Conclusions

This analysis shows that court orders have more impact on reducing reoffending (compared to short prison sentences) on those with more previous offences. It is unclear why this is the case, but it may be about the diminishing returns of the potential ‘short shock’ deterrence associated with imprisonment as offenders become more acclimatised to the criminal justice system. This is supported by the finding that suspended sentence orders (which carry the threat of custody) were also relatively more effective in reducing reoffending, as the number of previous offences decreased compared to similar cases where community orders were used.





Interestingly, there was no significant effect of ethnicity or gender when comparing custody with community orders or community orders with suspended sentences. Age, however, did seem to make a difference: the youngest and oldest age groupings benefited particularly from the use of court orders compared to short-term custody. However, the impact of suspended sentence orders in reducing reoffending compared with community orders generally increased with age.





Differences in impact were also found on the basis of mental health – those assessed as having significant psychiatric problems or current or pending psychiatric treatment benefited particularly from the use of court orders compared to short-term custody after controlling for the number of previous offences.

The impact of alcohol treatment requirements on reoffending was less pronounced with ATRs associated with similar or slightly lower reoffending compared to prison.

In my view, these findings give plenty of food for thought and makes me wonder, yet again, why mental health treatment requirements are so rarely used.