community options for women among many magistrates in community penalties in turn due to a lack of information’ (p.509). Provision of high‐quality information, ‘will allow them to make more informed sentencing decisions and may help to raise levels of confidence in community options’ (p.510).…”

Transforming women’s rehabilitation? An early assessment of gender-specific provision in three Community Rehabilitation Companies

“…The key role of the Pre-Sentence Report (or equivalent) must be recognized here. It is unlikely that sentencers will impose requirements that have not been recommended in court reports, and so this issue may relate more directly to NPS court staff rather than sentencers (see Birkett, 2016). The knowledge of practitioners (in particular keyworkers) on the principles of sentencing is another important point.…”