Victims of Crime want Punishment - but not always Prison

Victims of non-violent crimes in the UK want offenders to be punished, but do not believe that prison is always the answer, research released today (16 Nov 2007) shows.  An ICM survey for the Ministry of Justice of 1,085 victims of non-violent crime in the UK found that almost half (49%) placed punishment as the most important part of an offender's sentence, with reparation "payback" second most important (43%) and "rehabilitation" third (36%). 

But while punishment comes top, a further survey of victims found that 81% would prefer an offender to receive an effective sentence rather than a harsh one with nearly two thirds (63%) disagreeing that prison is always the best way to punish someone.  

An overwhelming majority of respondents (94%) said the most important thing to them was that the offender did not do it again. This figure is higher than the last survey in 2006 (91%).

These findings support the view of eight in ten (81%) victims in the UK who would be in favour of Community Sentences if they prevent an offender from re-offending.  And there is data to suggest they do; evidence has found that offenders who commenced a community sentence in the first quarter of 2004 had lower re-offending rates than predicted (50.5% vs 54.1% respectively²*).

58% of victims agreed that it would be harder for an offender to face up to their problems in the community than receiving a short term prison sentence. Support for Community Sentences remains high across victims of various types of "non-violent" crime, from pick-pocketing to house burglary:

Gillian Guy Chief Executive of Victim Support said, "These findings confirm our long-held view that victims of crime are united in wanting offenders to stop. If the criminal justice system is to truly serve victims, we need to prioritise effective rehabilitation rather than using victims to justify harsh punishments that don't actually stop reoffending. We also need to balance this with effective punishment and public protection measures for cases which merit it."

Notes to Editors

1.      ICM surveyed 1085 victims of non-violent crime between during 5th - 14th October 2007 and 999 victims aged between 18 and 65 years old  during 31st October - 4th November 2007

2. Home Office Statistical Bulletin (Jack Cunliffe and Adrian Shepherd) 'Re-offending of adults: results from the 2004 cohort', March 2007

*  During the same time period, actual re-offending rates for offenders serving custodial sentences of less than twelve months were over 73.4% against a predicted rate of 73.5%

3. Between October 2005 and September 2006, more than 117,000 community orders were commenced

4. Community orders are made up of one or more of twelve possible requirements. Requirements may be combined to produce an individual package for each offender. The requirements available for use within a Community Order are:

·       Unpaid work

·       Activity (eg, employment, training or education, counselling or mediation)

·       (Accredited) Programme (including those tackling anger management, internet sex offending, substance abuse and drink driving)

·       Prohibited activity (including being banned from entering pubs of licensed premises, being banned from contacting individuals, working with certain groups or living or staying in the same household as certain gropus)

·       Curfew (normally this is electronically monitored)

·       Exclusion (eg from pubs, town centres, the vicinty of a victims home or workplace, from a shop etc)

·       Residence (at an approved premise or private address)

·       Mental Health Treatment

·       Drug Rehabilitation

·       Alcohol Treatment

·       Supervison (attending regular appointments with a probation officer)

·       Attendance Centre (for adults aged 18-24 only)

5. A community order can last for up to three years but individual requirements can be for different lengths

6. Offenders who fail to comply with their community order are breached and returned to court. The court can re-sentence the offender for the original offence and might impose a custodial sentence. Alternatively, the court can extend or add requirements and allow the community order to continue.