Skip to main content
Log in

‘Punishment’ in Non-custodial Sentences: A Critical Analysis

  • Published:
Criminal Law Forum Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reviews various uses of the concept of ‘punishment’ in relation to non-custodial sentences, including the frequently-made comparison between ‘punishment’ and ‘rehabilitation’. It concludes that ‘punishment’ has no stable meaning in respect of such sentences and, when utilised, often results in non-custodial penalties being found wanting by comparison with imprisonment. It is suggested that all sentences should be regarded as ‘punishments’, and that the creative development of community penalties will best be achieved by working with a threefold conceptualisation of reparation, rehabilitation and incapacitation, set within appropriate boundaries of proportionality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony E. Bottoms.

Additional information

Professor Sir Anthony E. Bottoms is Wolfson Professor of Criminology Emeritus and Director of the Centre for Penal Theory and Penal Ethics, Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge. E-mail: aeb11@cam.ac.uk

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bottoms, A.E. ‘Punishment’ in Non-custodial Sentences: A Critical Analysis. Crim Law Forum 28, 563–587 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-017-9325-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-017-9325-8

Navigation