 |
|||
| A
publication of the Justice Center |
Alaska Justice Statistical Analysis Center |
||
 |
|||
|
National Institute of Justice
In the years preceding its political
reunification, Germany experienced benefits brought about by
the gradual judicial adoption of alternative sanctions. From
about midcentury, the emphasis on imprisonment, or, in the case
of youthful offenders, jungendarrest (a short-term incarceration
lasting from 2 days to 4 weeks), gave way to alternative measures:
suspensions, probation, community service, and a system of day-fines
instituted in the 1970s. Between 1982 and 1990, incarceration
of juveniles decreased more than 50 per cent -- from 9,500 to
4,500 cases; during the same period, adult imprisonment dropped
from 39,000 to 33,000.
Research in Germany indicates that
youthful offenders sent to prison had higher rates of recidivism
than those given alternative sanctions. Removing youths from
society -- even when incarceration included job training -- appeared
to negatively affect their ability to find employment when released.
Among youths who received alternative sentences, rates of recidivism
were affected by judges' and social workers' attitudes and communication
abilities. Low recidivism rates were positively correlated with
officials' beliefs in their clients' rehabilitation and their
ability to communicate supportively with offenders.
Effects of imprisonment
Studies conducted by the Criminological
Research Institute of Lower Saxony explored individual and regional
disparities in sentencing and sought to determine the effects
of sentencing practices on offending patterns and career criminality.
Results showed that the number of offenders per 100,000 inhabitants
increased by 7 per cent in regions where imprisonment was the
sentencing norm and decreased by 13 per cent in regions that
opted for alternative sentencing. Although unable to establish
a cause and effect relationship, researchers also found a correlation
between the decline in imprisonment of young offenders over a
4-year period and a significant drop in cases of burglary --
a crime viewed as a barometer of societal violence, typically
committed by those well along in their criminal careers.
In another study, researchers looked
at what happened to young offenders imprisoned in the 1970s.
Although prison combined with job training was thought to be
a promising rehabilitation, the recidivism rate for young offenders
in the early 1980s was between 70 and 80 per cent. Although only
about 40 per cent were unemployed when they committed the offenses
that resulted in incarceration, within 3 months of release, offenders'
unemployment rate was 60 per cent. In spite of intensive job
training and good intentions, prisons were believed to destroy
post-release opportunities for normal living.
In another study, interviews with
juveniles found that the strongest deterrents to crime for most
youths were fear of being caught by the police and the negative
reactions of parents and society. Fear of punishment was not
mentioned by these youths as a factor militating against criminal
behavior.
These findings suggest that when
youths are imprisoned for offenses, they are more likely to later
embrace criminality than are young people given alternative sanctions.
As a result of these studies, judges began to avoid giving prison
sentences to the extent possible.
The role of the judiciary
In Germany, judges have lifetime
appointments and are the sole arbiters in the disposition of
cases involving youthful offenders between the ages of 18 and
20. These offenders may be dealt with under adult or juvenile
law, but most judges prefer the latter because it offers multiple
options and wider sentencing discretion. For example, under juvenile
law, a judge has the latitude to issue a community service order
to a youth convicted of homicide, if mitigating circumstances
are found.
After reviewing some 2,000 case
dispositions, researchers assigned judges to one of two groups:
"authoritarian" judges and "liberal" judges
who were deemed more communicative, more positive in their expectations
of offenders, and milder in their sentencing approach. Social
workers who were responsible for monitoring community service
sentences were similarly categorized. The rates at which offenders
disobeyed judicial orders were analyzed according to the type
of judge and social worker involved in their cases:
- In cases where both the judge and social worker were liberal, offender disobedience was 6.5 per cent.
- In cases where the judge was liberal and the social worker was authoritarian, offender disobedience was 11.3 per cent.
- In cases where the judge was authoritarian and the social worker was liberal, offender disobedience was 14.4 per cent.
- In cases where both the judge and social worker were authoritarian, offender disobedience was 27.3 per cent.
Social workers were also asked
to predict outcomes for their clients before they began serving
their sentences: liberal social workers had positive expectations,
while the authoritarian types predicted failure. In general,
offenders' behavior correlated with social workers' attitudes.
Recidivism rates were similarly affected; for example, of 426
cases reviewed in which the offender was under the age of 20,
sentencing by liberal and authoritarian judges resulted respectively
in 23.9 and 33.5 per cent recidivism.
After Munich's judiciary was informed
of these research findings, the judges engaged a psychologist
to observe and analyze their on-the-job attitudes, behavior,
and demeanor. Some judges modified their behavior, while others
switched from criminal to civil law. Subsequent widespread dissemination
and publication of these research results effected further change
in Germany's sentencing policies and practices. A close collaboration
among community groups, social workers, police, prosecutors,
churches, academia, and the judiciary produced alternative programs
-- often financed through fines imposed on offenders -- that
emphasized a holistic approach to corrections and productive
social worker/client relationships.
Other research findings reveal
that, contrary to supposition, the increased presence of females
within the legal and criminal justice professions had no impact
on the decarceration movement. The first women entering these
arenas were as punishment-oriented as men. However, further research
has shown that female law students (now numbering around 50 per
cent of the class) are generally less punitive than their male
counterparts. As the proportion of female to male practitioners
grows, imprisonment rates may be affected.
Future research
German researchers are planning
investigations into several areas of criminal justice, including
victim surveys to uncover pockets of unreported crime, such as
family violence and protection rackets; prisoner studies, with
scheduled follow-up, to gain insight into the prison experience
and learn how agencies formed to help ex-prisoners are functioning;
police surveys to explore how officers handle and define crime;
and analyses of data from blind questionnaires on police violence.
The German system of criminal justice,
characterized by judicial immunity to politics and close relationships
between criminologists, judges, and prosecutors permits objective
investigations into criminal justice problems and practices.
It also permits criminal justice professionals to affect public
policy. For example, when politicians wanted to change the law
to increase mandatory imprisonment of juveniles, 153 German judges
and prosecutors publicly objected to the change on the bases
of their experiences and research findings.
This article is based on a presentation made as part of the National Institute of Justice's Research in Progress Seminar Series by Christian Pfeiffer, Director of the Kriminologisches Forschungsinstitut Niedersachsen and president of Germany's Juvenile Court Judges organization. Copies of the entire document, "Alternative Sanctions in Germany: An Overview of Germany's Sentencing Policies" (Adobe Acrobat file), may be obtained from the Alaska Justice Statistical Analysis Unit or on the World Wide Web from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) at http://www.ncjrs.org/.