Dangerousness Essay
Critically discuss the notion that dangerous offenders can never be managed effectively in the community
Cases such ‘The Soham Murders’ and Jamie Bulger, have given rise to concerns and debates as to whether the perpetrators of these offences are ever able to return to community without the risk that they may commit further horrific crimes. This rise in fear surrounding the release of ‘dangerous’ offenders into the community has resulted in a change in practice for many services within the Criminal Justice System. Probation in particular has seen a shift with a large emphasis now placed upon public protection. In order to effectively achieve the goal of Public Protection there has been a growth in Multi-Agency work, which has been touted as the most effective way of managing the risk posed by dangerous offenders. The introduction of the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangement (MAPPA) made legal requirements for agencies to co-operate in order to manage the risk. Claims have been made that our systems of public protection are now much better at reducing offending rates. (Nash 2012, pp 12) Conversely there have been a number of high profile cases where serious further offences (SFO) have been committed which have brought into light some of the inadequacies of the current arrangements.
It is the aim of the Author to highlight and critically discuss the notion that dangerous offenders cannot be managed in the community. In order to achieve this we will look at the current arrangements for the management of dangerous offenders in the community. Drawing on research, the current arrangements will be evaluated to see whether they are effective in managing dangerous offenders. In addition throughout we will explore arguments surrounding offender rights.
The concept of a dangerous offender was first introduced in the 2003 Criminal Justice Act. Since 2008 the Criminal Justice System defines dangerousness as; the offender has committed a specified offence and that
Cases such ‘The Soham Murders’ and Jamie Bulger, have given rise to concerns and debates as to whether the perpetrators of these offences are ever able to return to community without the risk that they may commit further horrific crimes. This rise in fear surrounding the release of ‘dangerous’ offenders into the community has resulted in a change in practice for many services within the Criminal Justice System. Probation in particular has seen a shift with a large emphasis now placed upon public protection. In order to effectively achieve the goal of Public Protection there has been a growth in Multi-Agency work, which has been touted as the most effective way of managing the risk posed by dangerous offenders. The introduction of the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangement (MAPPA) made legal requirements for agencies to co-operate in order to manage the risk. Claims have been made that our systems of public protection are now much better at reducing offending rates. (Nash 2012, pp 12) Conversely there have been a number of high profile cases where serious further offences (SFO) have been committed which have brought into light some of the inadequacies of the current arrangements.
It is the aim of the Author to highlight and critically discuss the notion that dangerous offenders cannot be managed in the community. In order to achieve this we will look at the current arrangements for the management of dangerous offenders in the community. Drawing on research, the current arrangements will be evaluated to see whether they are effective in managing dangerous offenders. In addition throughout we will explore arguments surrounding offender rights.
The concept of a dangerous offender was first introduced in the 2003 Criminal Justice Act. Since 2008 the Criminal Justice System defines dangerousness as; the offender has committed a specified offence and that
Bibliography: 1. Boswell G (2007) Young People and Violence: balancing public protection with meeting needs. I In Blyth M, Solomon E and K Baker (eds) Young People at Risk. (pp39-40) Bristol: Polity Press. 2. Brown M (2010) Theorising Dangerousness. In Nash M and A Williams (eds) Handbook of Public Protection. (pp40-59) Oxford: London 3 4. Craissati J (2007) The paradoxical effects of stringent risk management. In Padfield. N (eds) Who to release? Parole, fairness and criminal justice.(pp215-27) Cullompton: Willan. 5. Crown Prosecution Service (2012) Sentencing Dangerous Offenders. Retrived from Crown Prosecution Website; 6. Grange T (2006) Managing Dangerousness. Criminal Justice Matters. Vol 66 pp16-17 7 8. Kemshall H (2001) Risk Assessment and Management of Known Sexual and Violent Offenders: A review of current issues. Police Research Series, Paper 140 9 10. Maguire M and H Kemshall (2001)Public Protection, Partnership and Risk Penalty: Multi-Agency Risk Management of Sexual and Violent Offenders. Punishment and Society. Vol 3 pp237 11 12. Nash M (2006) Public Protection and the Criminal Justice Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 13. Nash M (2012) Cut Price Public Protection. Howard Journal. Vol 51 pp261-273 14 15. Prins J (2002) Will they do it again? Risk assessment and management in Criminal Justice and Psychiatry. London: Routledge 16