1

Social Work, Payback and Punishment

Fergus McNeillProfessor of Criminology & Social Work

Universities of GlasgowF.McNeill@lbss.gla.ac.uk

Scotland’s Choice (2008)

• ‘The evidence that we have reviewed leads us to the conclusion that to use imprisonment wisely is to target it where it can be most effective - in punishing serious crime and protecting the public.

1. To better target imprisonment and make it more effective, the Commission recommends that imprisonment should be reserved for people whose offences are so serious that no other form of punishment will do and for those who pose a significant threat of serious harm to the public.

2. To move beyond our reliance on imprisonment as a means of punishing offenders, the Commission recommends that paying back in the community should become the default position in dealing with less serious offenders’ [emphasis added].

McLeish and CJSW

• Community payback and the CSS• Enhanced court SW units

– Diversion– Bail – Stage 2 sentencing vs. social enquiry– Stage 3 sentencing -- progress courts

• NCJC and NSC– Leadership and dynamism

• Resettlement and recall– The right to reintegration

Payback in McLeish (2008)

• ‘In essence, payback means finding constructive ways to compensate or repair harms caused by crime. It involves making good to the victim and/or the community. This might be through financial payment, unpaid work, engaging in rehabilitative work or some combination of these and other approaches. Ultimately, one of the best ways for offenders to pay back is by turning their lives around’ (Scottish Prisons Commission, 2008: 3.28, emphasis added).

PRISONPunishing Serious Crime

Protecting the Public

THE COMMUNITY SUPERVISION

SENTENCEPaying Back in and to the Community

OTHER PENALTIESPaying Back

without Supervision

Paying Back throughRestriction of Liberty

Paying Back throughUnpaid Work

Paying Back by Working at Change

Paying Back Financially

Paying Back throughRestorative Justice

ConvictionAdmonitionFines, etc.

STAGE 1:How much payback?

STAGE 2:What kind of

payback?

STAGE 3: Checking progress

and payback

The judge makes a judgement about

the level of penaltyrequired by the offence – with

information from the PF & defence agent

The judge makes a judgement aboutthe best form of pay back – with

input from the court social worker and

the offender

The compliance court holds the offender toaccount for paying back – recognising

progress and dealing with lapses and

setbacks

Paying Back byWorking at Change

Drugs Use

AlcoholUse

Housing

Work andLeisure

Education and

Training

FamilyIssues

PersonalProblems

Mental and Physical

Health

MoneyProblems

OtherProblems

Attitudes, Values,Thinking

PeerPressure

Payback in Casey (2008)

• ‘Engaging Communities in Fighting Crime’– A solution to perceived problems of public confidence

in criminal justice and community penalties…– Community service re-branded (again) as ‘community

payback’– CP to be more visible and more demanding; not

something the general public would chose to do themselves (i.e. painful or punishing)

– Offenders doing payback should wear bibs identifying them as such (i.e. shaming)

Casey’s Payback vs. McLeish’s Payback?

• ‘Casey is absolutely right to utilise emotive appeals to the public in order to increase public confidence in the criminal justice system. Justice is, at its heart, an emotional, symbolic process, not simply a matter of effectiveness and efficiency. However, if Casey’s purpose was to increase confidence in community interventions, then she drew on the exact wrong emotions. Desires for revenge and retribution, anger, bitterness and moral indignation are powerful emotive forces, but they do not raise confidence in probation work -- just the opposite. To do that, one would want to tap in to other, equally cherished, emotive values, such as the widely shared belief in redemption, the need for second chances, and beliefs that all people can change’

(Maruna and King (2008) ‘Selling the Public on Probation: Beyond the bib’. Probation Journal 55(4): 337-351) .

Social work, payback and punishment

• Punishment or alternatives to punishment?• Constructive punishment versus ‘merely punitive

punishment’ (Duff, 2003)• Justice (criminal and social) versus effective crime control• Rehabilitation and punishment in conditions of insecurity

• Trust, confidence and leniency

• Expressive punishment• CJSW’s proper signals?

Safer, Stronger [and Fairer]

Retribution (but not ‘merely

punitive’ punishment)

Reparation Rehabilitation

CJSW

Safer, Stronger [and Fairer]

Communities

Victims Offenders

Courts

CJSW

Conclusions and questions

• Insecurity, safety and protection– Community justice and safety or public protection?– The paradox of protection and the risks of risk– Prioritising imagined victims and offenders over ‘real’ victims and

offenders• Rehabilitation as reparation and restoration

– The moral and practical necessity of the other ‘re-’: redistribution (and the link to social justice)

• Rethinking CJSW’s moral priorities and practical focus– Taking communities’, offenders’ and victims’ rights and responsibilities

(to retribution, reparation and rehabilitation) seriously• But to what extent is maintaining the balance the job of

CJSW and/or the job of the whole CJS and/or the job of the whole of society?