Summary

What makes a sentence effective?

• What makes a sentence ’effective’ in consequentialist terms is a challenging question made more difficult because key terms (such as reoffending, deterrence, rehabilitation, desistance, and reintegration) take on different meanings in various contexts. Therefore, care is needed when using seemingly intuitive terms.
• The literature suggests several broad objectives that an effective sentence may achieve or facilitate through rehabilitative effects. Foremost amongst these are the related goals of attaining reduced reoffending and promoting desistance and reintegration.
• Reduced reoffending is an important objective that can facilitate desistance and reintegration. While reducing reoffending is important, in the absence of reintegration or desistance, reductions in offending are less likely to persist. Yet, reoffending can be a more quantifiable metric which has advantages – though care must still be taken as there are different definitions of reoffending.
• Reintegration into the conventional social world beyond the simple act of reintroducing into the community by virtue of their release and desistance from offending are ambitious objectives sentencing may aim to promote. While there are multiple complex definitions, these terms are generally considered as going beyond a short-term reduction or lull in offending. They can, therefore, entail significant and lasting changes on the part of the offender. However, while strategies focused on sentencing can play a pivotal role, fully supporting desistance and reintegration goes beyond sentencing alone.

The Effectiveness of Sentencing Options on Reoffending

• Deterrence is another consequentialist goal sentencing may seek to achieve and has a statutory basis as part of the purpose of reducing crime. Deterrent sentences can seek to affect the general population to dissuade them from offending, or the specific offender to dissuade them from reoffending.
• The evidence does not suggest that using more severe sentences (particularly sentences of immediate imprisonment over other disposals) has significant deterrent effects on the person sentenced or the general population. However, more evidence is needed to assess the deterrent effects of suspended custodial sentences, rather than immediate imprisonment, on those subject to such an order.

How is effectiveness researched?

• Research on the effectiveness of sentencing is diverse. Studies have used quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research designs. This diversity of approaches is needed to show what effects sentences have (or do not have) and to understand the reasons for this.
• The most important quantitative studies are those using appropriate statistical techniques to control for differences between offences and offenders. There are perils to inferring too much from data without sufficient controls.
• Statistics on “proven reoffending” are derived from official data. Aspects of reoffending to consider include the proportion who reoffend, the number of reoffences per person, and the seriousness/ harm of reoffending. However, as above, (proven) reoffending is not the only metric and it has limitations.
• In drawing comparisons between different studies on effectiveness careful attention is needed to scrutinise any methodological differences or varying definitions of phenomena such as “reoffending.” Such differences can make it difficult to compare the results of various studies. Additionally, some studies use different terminology to refer to sentences.

Which sentences are effective?

• When researching what sentence will be most effective at achieving positive outcomes, considerations include the offender’s characteristics (e.g. whether their offending may be linked to mental disorders or addictions and what treatments are available), the nature of the offence (e.g. such as offences committed in a domestic context raise distinct considerations), and the specific interventions available (e.g. various requirements may be part of a community order). There are vast bodies of research on many of these factors.
• Some offences are linked to higher rates of reoffending and a few persons stubbornly engage in low harm, high volume offences (e.g. repeat shoplifting). These offenders may require special consideration as to how to facilitate their desistance journey and reduce reoffending.
• The evidence strongly suggests that short custodial sentences under twelve months are less effective than other disposals at reducing re-offending. There is little evidence demonstrating any significant benefits of such sentences. Indeed, there is a reasonable body of evidence to suggest short custodial sentences can make negative outcomes (such as reoffending) worse.
• The current evidence does not suggest that increasing the length of immediate prison sentences is an effective way to reduce reoffending. Some research suggests that what happens during a custodial sentence (e.g. rehabilitative interventions) may matter more than sentence length.

The Effectiveness of Sentencing Options on Reoffending

• Community sentences and suspended sentences appear to have an advantage in avoiding some of the criminogenic effects of imprisonment (e.g. negative peer associations within prisons).
• Certain requirements of community sentences or suspended sentences may be more effective at promoting positive outcomes than others. Further research on the use of (and barriers to the use of) various requirements would be beneficial.
• Some evidence suggests that the effectiveness of sentencing will vary for different ethnic and gender groups. Results for ethnicity are mixed, likely due to methodological differences in study design. Still, there is evidence that the effects of imprisonment for women are different than for men and that there are differences in how best to address offending. Additionally, any disparities in sentencing between groups will have implications for effectiveness.

What are the implications?

• The evidence against the effectiveness of short custodial sentences is amongst the most robust. There is also good evidence on what is effective in certain circumstances (e.g. cases involving addiction or mental health issues).
• As it emerges, further research on the effects of specific disposals (e.g. the effect of various requirements of suspended sentence orders or community orders in terms of matters such as reoffending, net-widening, and cost-effectiveness) will be beneficial. For example, the Council will consider undertaking work with offenders to understand which elements of their sentence may have influenced rehabilitation.³ Additionally, further research into “what works” for different sectors of the population (e.g. different ethnicities and genders) would be beneficial.
• Some considerations about what is effective will likely need to be taken on a per- guideline/ offence basis in light of the relevant disposal options, the barriers to the use of relevant disposal options, and the typical profile of persons committing the offence (e.g. some offences may be associated with certain defendant needs such as addiction or mental disorders).

³ ‘Strategic Objectives 2021-2026’ (n 2) 12.
‍