Skip to main content

Sentencing and Dependents: Motherhood as Mitigation

  • Chapter
Exploring Sentencing Practice in England and Wales

Abstract

Studies on the particular characteristics and needs of women offenders (Cabinet Office: Social Exclusion Task Force, 2009; Corston Report, 2007; Commission on Women and the Criminal Justice System, 2009; Women’s Justice Taskforce, 2011) have advocated a sentencing approach which acknowledges differences between the male and female sentenced populations and the differing consequential outcomes upon them. The most significant gendered variation is that a greater number of women than men in prison have been the primary caregivers for a child or children prior to their sentence. As women are one of the fastest growing populations within the prison estate, by inference, an ever-increasing number of children are affected by the imprisonment of their primary carer. Between 1995 and 2010, the female prison population more than doubled, from 1,979 to 4,236 (Ministry of Justice, 2014, Table A1.2 Offender Management Statistics Annual Tables 2013), and there was a general increase in the numbers of women sentenced for all offences, rising from 258,600 in 2002 to 299,117 in 2011 (Ministry of Justice, 2012; Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System 2011). This increase has taken place despite no corresponding increase in the volume or seriousness of female offending.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Ashworth, A. (2010) Sentencing and Criminal Justice. 5 th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Caddie, D. and Crisp, D. (1997) Mothers in Prison. HO Research and Statistics Directorate Findings, no. 38. London: The Stationary Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlen, P. (ed.) (2002) Women and Punishment. Devon: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission on Women and the Criminal Justice System (2009) Engendering Justice — from Policy to Practice. London: Fawcett Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corston, J. (2007) The Corston Report, A Review of Women with Particular Vulnerabilities in the Criminal Justice System. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Criminal Justice Joint Inspection (2011) Equal but Different? An Inspection of the Use of Alternatives to Custody for Women Offenders. A Joint Inspection by HMI Probation, HMCPSI and HMI Prisons. London: Criminal Justice Joint Inspection.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobash, R.P., Dobash, R.E., and Gutteridge, S. (1986) The Imprisonment of Women. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eastern, S. (2008) Dangerous Waters: Taking Account of Impact in Sentencing. Criminal Law Review 2: 105–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easton, S. and Piper, C. (2008) Sentencing and Punishment, the Quest for Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fielding, N. (2011) Judges and Their Work. Social Legal Studies 20: 97–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gampell, L (2003) Submission in Response to the Green Paper Consultation ‘Every Child Matters’. London: Action for Prisoner’s Families.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genders, E. and Player, E. (1987) ‘Women in prison: the treatment, the control, and the experience’. In: P. Carlen and A. Worrall (eds) Gender, Crime and Justice. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, J. and Hough, M. (2007) Mitigation: The Role of Personal Factors in Sentencing. London: Prison Reform Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judicial Appointments Committee (2012) Official Statistics 14 June 2012http://jac.judiciary.gov.uk/st atic/documents/JAC_publication_2012_06_final.pdf.

  • Liebling, A. and Maruna, S. (2005) The Effects of Imprisonment. Devon: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loureiro, T. (2009) Child and Family Impact Assessments in Court: Implications for Policy and Practice. Edinburgh: Families Outside.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovegrove, A. (2010) The Sentencing Council, the Public’s Sense of Justice and Personal Mitigation, Criminal Law Review, 12, 906–923.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovegrove, A. (2011) Putting the Offender Back into Sentencing: An Empirical Study of the Public’s Understanding of Personal Mitigation. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 11: 37–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, J. (2002) Qualitative Researching Second Edition London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millie, A., Tombs, J. and Hough, M. (2007) Borderline Sentencing: A Comparison of Sentencers’ Decision-Making in England and Wales, and Scotland. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 7:243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, A. and Codd, H. (2007) Prisoner’s Families In: Y. Jewkes (ed.) Handbook on Prisons. Devon: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, A. and Codd, H. (2002) EWCA Crim 26; [2002] 2 Cr. App. R.(S.) 52 at 232–233, [12] and [15]-[17].

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Justice (2007) Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2007. London: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Justice (2009) Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System, a Ministry of Justice Publication under Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. London: Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Justice (2013) Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2012 Table A2.1c. London: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Justice (2014) Population and Capacity Briefing Week Ending 14 February 2014. London: The Stationery Office. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ prison-population-figures-2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minson, S. (2012) Mitigating Motherhood — A Study of the Impact of Motherhood on Sentencing Decisions in England and Wales. Guildford: University of Surrey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minson, S. (2014) Mitigating Motherhood. London: Howard League.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piper, C. (2007) Should Impact Constitute Mitigation? Structured Discretion Versus Mercy? Criminal Law Review, (1) 141–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prison Reform Trust (2010) Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile: December 2010. http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/O/ Documents/FactfileDec 10small.pdf.

  • Roberts J. (2008) Aggravating and Mitigating Factors at Sentencing: Towards Greater Consistency of Application. Criminal Law Review, (4) 264–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts J., Hough, M. and Ashworth, A. (2011) Personal Mitigation, Public Opinion and Sentencing Guidelines in England and Wales 2011. Criminal Law Review, (7) 524–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sentencing Advisory Panel (2009) Overarching Principles of Sentencing — Advice to the Sentencing Guidelines Council. http://www.banksr.co.uk/images/Guidelines/Advisory%20Panel%20Advice%20to%20the%20Council/Overaching_princi-ples_of_sentencing.pdf

  • Silverman, D. (2010) Doing Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Social Exclusion Unit (2002) Reducing Reoffending by Ex-Prisoners. London: Social Exclusion Unit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Social Exclusion Task Force (2009) Short Study on Women Offenders. London: Cabinet Office http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www. cabi-netoffice.gov.uk/media/209663/setf_shortstudy_womenoffenders.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sykes, G. (1958) Society of Captives: A Study of Maximum Security Prisons. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tombs, J., and Jagger, E. (2006) Denying Responsibility: Sentencers’ Accounts of Their Decisions to Imprison. British Journal of Criminology, 46: 803–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasik, M. (2001) Emmins on Sentencing, 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilks-Wiffen, S. (2011) Voice of a Child. London: Howard League for Penal Reform.

    Google Scholar 

  • Women’s Justice Taskforce (2011) Reforming Women’s Justice. London: Prison Reform Trust. http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/O/Documents/Women’s%20Justice%20Taskforce%20Report.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2015 Shona Minson

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Minson, S. (2015). Sentencing and Dependents: Motherhood as Mitigation. In: Roberts, J.V. (eds) Exploring Sentencing Practice in England and Wales. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137390400_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics