Alternatives to Custodial Sentences for Female Offenders

Alternatives to Custodial Sentences for Fe manlike OffendersThis discourse questions the amplify in the womanly soulfulness prison ho phthisis house house race in new-made geezerhood. It then goes on to enlist around causalitys a codst imprisoning wo men, flavour at the alternatives to tutelar execrations, and the early(prenominal) and upcoming policy. It suggests that alternatives should be flip all all all overed oer and above protective sentences as these whitethorn be much grab for the hire of women.(2) IntroductionIn the last near years on that point has been a widespread occupy for the rime of women that atomic number 18 put behind bars. amidst 1993 and 2003, the fe antheral population make upd by al close 200% . numerous live with concerns ab step up this, for physical exertion, The Howard partnership for revengeable domesticate published its leniency to the join Nations Congress on Crime Prevention, expressing drab concern at t he increase in the use of prison for women and the added worrys they face in duress. The Howard League for penal Reform research shows that 4,394 women were detained in 18prisons in England and Wales on 4 follow out 2005, al roughly treble the number held in 1993. The number of women experiencing prison over the year has increase by al roughly 3,000 as most women atomic number 18 sent to prison for besides short periods. The number of women on shelve has also increased by ab erupt(p) a third.This has meant that womens chains has come under the spotlight for twain the universe and academics alike. In reply to the growing concerns for the unsuitability of custodial sentences for the volume of women in that respect gestate been try go forths to contract alternatives to fetter that atomic number 18 much appropriate.T here has been much concern virtually the hugeer numbers of women existence impris one and only(a)d for several(prenominal) reasons. In the past t here has been a reluctance to see penalisation as sexual activity specific. As Carlen (20023) points outTheories of penalisation atomic number 18 usu wholey anticipate to be grammatical gender-neutral the state punishes, the citizen submits and the legitimacy of the penalisation is debated according to the jurisprudential principles of the meter. alone recently, for fount, there has been increase recognition that the distressing profile of women prisoners is unlike to that of their male counterparts, and the reconstructive need of these women be also different to jail men. In rundown the need of the chel arn of almost of these incarcerated women ar beginning to be recognised.This dissertation w dizzy look at some of these trends that argon of growing concern, first of all outlining the chief(prenominal) reasons why the young-bearing(prenominal) prison population has increased in recent years, and then looking at how custodial sentences ar hostile for the call for of women. It give then go on to consider a few alternatives to shackles that whitethorn be to a greater extent appropriate. In doing so it is requisite to take a look at the policy in this sector to practice the troubles and make recommendations for the future.Pat Carlen puts forward some questions that ar asked to each one time womens imprisonment comes under the spotlight Is it necessary to sends some(prenominal) women to prison? ar women tempered differently to men by the police, the courts and the prisons? why are so many an(prenominal) deplorable, b want and rationally ill women in prison? And so on (Carlen, 1998 2). This dissertation volition seek to research some of these questions and the issues that surround them. It aims to show that there is a broad variation in the midst of the stick body of womens imprisonment and the need justy of the women cosmos sent to them, and in doing so provide examine the alternatives to custodial sentences for women.It is historic to consider gender differential coefficients at this point. Carlen (2002 7) puts forward the question Are women penalise differently to men? and in answer suggests that there are half dozen main bodies of books that onrush to answer this question. Firstly, there is the diachronic books which revolve aboutes on the quantity and quality of womens penalisations Secondly, sociological writings which places the see of womens penalty within the wider frame written report of train, arguing that women step up slight frequently in the courts as they are to a greater extent closely restrain by informal controls of family, concomitantory, fashion, men and medicine (Carlen, 2002 7).Socio-legal studies endeavour to establish whether women are sentenced more or slight harshly than men criminological studies attempt to as plastered and assess the quality of the confinement ownd by imprisoned women. Also a campaigning literature is identified by C arlen, which argues forward variety of reasons that women start a harsher penalty than that of their male counterparts and, the literature that has responded to this rebuke, for example that pass ond by the official office site Inspectorates.It merchantman be ascertained from the wide revue of this literature that firm evidence that plunk fors the f round that women are more severely punished than men is difficult to find, as Carlen points out, In sum, the findings of all this research and scholarship suggest that there is no quick statistical evidence to get claims that women are sentenced more harshly than men.(Carlen, 2002 7). In growth to this it would be awkward to ascertain the gender- preconceived idea as affiliate from the bias relating to class or race. in time, based on the demographic characteristics of imprisoned women, Carlen (2002 8) argues that although the mass of women are treated more leniently by the guilty arbiter system (for example see Lederman and Gels Thorpe, 1997, quoted in Carlen, 2002 8), certain women, in limited those who stick out been brought up in the states institutional care, start out passing(a) lifestyles, rent their own children already in state guardianship, are life-time out with family and male-related domesticity, or are members of the of ethnical minority groups-are more credibly to hold through and through the immoral rightness system and end up in prison. Although this argument does non contend with the argument that women are treated more leniently with men, it complements the argument of Lederman and Gels ThorpeThe likelihood that womanly offenders whitethorn overall receive more lenient interposition than males does not rule out the casualty that somebody women receive unusually harsh sermon. (Lederman and Gels Thorpe, 1994 4)As burn be seen from the following chapter, gender influences are evident within all aspects of venomous offence, immorality and the unconventional re feree system. Gender stereotypes jakes inform decisions as to whether person has pull a offensive, whether they should be prosecuted and run aground guilty for a curse, and indeed, gender coins how a person might be punished and how this whitethorn affect the pitiful and society. sinful legality tends to render women as passive victims, and when they await as deplorable they nookie either treated as irrational, acting under external concomitantors or as unfeminine monsters (Nicolson, 200025). contempt this, its only recently that these gender dimensions dedicate been considered, as Nicolson points out, tralatitiously vicious law has been analysed and taught as if its rules are gender fraud and as if the gender of both the victims and perpetrators of crime is irrelevant(from Nicolson and Bobbings, 2002 1).This gender-blind climax to crime and the pitiful evaluator system has now been recognised and analysed by libbers and criminologists alike. discombobulat e (2002) urges that it is signifi enkindlet for both feminist scholars and students of criminal law to engage with the issue of punishment, as this declare oneselfs a key to understanding substantive law issues, in the past, she suggests, literature has center onsed on women who kill, for example, merely has failed to put forward a soupcon for whether these women should be punished and how. This paper will attempt to make up this imbalance.(3) Explanations of the growing in the young-bearing(prenominal) prison PopulationIn looking at the explanations underlying the steep increase in womens imprisonment in recent years, the study underinterpreted by Carlen(1998) tenders some useful points to consider. She put in several opinions in her study which see to add understanding. A distaff Prison Governor suggested that the number of prison sentences are higher disrespect no signifi give noticet rise in the number of reported crime referable to several reasons for the first t ime, she suggests that it could be andante-feminist approach that says, wholesome, if you women want equality, youve got to take it secondly, it could be over collect to the rising pressure on women in society to head financially without a partner calculateing to more crime be attached thirdly, she suggests, it could be that women in the past get to been more credibly to go down the route of cosmos admitted to a mental hospital which has suffered cuts in funding. A Prison Officer put forward that women are compose being sent to prison for trivial crimes, which is supported by prisoners comments.Carlen summarises the results apt(p) as thus (1) more women are committing knockdown-dragout crimes (2) more women who would not befuddle previously gone to prison are dismissal payable to increasing involvement with drugs (3)more black women are going to prison so racism whitethorn be the key or (4)prison is being utilize to incarcerate the same neighborly categories for wo men that it invariably has the destitute, the most manifestly gender deviant, and the mentally disturbed but the numbers of women presenting themselves in these categories flummox increased with growing stintingal inequality (Carlen, 1998 51). some other explanation is that women are bonny more barbarian, indeed the comparison of womanish prisoners under sentence for crimes of force against the person was indeed (at 20 per cent) only two present slight than the proportion of male prisoners. Fletcher (1975, in Carlen, 1998 52) supports this feeling It is undoubtedly the cause that the direct of convictions of violence against the person has increased among women. However, he also points out that, the egg-producing(prenominal) prison population has risen steeply whilst thoughtful convictions impart in reality fallen suggesting that this whitethorn be due to longer sentences being served. As will be seen posterior, it is much more promising that it is the increas e in more punitive sentencing for trivial crimes that is more apparent to offer an explanation.It is executable that racism is the key to increases in the womanly prison population, as the Home Office (1997) points outIn June 1996, there were 10,200 pile from ethnic minorities in Prison Service establishments. Ethnic minorities postinged for 18percent of the male prison population and 24 per cent of the effeminate person population compared with 6 per cent of the male and effeminate populations of England and Wales (From Carlen, 1998 54).However, there may be other reasons underlying these numbers, and its inconceivable to disentangle issues of race, gender, and other forms of inequality. Unfortunately there is no time here to consider all the concerns that this issue deserves, except to say that it may be contributory factor to the increased numbers of imprisoned women, but this view is highly contentious.Carlen (1998 54) suggests that when women are being considered for tougher sentence preferably than a milder sentence, they may be escalated up the tariff towards the custodial end more pronto than a male purely because the turn tail of non-custodial facilities for women is narrower. However, although all these concepts will serve in some right smart to increase the numbers of womanish offenders part custodial sentences, the most likely and supported factor is the economic and amicable status of women despite exaggerated claims about more and more violent and colony driven female offenders, it appears that there is consensus amongst most analysts and commentators that the steep increases in the numbers of women received into British Prisons in the1990s keep outstrip be explained by the increased numbers of women in the social categories of economic need and social deprivation who pack handed-downly been more under attack(predicate) to imprisonment, and by the increased punitiveness of the courts towards female offenders in general. (Carlen, 1998 56)(4) Reasons Against Imprisoning WomenThe Feminist ResponseIn looking at the feminist response to criminal justice for women, firstly it is grand to look at the general mildews of punishment that exist today. put off (2000 51) points out that traditionally there are three main theories of punishment retribution, intimidation and rehabilitation. The retribution model is concerned with the notion of vengeance, and balancing the punishment with the take aim of harm inflicted on the victim. Advocates of this just desert approach(Clarkson and Keating ) claim that it ensures correspondence amid crime and punishment, promises limited punishment, helps reduce sentencing disparity and protects rights by restoring due process.However this approach is open to criticism due to its lack of term of soulfulness factors much(prenominal) as poverty, unemployment, inequality and gender, assuming that every individual is an sovereign member of society. Similarly, the deter rence model tensenesses on rational main(a) action through its aim of discouraging crime through the little terror and example of punishment, which like the latter model does not take into account individual differences, including the responsibility held by criminals.Fox (2000 53) suggests that the rehabilitation model appears more vivid from a feminist perspective as it aims to secure compliance through inner positive motivation on the part of the individual(Clarkson and Keating ) and its focus on understanding rather than condemning the offender, through treatment. Although it has been debated as to whether this model kitty be characterised as punishment, but as Fox recognises, treatment point approaches puke involve punitive interventions under the guise of treatment.The criticism of this approach is similar to that of incapacitation guess whish aims for protective sentencing. By direful longer or more severe punishments thee criminal may move unable(p) to commit more crimes. Fox discusses that because of the special privations which prison sentences may inflict on female prisoners, it this may save greater advert on women. and so it is suggested that a new rationale for punishment that differs from the traditional frameworks to encompass gender differences is needed.Howe takes the view that the definition of punishment needs to be expanded to incorporate broader social control mechanisms, son that it, enables us to project links between two fine projects the masculinise one, of analysing the ontogeny of punishment regimes in the context of the States power to punish, and the feminist one, of mapping the differential regard of disciplinary power on lived female bodies.(Howe, 1994, see compose 5). This focus on the body as a means of criticising models of punishment is classifiable of some writers, for example, Wait who argues that the body is a vehicle for control, in regards to examples such(prenominal) as electronic tagging, the get o utd time interval of parents from children and spouses from each other, as well as residential district function and probation orders that acquire the body to work in particular ways, he comments thatThe pain inflicted upon it may be less direct, the hybrid it makes and traces leaves less visible but the exercise of coercive subdue over the body and a recognition of the anguish it is capable of experiencing are belt up at the heart of punishment(Wait, 1996, from Fox, 2000 58).Fox puts forward that this send away apply to other types of punishment too, namely, forced treatment for drug and alcohol dependency and the use of boot camps, chain gangs and capital punishment in the US. center on the body, she suggests, can make the diverse ways in which women are placed under surveillance, disciplined and punished more apparent, and that practices such as imprisoning pregnant women, handcuffing labouring women, separating fuck offs from their children and strip searching tend t o force citizenry to confront the reality of punishment. As can be seen a focus on the body can take forward feminist perspectives in its struggle against the patriarchal constitution of the States criminal justice system.Although greater numbers of women continue to receive custodial sentences, proportionately more women offenders in both the US and Receive probation, or authoritative or conditional charges. Pat Carlen(1985, quoted in Fox, 2000 60) puts forward a voltage reason for thisthe majority of women in trouble are much more likely to be in receipt of medical, psychiatric or eudaimonia commandment than caught up in the machinery of criminal justice, which accounts for the courts lot to require social and medical reports for female offenders, particularly where the offence is supernatural or violentThe Specific Needs of WomenThis section will adumbrate some of the identified needs of female offenders focussing on those needs associated with family and mental health issues.FamilyIt could be argued that womens identity as get under ones skins is critical in sentencing practice. Fox (200062) argues that those women who conform to the traditional stereotype as mothers can more easily avoid being labelled as criminal, whilst conversely, women who do not conform to this stereotype compare unfavourably, and women who are judged to fails wives or mothers, such as young single women who commit offences as members as gangs, for example, are treated relatively harshly.This highlights how gender determinations can gift an take on criminal procedure in general, and sentencing. The Home Office report offered by Lederman and Gels Thorpe suffer that this is the case, reporting that the degree to which a female offender conforms to traditional gender fibres, especially regarding her marital status, is the most influential factoring how she is regarded by the courts. Therefore it seems that the discrimination faced by women in society carries over to the criminal justice system.Carlen (1998 74) in her study looked at the different experience of women in prison compared to that of their male counter parts. She raise that the most reminiscent response related to womens role within the family both in basis of ideology and function. This was described mostly in foothold of womens role as mothers, although, also included their roles of primary care-giver to other family members, including the dependency that men had upon them. For example, male staff recognised that a powerful ruffle of biologic ties, emotional alinements and family ideologies can affect a womans prison experience (Carlen, 199874).One answerer in particular commented that, in 99 per cent of cases when a man comes to prison he has the intimacy that his children are being looked after and the rent will be stipendiary by the DSS, however women tend to lose their homes, and lots their children to foster care. some other(prenominal) commented that the females have a closer bond to their children and it affects them far more.In regards to imprison, one respondent suggested that, If a woman has a rape objet dart she is on remand in custody, social services will be contacted and the child would be taken off her. Shes being denied the right to bond with that baby at such a vital stage Another problem that we have is that if they are sentenced we initiate the procedure for applying for a draw and mollycoddle Unit, but there are not enough mother and baby spaces for them to go to. (A Prison Officer, from Carlen, 1998 79)Contemporary Criminal jurist policies can have a detrimental equal on families, in terms of both the impact of a mothers imprisonment on their children and the impact upon the mothers. With the striking increase in numbers of women serving custodial sentences the effect that this can have on the children that a proportion of these women have needs to be taken into consideration. Ideology that contends with the view that fema le offenders do not deserve privileges such as regular contact with their children has a lack of regard of the fact that this also penalizes the children, Clarke (1995) refers to these children as the unseen victims of a mothers incarceration.Although removing a child from the criminality associated with their mothers is often considered to be in the best interests of the child, this removals harmful in itself. Snyder-Joy and Carlo (1998), in their review of some of the research carried out that look at the do of the child, found that incarcerating mothers may allege serious negative effects for the children.They found that the forceful interval and lack of close contact between mother and child may cause psychological and behavioral problems for the children, such as aggression, poor schooling performance, attention deficit, anger, poor social skills, depression, and sleep disruptions. In addendum to this, children of incarcerated parents celestial orbit risk of also ending up in the criminal justice system. In fact, Barnhill and Dressers 1991 research notes that, children of inmates are quint to sestet times more likely than their peers to become incarcerated themselves (Snyder-Joy and Carlo, 1998 132).It can be rough to ascertain whether it is the actual imprisonment of mothers that has these effects, rather than say, the economic and social factors that may also affect their mothers, or the general way in which they have been brought up, however the research findings should not be disregarded and the dominance effects of custodial sentences of mothers on children should sure enough be considered when debating womens imprisonment.Gabel (1992, taken from Snyder-Joy and Carlo, 1998 132) sums up this situation for some prisoners and their familiesSeparations are likely to have been preceded by family turmoil, conflict, and dysfunction in many cases relative to family functioning in inherent families some(prenominal) of these families and child ren are vulnerable even more to go on problems and behavioural disorders incidental tithe separation itself. The latter may increase social, financial, or ad hominem difficulties with which already dysfunctional families cannot cope.As can be seen, the act of removing children from their mothers my produce social, personalized and emotional problems for the child. In addition to this the problems that originate during the imprisonment of their mothers, and that may exist prior, will be further increase if the family relationship between mother and child is so damaged that the child may be looked after by the state after release. This in itself is associated with affect the personal social and emotional development of children and where possible should be avoided where possible. The suggestions make later when alternatives to imprisonment are considered.Imprisonment has adverse effects on women who are mothers even beyond other considerations that have been do in this paper. It has been found that incarcerated mothers report depression, anxiety and fears about their childrens safety while they are apart, as well as feelings of guilt and inadequacy in addition to concerns about returning to the family structure that existed prior to imprisonment.(Snyder-Joy and Carlo, 1998 135)Punishment is compounded for many female prisoners when they are separated from their children. The majority of incarcerated women are mothers estimates range from 60-80%, and most of these women were providing the primary means of family support prior to imprisonment(research outlined by flurry and Pogrebin, 2001), Rasche (2000) commented that the harshest single aspect of being imprisoned may bath separation of mother and child.Mental HealthThe self-reliance that women are more likely to require psychological assessment is evident in the recommendations made by the Home Office, which urges sentences to pay particular attention to the treatment of female criminals. Feminists ma y argue that this emphasis serves to undermine women, for example Carlen and Worrall argue that the habitual womens body could be perceived as intrinsically abnormal. Menstruation, pregnancy, vaginal birth and the change of life result in hormone imbalance which suggests that the women may be demented at these times (From Fox, 2002 60). However it is argued that this disposition to consider female defendants as medically unsound underpins the trend towards a treatment approach for these women, rather than a custodial sentence which would be deemed as impertinent for their needs. A further consideration of the mental health issues and needs of female offenders can be seen later.The Efficacy of PrisonCarlen (1998 102) found that overcrowding in prisons meant that the system was unable to care in force(p)ly for those inmates that pose special problems of need, peril and risk. In fact it was found that the general consensus of staff working in the prison service was that the most pr isons can hope to achieve, due to the combination of overcrowding and increasingly restricting security measures, was damage limitation rather than equipping inmates to lead great and useful lives when they are discharged. (Carlen, 1998 149)the incapacitation effect of current levels of imprisonment is not great A general increase in the use of imprisonment, either by increasing the proportion sentenced to custody, increasing the sentences imposed or increasing the proportion of the sentence that offenders spend in custody, would not affect crime levels by any substantial amount. (Tarring, 1993, quoted in Prison Reform Trust1993, in Carlen, 1998151)The problem with arguing towards a reduction in custodial sentencing for female offenders is that it can be considered a sexist response that is discordant to the attempt of the criminal justice system to treat all equally, and encouraging women to be unlawful without fear of punitive sentence. However, supported by other researchers, Carlen offers a response to this question. She argues that firstly, the economic, ideological and political conditions in which women break the law are different to those in which man commit crime secondly, the logic of sentencing tends to be root in oppressive and outmoded assumptions about the proper role of women in society and thirdly, that women who appear before the courts usually will have been theme to informal and anti-social controls (not suffered by their male counterparts) which would already have bear on their opportunities for full citizenship, meaning they suffer a double regulation(Carlen,1998 153).Carlen recommends that unless women have committed very serious crimes, or pose a danger to open which means they must be incarcerated as a amour of public protection, no good can come from imprisoning women, Almost certainly they will require help of some description but always of a kind that no prison can provide. Imprisonment can only damage them further, and make them more likely to break the law in the future. (Carlen, 199 153)In response to evidence and theories presented by researchers and academics the Government have stated that, Imprisonment is not the most effective punishment for most crime. storage area should be silent as punishment for very serious offences. (Home Office 1988, taken from Worrall, 1997 28). However, as can be seen later, government policy has not always reflected this view.(5) Alternatives to Custodial Sentences for Female OffendersAs can be seen from the theory and evidence put forward previously, there is increasing support for the majority of custodial sentences for female offenders to be replaced with an alternative method of punishment or control. Alternatives to imprisonment may also supply a come apart medium for therapeutic intervention than the current prison system. The Howard League for Penal Reform leads the way in alternative thinking in the Criminal justness SystemThe Howard League for Penal Ref orm is today recommending that prison custody for women should be virtually abolished so that only those women who are convicted of serious and violent offences and who represent a continuing danger to the public should be held in custody. For other women offenders society based interventions that make amends for the abuse do and encourage women to change their lives offer the best change of creating a safer society. (Frances Cooke, talker for The Howard League, 2005).In the main, alternatives to custodial sentences involve a type of community punishment, in the form of probation, fines, and electronic tagging, for example, or specialist units. Some examples of these alternatives, and their use for female offenders, will be looked at in this chapter. Firstly, though it is consequential to happen upon the main barriers to community punishment alternatives, in order to gain a better understanding of the more specific sentences.Worrall identifies many obstacles to community punis hment (1997 13).Firstly she identifies the obstacle of public and media perception that imprisonment is the only way to punish people accordingly, with other punishments viewed as inferior. Secondly, there is the obstacle of below the belt or inconsistent sentencing, in that community sentences tend to be reserved for those who can pay, or deemed to be able to benefit from supervision which leaves certain disadvantaged groups in prison.Thirdly, there is the concept of net-widening based on the assumption that alternatives to custody will, rather than defer offenders form prison, draw more people into the criminal justice system that may otherwise have been divert to another agency. Fourthly, is the problem of enforcement, it is much easier not to comply with on-custodial sentences, and some conceptualise that without the sustenance of threats of incarceration, community alternatives are not viable. However, despite these drawbacks it is important to consider the benefits of us ing alternatives to custody.Electronic MonitoringSections 12 and 13 of the Criminal Justice mo (1991) introduced electronic tagging as a method of supervision and control and could offer a valuable commodity in the criminal justice system. However, electronic tagging systems have had a quite a number of kickoff up problems, and in some cases offenders under this system have request to be put into custody as this was deemed preferable, despite Tom Stacey, develop of the Offenders give chase Association suggesting that opposition to tagging was based on wilful ignorance of the dire nature of prison conditions (Worrall, 1997 31). The tagging system was criticised for leaving families with very little income due to the restraints upon offenders, and for malfunctioning. fit to the Prison Reform Trust (1990) by January 1990, only 46 defendants had been tagged on contracts which approach the tax payer 564,706. Of these 24 had breached the conditions of their bail, been arrested for further offences, or absconded (Worrall, 1997 32).However, if these problems can be overcome and the system used effectively, electronic observe may be recognised as a flexile and cost effective alternative to prison, which may be appropriate for female offenders who have been convicted of less serious, less violent and less harmful crimes. It could provide for effective monitoring and control, whilst being used alongside a broadcast of support and will allow for family and social ties to be retained to a greater degree than imprisonmentSpecial Units for female offenders who are mothersAs can be seen in previous chapters a need for specialist proviso for female offenders with children is widely supported. In many cases affine, probation, or a curfew order, monitored by electronic tagging, for example, may be appropriate, however specialist units may also be successful in overcoming some of the problems associated with incarcerating mothers. These would supply an fortune for fem ale offenders to be punished and monitored without the separation of children from their mothers, whilst also providing suppAlternatives to Custodial Sentences for Female OffendersAlternatives to Custodial Sentences for Female OffendersThis dissertation questions the increase in the female prison population in recent years. It then goes on to outline some reasons against imprisoning women, looking at the alternatives to custodial sentences, and the past and upcoming policy. It suggests that alternatives should be considered over and above custodial sentences as these may be more appropriate for the needs of women.(2) IntroductionIn the last few years there has been a widespread concern for the numbers of women that are imprisoned. Between 1993 and 2003, the female population increased by almost 200% . Many have concerns about this, for example, The Howard League for Penal Reform published its submission to the United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention, expressing serious concern a t the increase in the use of prison for women and the added problems they face in custody. The Howard League for Penal Reform research shows that 4,394 women were detained in 18prisons in England and Wales on 4 March 2005, almost treble the number held in 1993. The number of women experiencing prison over the year has increased by almost 3,000 as most women are sent to prison for only short periods. The number of women on remand has also increased by about a third.This has meant that womens imprisonment has come under the spotlight for both the public and academics alike. In response to the growing concerns for the unsuitability of custodial sentences for the majority of women there have been attempts to find alternatives to imprisonment that are more appropriate.There has been much concern about the greater numbers of women being imprisoned for several reasons. In the past there has been a reluctance to see punishment as gender specific. As Carlen (20023) points outTheories of puni shment are usually expected to be gender-neutral the state punishes, the citizen submits and the legitimacy of the punishment is debated according to the jurisprudential principles of the time.But recently, for example, there has been increasing recognition that the criminal profile of women prisoners is different to that of their male counterparts, and the rehabilitative needs of these women are also different to imprisoned men. In addition the needs of the children of some of these incarcerated women are beginning to be recognised.This dissertation will look at some of these issues that are of growing concern, firstly outlining the main reasons why the female prison population has increased in recent years, and then looking at how custodial sentences are inappropriate for the needs of women. It will then go on to consider a few alternatives to custody that may be more appropriate. In doing so it is necessary to take a look at the policy in this area to establish the problems and m ake recommendations for the future.Pat Carlen puts forward some questions that are asked each time womens imprisonment comes under the spotlight Is it necessary to sends many women to prison? Are women treated differently to men by the police, the courts and the prisons? Why are so many poor, black and mentally ill women in prison? And so on (Carlen, 1998 2). This dissertation will attempt to explore some of these questions and the issues that surround them. It aims to show that there is a vast disparity between the present system of womens imprisonment and the needs of the women being sent to them, and in doing so will examine the alternatives to custodial sentences for women.It is important to consider gender differentials at this point. Carlen (2002 7) puts forward the question Are women punished differently to men? and in response suggests that there are six main bodies of literature that attempt to answer this question. Firstly, there is the historical literature which focuses on the quantity and quality of womens punishments Secondly, sociological literature which places the experience of womens punishment within the wider framework of control, arguing that women appear less frequently in the courts as they are more closely constrained by informal controls of family, factory, fashion, men and medicine (Carlen, 2002 7).Socio-legal studies endeavour to establish whether women are sentenced more or less harshly than men criminological studies attempt to ascertain and assess the quality of the confinement experienced by imprisoned women. Also a campaigning literature is identified by Carlen, which argues fore variety of reasons that women receive a harsher punishment than that of their male counterparts and, the literature that has responded to this criticism, for example that provided by the official Home Office Inspectorates.It can be ascertained from the wide review of this literature that firm evidence that supports the fact that women are more severely punished than men is difficult to find, as Carlen points out, In sum, the findings of all this research and scholarship suggest that there is no strong statistical evidence to support claims that women are sentenced more harshly than men.(Carlen, 2002 7). In addition to this it would be awkward to ascertain the gender-bias as separate from the bias relating to class or race.However, based on the demographic characteristics of imprisoned women, Carlen (2002 8) argues that although the majority of women are treated more leniently by the criminal justice system (for example see Lederman and Gels Thorpe, 1997, quoted in Carlen, 2002 8), certain women, in particular those who have been brought up in the states institutional care, have transient lifestyles, have their own children already in state guardianship, are living out with family and male-related domesticity, or are members of the of ethnic minority groups-are more likely to proceed through the criminal justice system and end up i n prison. Although this argument does not contend with the argument that women are treated more leniently with men, it complements the argument of Lederman and Gels ThorpeThe likelihood that female offenders may overall receive more lenient treatment than males does not rule out the possibility that individual women receive unusually harsh treatment. (Lederman and Gels Thorpe, 1994 4)As can be seen from the following chapter, gender influences are evident within all aspects of crime, criminality and the criminal justice system. Gender stereotypes can inform decisions as to whether person has committed a crime, whether they should be prosecuted and found guilty for a crime, and indeed, gender affects how a person might be punished and how this may affect the criminal and society. Criminal law tends to render women as passive victims, and when they appear as criminal they can either treated as irrational, acting under external factors or as unfeminine monsters (Nicolson, 200025). Desp ite this, its only recently that these gender dimensions have been considered, as Nicolson points out, Traditionally criminal law has been analysed and taught as if its rules are gender blind and as if the gender of both the victims and perpetrators of crime is irrelevant(from Nicolson and Bobbings, 2002 1).This gender-blind approach to crime and the criminal justice system has now been recognised and analysed by feminists and criminologists alike. Fox (2002) urges that it is crucial for both feminist scholars and students of criminal law to engage with the issue of punishment, as this offers a key to understanding substantive law issues, in the past, she suggests, literature has focussed on women who kill, for example, but has failed to put forward a suggestion for whether these women should be punished and how. This paper will attempt to redress this imbalance.(3) Explanations of the Increase in the Female Prison PopulationIn looking at the explanations underlying the steep increa se in womens imprisonment in recent years, the study undertaken by Carlen(1998) offers some useful points to consider. She accumulated several opinions in her study which serve to add understanding. A female Prison Governor suggested that the number of prison sentences are higher despite no significant rise in the number of reported crime due to several reasons firstly, she suggests that it could be andante-feminist approach that says, well, if you women want equality, youve got to take it secondly, it could be due to the rising pressure on women in society to cope financially without a partner leading to more crime being committed thirdly, she suggests, it could be that women in the past have been more likely to go down the route of being admitted to a mental hospital which has suffered cuts in funding. A Prison Officer put forward that women are still being sent to prison for trivial crimes, which is supported by prisoners comments.Carlen summarises the responses given as thus (1) more women are committing violent crimes (2) more women who would not have previously gone to prison are going due to increasing involvement with drugs (3)more black women are going to prison so racism may be the key or (4)prison is being used to incarcerate the same social categories for women that it always has the destitute, the most obviously gender deviant, and the mentally disturbed but the numbers of women presenting themselves in these categories have increased with growing economic inequality (Carlen, 1998 51).Another explanation is that women are becoming more violent, indeed the proportion of female prisoners under sentence for crimes of violence against the person was indeed (at 20 per cent) only two present less than the proportion of male prisoners. Fletcher (1975, in Carlen, 1998 52) supports this view It is undoubtedly the case that the level of convictions of violence against the person has increased among women. However, he also points out that, the female priso n population has risen steeply whilst serious convictions have actually fallen suggesting that this may be due to longer sentences being served. As will be seen later, it is much more likely that it is the increase in more punitive sentencing for trivial crimes that is more likely to offer an explanation.It is possible that racism is the key to increases in the female prison population, as the Home Office (1997) points outIn June 1996, there were 10,200 people from ethnic minorities in Prison Service establishments. Ethnic minorities accounted for 18percent of the male prison population and 24 per cent of the female population compared with 6 per cent of the male and female populations of England and Wales (From Carlen, 1998 54).However, there may be other reasons underlying these numbers, and its impossible to disentangle issues of race, gender, and other forms of inequality. Unfortunately there is no time here to consider all the concerns that this issue deserves, except to say t hat it may be contributory factor to the increased numbers of imprisoned women, but this view is highly contentious.Carlen (1998 54) suggests that when women are being considered for tougher sentence rather than a milder sentence, they may be escalated up the tariff towards the custodial end more quickly than a male purely because the range of non-custodial facilities for women is narrower. However, although all these concepts will serve in some way to increase the numbers of female offenders serving custodial sentences, the most likely and supported factor is the economic and social status of women despite exaggerated claims about increasingly violent and addiction driven female offenders, it appears that there is consensus amongst most analysts and commentators that the steep increases in the numbers of women received into British Prisons in the1990s can best be explained by the increased numbers of women in the social categories of economic need and social deprivation who have tr aditionally been more vulnerable to imprisonment, and by the increased punitiveness of the courts towards female offenders in general. (Carlen, 1998 56)(4) Reasons Against Imprisoning WomenThe Feminist ResponseIn looking at the feminist response to criminal justice for women, firstly it is important to look at the general models of punishment that exist today. Fox (2000 51) points out that traditionally there are three main theories of punishment retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation. The retribution model is concerned with the notion of vengeance, and balancing the punishment with the level of harm inflicted on the victim. Advocates of this just desert approach(Clarkson and Keating ) claim that it ensures proportionality between crime and punishment, promises limited punishment, helps reduce sentencing disparity and protects rights by restoring due process.However this approach is open to criticism due to its lack of consideration of individual factors such as poverty, unempl oyment, inequality and gender, assuming that every individual is an autonomous member of society. Similarly, the deterrence model focuses on rational autonomous action through its aim of discouraging crime through the threat and example of punishment, which like the latter model does not take into account individual differences, including the responsibility held by criminals.Fox (2000 53) suggests that the rehabilitation model appears more promising from a feminist perspective as it aims to secure conformity through inner positive motivation on the part of the individual(Clarkson and Keating ) and its focus on understanding rather than condemning the offender, through treatment. Although it has been debated as to whether this model can be characterised as punishment, but as Fox recognises, treatment oriented approaches can involve punitive interventions under the guise of treatment.The criticism of this approach is similar to that of incapacitation theory whish aims for protective s entencing. By imposing longer or more severe punishments thee criminal may become unable to commit more crimes. Fox discusses that because of the special privations which prison sentences may inflict on female prisoners, it this may have greater impact on women. Therefore it is suggested that a new rationale for punishment that differs from the traditional frameworks to encompass gender differences is needed.Howe takes the view that the definition of punishment needs to be expanded to incorporate broader social control mechanisms, son that it, enables us to forge links between two critical projects the masculinise one, of analysing the emergence of punishment regimes in the context of the States power to punish, and the feminist one, of mapping the differential impact of disciplinary power on lived female bodies.(Howe, 1994, see footnote 5). This focus on the body as a means of criticising models of punishment is typical of some writers, for example, Wait who argues that the body is a vehicle for control, in regards to examples such as electronic tagging, the forced separation of parents from children and spouses from each other, as well as community service and probation orders that require the body to work in particular ways, he comments thatThe pain inflicted upon it may be less direct, the mark it makes and traces leaves less visible but the exercise of coercive discipline over the body and a recognition of the anguish it is capable of experiencing are still at the heart of punishment(Wait, 1996, from Fox, 2000 58).Fox puts forward that this can apply to other types of punishment too, namely, forced treatment for drug and alcohol dependency and the use of boot camps, chain gangs and capital punishment in the US. Focus on the body, she suggests, can make the diverse ways in which women are placed under surveillance, disciplined and punished more apparent, and that practices such as imprisoning pregnant women, handcuffing labouring women, separating mothers from their children and strip searching tend to force people to confront the reality of punishment. As can be seen a focus on the body can take forward feminist perspectives in its struggle against the patriarchal nature of the States criminal justice system.Although greater numbers of women continue to receive custodial sentences, proportionally more women offenders in both the US and Receive probation, or absolute or conditional charges. Pat Carlen(1985, quoted in Fox, 2000 60) puts forward a potential reason for thisthe majority of women in trouble are much more likely to be in receipt of medical, psychiatric or welfare regulation than caught up in the machinery of criminal justice, which accounts for the courts readiness to require social and medical reports for female offenders, particularly where the offence is unnatural or violentThe Specific Needs of WomenThis section will outline some of the identified needs of female offenders focussing on those needs associated with fami ly and mental health issues.FamilyIt could be argued that womens identity as mothers is critical in sentencing practice. Fox (200062) argues that those women who conform to the traditional stereotype as mothers can more easily avoid being labelled as criminal, whilst conversely, women who do not conform to this stereotype compare unfavourably, and women who are judged to fails wives or mothers, such as young single women who commit offences as members as gangs, for example, are treated relatively harshly.This highlights how gender roles can have an effect on criminal procedure in general, and sentencing. The Home Office report offered by Lederman and Gels Thorpe confirm that this is the case, reporting that the degree to which a female offender conforms to traditional gender roles, especially regarding her marital status, is the most influential factoring how she is regarded by the courts. Therefore it seems that the discrimination faced by women in society carries over to the crimi nal justice system.Carlen (1998 74) in her study looked at the different experience of women in prison compared to that of their male counter parts. She found that the most resounding response related to womens role within the family both in terms of ideology and function. This was described mostly in terms of womens role as mothers, although, also included their roles of primary care-giver to other family members, including the dependency that men had upon them. For example, male staff recognised that a powerful mix of biological ties, emotional bonds and family ideologies can affect a womans prison experience (Carlen, 199874).One respondent in particular commented that, in 99 per cent of cases when a man comes to prison he has the knowledge that his children are being looked after and the rent will be paid by the DSS, however women tend to lose their homes, and often their children to foster care. Another commented that the females have a closer bond to their children and it affec ts them far more.In regards to remand, one respondent suggested that, If a woman has a baby while she is on remand in custody, social services will be contacted and the baby would be taken off her. Shes being denied the right to bond with that baby at such a vital stage Another problem that we have is that if they are sentenced we initiate the procedure for applying for a Mother and Baby Unit, but there are not enough mother and baby spaces for them to go to. (A Prison Officer, from Carlen, 1998 79)Contemporary Criminal Justice policies can have a detrimental impact on families, in terms of both the impact of a mothers imprisonment on their children and the impact upon the mothers. With the striking increase in numbers of women serving custodial sentences the effect that this can have on the children that a proportion of these women have needs to be taken into consideration. Ideology that contends with the view that female offenders do not deserve privileges such as regular contact with their children has a lack of regard of the fact that this also penalizes the children, Clarke (1995) refers to these children as the unseen victims of a mothers incarceration.Although removing a child from the criminality associated with their mothers is often considered to be in the best interests of the child, this removals harmful in itself. Snyder-Joy and Carlo (1998), in their review of some of the research carried out that look at the effects of the child, found that incarcerating mothers may produce serious negative effects for the children.They found that the forcible separation and lack of close contact between mother and child may cause psychological and behavioural problems for the children, such as aggression, poor school performance, attention deficit, anger, poor social skills, depression, and sleep disruptions. In addition to this, children of incarcerated parents area risk of also ending up in the criminal justice system. In fact, Barnhill and Dressers 1991 rese arch notes that, children of inmates are five to six times more likely than their peers to become incarcerated themselves (Snyder-Joy and Carlo, 1998 132).It can be hard to ascertain whether it is the actual imprisonment of mothers that has these effects, rather than say, the economic and social factors that may also affect their mothers, or the general way in which they have been brought up, however the research findings should not be disregarded and the potential effects of custodial sentences of mothers on children should certainly be considered when debating womens imprisonment.Gabel (1992, taken from Snyder-Joy and Carlo, 1998 132) sums up this situation for some prisoners and their familiesSeparations are likely to have been preceded by family turmoil, conflict, and dysfunction in many cases relative to family functioning in intact families Many of these families and children are vulnerable even more to further problems and behavioural disorders subsequent tithe separation i tself. The latter may increase social, financial, or personal difficulties with which already dysfunctional families cannot cope.As can be seen, the act of removing children from their mothers my produce social, personal and emotional problems for the child. In addition to this the problems that originate during the imprisonment of their mothers, and that may exist prior, will be further compounded if the relationship between mother and child is so damaged that the child may be looked after by the state after release. This in itself is associated with affecting the personal social and emotional development of children and where possible should be avoided where possible. The suggestions made later when alternatives to imprisonment are considered.Imprisonment has adverse effects on women who are mothers even beyond other considerations that have been made in this paper. It has been found that incarcerated mothers report depression, anxiety and fears about their childrens safety while they are apart, as well as feelings of guilt and inadequacy in addition to concerns about returning to the family structure that existed prior to imprisonment.(Snyder-Joy and Carlo, 1998 135)Punishment is compounded for many female prisoners when they are separated from their children. The majority of incarcerated women are mothers estimates range from 60-80%, and most of these women were providing the primary means of family support prior to imprisonment(research outlined by Dodge and Pogrebin, 2001), Rasche (2000) commented that the harshest single aspect of being imprisoned may bathe separation of mother and child.Mental HealthThe assumption that women are more likely to require psychological assessment is evident in the recommendations made by the Home Office, which urges sentences to pay particular attention to the treatment of female criminals. Feminists may argue that this emphasis serves to undermine women, for example Carlen and Worrall argue that the normal womens body co uld be perceived as intrinsically abnormal. Menstruation, pregnancy, childbirth and the menopause result in hormone imbalance which suggests that the women may be imbalanced at these times (From Fox, 2002 60). However it is argued that this disposition to consider female defendants as medically unsound underpins the trend towards a treatment approach for these women, rather than a custodial sentence which would be deemed as inappropriate for their needs. A further consideration of the mental health issues and needs of female offenders can be seen later.The Efficacy of PrisonCarlen (1998 102) found that overcrowding in prisons meant that the system was unable to care effectively for those inmates that pose special problems of need, danger and risk. In fact it was found that the general consensus of staff working in the prison service was that the most prisons can hope to achieve, due to the combination of overcrowding and increasingly restrictive security measures, was damage limitat ion rather than equipping inmates to lead good and useful lives when they are discharged. (Carlen, 1998 149)the incapacitation effect of current levels of imprisonment is not great A general increase in the use of imprisonment, either by increasing the proportion sentenced to custody, increasing the sentences imposed or increasing the proportion of the sentence that offenders spend in custody, would not affect crime levels by any substantial amount. (Tarring, 1993, quoted in Prison Reform Trust1993, in Carlen, 1998151)The problem with arguing towards a reduction in custodial sentencing for female offenders is that it can be considered a sexist response that is discordant to the attempt of the criminal justice system to treat all equally, and encouraging women to be unlawful without fear of punitive sentence. However, supported by other researchers, Carlen offers a response to this question. She argues that firstly, the economic, ideological and political conditions in which women b reak the law are different to those in which man commit crime secondly, the logic of sentencing tends to be rooted in oppressive and outmoded assumptions about the proper role of women in society and thirdly, that women who appear before the courts usually will have been subject to informal and anti-social controls (not suffered by their male counterparts) which would already have affected their opportunities for full citizenship, meaning they suffer a double regulation(Carlen,1998 153).Carlen recommends that unless women have committed very serious crimes, or pose a danger to public which means they must be incarcerated as a matter of public protection, no good can come from imprisoning women, Almost certainly they will require help of some description but always of a kind that no prison can provide. Imprisonment can only damage them further, and make them more likely to break the law in the future. (Carlen, 199 153)In response to evidence and theories presented by researchers and academics the Government have stated that, Imprisonment is not the most effective punishment for most crime. Custody should be reserved as punishment for very serious offences. (Home Office 1988, taken from Worrall, 1997 28). However, as can be seen later, government policy has not always reflected this view.(5) Alternatives to Custodial Sentences for Female OffendersAs can be seen from the theory and evidence put forward previously, there is increasing support for the majority of custodial sentences for female offenders to be replaced with an alternative method of punishment or control. Alternatives to imprisonment may also supply a better medium for therapeutic intervention than the current prison system. The Howard League for Penal Reform leads the way in alternative thinking in the Criminal Justice SystemThe Howard League for Penal Reform is today recommending that prison custody for women should be virtually abolished so that only those women who are convicted of serious and v iolent offences and who represent a continuing danger to the public should be held in custody. For other women offenders community based interventions that make amends for the wrong done and encourage women to change their lives offer the best change of creating a safer society. (Frances Cooke, Speaker for The Howard League, 2005).In the main, alternatives to custodial sentences involve a type of community punishment, in the form of probation, fines, and electronic tagging, for example, or specialist units. Some examples of these alternatives, and their use for female offenders, will be looked at in this chapter. Firstly, though it is important to identify the main barriers to community punishment alternatives, in order to gain a better understanding of the more specific sentences.Worrall identifies many obstacles to community punishment (1997 13).Firstly she identifies the obstacle of public and media perception that imprisonment is the only way to punish people accordingly, with o ther punishments viewed as inferior. Secondly, there is the obstacle of unfair or inconsistent sentencing, in that community sentences tend to be reserved for those who can pay, or deemed to be able to benefit from supervision which leaves certain disadvantaged groups in prison.Thirdly, there is the concept of net-widening based on the assumption that alternatives to custody will, rather than defer offenders form prison, draw more people into the criminal justice system that may otherwise have been diverted to another agency. Fourthly, is the problem of enforcement, it is much easier not to comply with on-custodial sentences, and some believe that without the backup of threats of incarceration, community alternatives are not viable. However, despite these drawbacks it is important to consider the benefits of using alternatives to custody.Electronic MonitoringSections 12 and 13 of the Criminal Justice Act (1991) introduced electronic tagging as a method of supervision and control and could offer a valuable commodity in the criminal justice system. However, electronic tagging systems have had a quite a number of starting up problems, and in some cases offenders under this system have requested to be put into custody as this was deemed preferable, despite Tom Stacey, founder of the Offenders Tag Association suggesting that opposition to tagging was based on wilful ignorance of the appalling nature of prison conditions (Worrall, 1997 31). The tagging system was criticised for leaving families with very little income due to the restraints upon offenders, and for malfunctioning. According to the Prison Reform Trust (1990) by January 1990, only 46 defendants had been tagged on contracts which cost the tax payer 564,706. Of these 24 had breached the conditions of their bail, been arrested for further offences, or absconded (Worrall, 1997 32).However, if these problems can be overcome and the system used effectively, electronic monitoring may be recognised as a flexibl e and cost effective alternative to prison, which may be appropriate for female offenders who have been convicted of less serious, less violent and less harmful crimes. It could provide for effective monitoring and control, whilst being used alongside a programme of support and will allow for family and social ties to be retained to a greater degree than imprisonmentSpecial Units for female offenders who are mothersAs can be seen in previous chapters a need for specialist provision for female offenders with children is widely supported. In many cases affine, probation, or a curfew order, monitored by electronic tagging, for example, may be appropriate, however specialist units may also be successful in overcoming some of the problems associated with incarcerating mothers. These would supply an opportunity for female offenders to be punished and monitored without the separation of children from their mothers, whilst also providing supp