skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 122193 Find in a Library
Title: Crime, Inequality and Sentencing (From Paying for Crime, P 8-28, 1989, Pat Carlen and Dee Cook, eds. -- See NCJ-122192)
Author(s): P Carlen
Date Published: 1989
Page Count: 21
Sponsoring Agency: Open University Press
Bristol, PA 19007
Sale Source: Open University Press
1900 Frost Road
Suite 101
Bristol, PA 19007
United States of America
Type: Issue Overview
Language: English
Country: United Kingdom
Annotation: This analysis of sentencing models focuses on the relationships between income inequality, crime, and punishment and their implications for sentencing in England and Wales.
Abstract: The discussion notes the difficulty sentencers face in determining how to punish someone who cannot pay a fine or who is already living in excessively punishing social conditions and cites research indicating the income inequality rather than poverty alone is strongly related to criminal activity. Four sentencing models explained include the general rehabilitation model, in which the punishment is fit to the offender; the justice model, which makes the punishment fit the crime; the community corrections model, which brings the pains of imprisonment into the community; and the State-obligated rehabilitation model, which includes denunciation of the offense, restitution to the victim, and rehabilitation of the offender. The discussion notes that the continuing dominance of the justice model, the court's reluctance to examine the feasibility of sentences, and the government's failure to limit sentencing discretion have impeded efforts to develop the more rational approach of the State-obligated rehabilitation model. It is concluded that establishing this model would cost as much in the short term as the present system, but that it would ultimately produce savings that could be used to regenerate the impoverished communities in which victims and offenders often live. Reference notes.
Main Term(s): Sentencing disparity
Index Term(s): Class discrimination; England; Fines; Sentencing reform; Wales
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.