Sentencing Women: An Analysis of Recent Trends

Abstract

IntroductionThis chapter analyses changes in the sentencing of women between 2000 and 2012. We update an earlier analysis conducted by Hedderman (2004) Drawing on analyses of official statistics and on a recent interview study with a small sample of magistrates and judges, the findings indicate that whilst overall the use of custody appears to have remained fairly static, there are interesting differences between the sentencing practices of magistrates and Crown Court sentencers. Moreover, rather than witnessing significant shifts between immediate custody and non-custodial options for women, a key finding of this analysis concerns the shifting landscape within non-2 custodial sentencing, particularly the increasing use of Suspended Sentence Orders, introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as an 'alternative to custody', which seem instead to be used in place of other lower-tariff community orders (Stanley, 2009).The chapter concludes by raising concerns about how this shift, combined with the restriction of judicial discretion when orders are breached, may lead non-custodial sentences to become precursors, rather than alternatives, to custody. Community-based options for dealing with women who offend have been developed in the light of evidence concerning differences in their offending-related needs and responses to punishment, especially prison (for example, Together Women project, discussed later in this chapter).It is important that sentencers, particularly magistrates, are informed of the value of such facilities and understand that using them in place of custody constitutes an appropriate, rather than an unduly favourable, response to most women who offend. Understanding the contextIn the eight years leading up to the Millennium, the number of women in prison more than doubled to reach 3,350 (Home Office, 2001a). Previous research concluded that this was because of changing criminal justice responses to women offenders rather than changes in underlying offending (Hedderman, 2004). Hedderman's analysis found that there had been a move away from cautioning and towards sending women to court, together with a generally harsher sentencing climate. Thus, when women reached court and were convicted, even those dealt with for minor offences were much more likely to receive a custodial sentence. Most strikingly, a third of the extra women being sentenced to prison over this period were convicted of theft and handling; and the proportionate use 3 of custody for this group by magistrates rose more than for any other offence (Hedderman, 2004).There are at least three reasons to think that the sentencing of women is likely to have changed since 2000. First, there have been a number of legislative changes which could be expected to have implications for the treatment of women in the criminal justice system. Second, for at least part of this period, diverting women from custody was an explicit government policy objective. This included devoting funds to develop local community-based support services for women offende...

The Evolution of Sentencing Policy and Practice in England and Wales, 2003–2015

“…Numerous scholars (e.g., Ashworth and Player 2005;Wasik 2014;Ashworth 2015, pp. 318-22;Hedderman and Barnes 2015) have drawn attention to this example of "up-tariffing," which occurs when a sentence designed to replace immediate custody (because it is a form of custody) is ultimately applied to less serious cases (see Morris and Tonry 1990, pp. 156-57).…”

Reducing female admissions to custody: Exploring the options at sentencing

“…Parliament could also amend the suspended sentence order provisions. As noted by many scholars, the new, 'improved' suspended sentence regime introduced in 2003 has resulted in a dramatic increase in the use of suspended sentence orders but these cases have clearly been drawn from the community order caseload (Hedderman and Barnes, 2015). During the period 2005-2013, the percentage of cases resulting in a community order has declined significantly, while terms of immediate custody have increased.…”

“…Over the past 20 years, the sentencing of female offenders has attracted a significant volume of scholarly commentary (e.g. Gelsthorpe and Sharpe, 2015; Hedderman and Barnes, 2015; Player, 2012). In particular, the reliance on prison as a sanction for female offenders has long been a concern in many jurisdictions.…”

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

“…alternative options available… and how sentencers perceive their effectiveness ' (2013: 426; see also Hedderman and Barnes, 2015).…”

“…Responsible for sentencing the vast majority of women offenders, utilization of the above services by magistrates is a growing area of empirical interest (see Hunter and Radcliffe, 2013), and as highlighted by Hedderman and Gunby (2013: 426; see also Hedderman and Barnes, 2015), more research is needed to explore ‘the alternative options available […] and how sentencers perceive their effectiveness’.…”