To what extent should an offenders background be taken into consideration when sentencing?

I think once you reach adulthood, you need to be held fully responsible for your actions, however bad your background or upbringing has been. Only exception should be mental capacity.

People know the basics of what is right or wrong, whatever their circumstances.

This is something I’ve always wondered as it’s the explanation I agree with.

offenders need to be made accountable for their actions absolutely, but I do also believe that nobody who is ‘typical’ (I don’t want to use the word normal) would ever have the capacity to kill / rape / assault. People generally know right from wrong. So something’s gone wrong in someone’s brain to have the urge and will to do that. On that basis I do think that whatever specific therapies are appropriate to their time in prison or another closed facility.

I have seen a C4 programme though (I think it was called the jury) to see if two different juries would reach the same verdict in which the guy had murdered his wife but he wanted to bring sentence down to manslaughter arguing that her abuse towards him made him snap. It was interesting.

The judge can attach orders to a sentence, particularly community sentences such as alcohol reduction services, mental health interventions and drug counselling.

Once people enter prison, their offender managers or probation officers in prison (for high risk offenders) do take into account the different aspects of their life that may have contributed to their offending and incorporate it as much as possible into their sentence plan. So this is already being done.

However, it is much more effective in the female estate than the male estate which is seriously overstretched and funding for partner services have been cut.

I also sat a very long rape case where the perpetrator only had minor offences on his record already, but because of the brutality of his crimes against several women, and all the evidence stacked up against him, he got the most severe punishment, without consideration for his childhood, background, otherwise okay criminal record and the fact he was in a good place in life with his own business and home.

This.

I'm not from the UK, and in my country you volunteer - and get elected by our national body of jurisdiction and courthouses - to become a juror. I have been a juror for about 7 years now, and in my experience people's background are considered to some extend - and, to some extend, impact their sentence. But, it very much, if not entirely, depends on the severity of the crime, past patterns, and where in life they are in the present. I recently sat a case where two young men, friends, had committed the same crimes together - one of them got off fairly lightly while the other did not. Same crimes, different sentences. Primarily because the first-mentioned man didn't have too much on his criminal record already, and because he had demonstrated succesfully that he had been in a good place in his life for a very extended period (years): he was in school, had a stable job, had cut off his toxic social circle, stopped doing drugs, etc.

The other young man, on the other hand, had a much longer sheet of offences behind him, showed no sign of remorse, and also did not demonstrate to the judge and jury that he had made any attempts at changing his life around for the better since being arrested. Nor did his past patterns indicate that he's likely to - on the contrary. So yeah, he got a prison sentence and a huge fine.

It's a really interesting topic. We know that life experiences, especially in childhood, make affect the likelihood of someone committing crimes.

But that doesn't change anything for the victims of crime, or for the risk someone poses to the public.

My view is that pre sentencing reports shouldn't routinely be used to reduce sentences (though in some circumstances it might appropriate if counselling or courses recommended). But that they should generally be used to provide instructions for extra support in prison to help prevent reoffending.

So, if someone is sentenced for domestic violence offences and it comes to light that they experienced/were exposed to domestic violence as a child, their sentence should include counselling and workshops to help them process this and understand healthy relationships going forward.

I didn't say it was the primary motivation, just that it plays a part.

And public protection doesn;t apply to only violent offenders, it also applies to non-contact sexual offenders, drug dealers, prolific shoplifters, fraud, scammers, and on and on.

I can give an example.

I was hit by someone who was high on drugs and a repeat offender. Each time he got caught he just got a sentence for that incident which was very lenient. In my case it was one years driving ban. No previous arrests and charges taken into consideration.

So, he’s already done this multiple times. It’s only a matter of time before he kills someone. So, with that in mind do you not think a judge should say “you haven’t learnt your lesson, you are reckless, and dangerous. You’ve done this 3 times and you are now going to jail”.

Good post.

His name is Keir.

And that's ridiculous.

If you give lighter sentences as a result of organisations like social services not acting sooner then you are not going to raise people who have been damaged by say abuse to the level of society.

We will have a justice system where caring families lie that they abused their children to get them lighter sentences.

I know that people in prison are more likely to be abused etc but that’s the responsibility of social services and police to protect the kids before they are criminals. We have a system where those groups have a lack of resources so overlook what appears minor but acting when things aren’t serious is surely where you have a chance of changing things ?

If protecting the public was the primary motivation, only violent offenders would be jailed.

Not entirely. It's also about punishment and protection of the public.

It makes sense in theory, because in theory, criminal punishment is about rehabilitation. The way criminals should be rehabilitated will depend on their individual motivations for commiting crime and barriers to being a productive and/or harmless citizen, so you'd need a pre-sentencing report to determine how, where and for how long a sentence should take place.

But then you'd also have several settings where different types of rehabilitation could occur with different levels of restriction for the people sentenced there.

Sentencing shouldn’t be impacted by circumstances - however support should be offered (in addition, not instead!) : therapy, help to get qualifications, help to geographically move away from a bad influence, etc.

Sentencing should always reflect the harm done - if I’m robbed or abused, the damage to me (and society as a whole) is the same regardless of the perpetrator’s background.

I don’t think OP was saying that they do reduce sentences in those cases. She was presenting it as an hypothetical example for her question of how far do you take circumstances into account. I think

I think it would be better for everyone (victims and offenders) to put effort into mitigating the circumstances before, rather than reducing the sentence afterwards.
For example, people who were in care as children are considerably overrepresented in prison. I think it would be better to look into why and put much more resources into supporting children in care (and those aging out of care). But, let’s be honest, more resources for those children/young adults isn’t going to happen.

There’s also too many nuances to give a blanket answer. Your OP talks about someone who was sexually abused as a child - well if they are now 50 and sexually abuse a child, no, I wouldn’t consider that to be mitigation. If they are 13 and still being abused themselves, I’d consider that to be quite a different situation in terms of the best way to deal with it, despite them being over the age of criminal responsibility (although of course still horrific for the victim).

You also give the example of someone with learning difficulties. I would think that that should always be considered when sentencing.

None really. Life isn't fair and some people are dealt a shitty hand, but that's no excuse not to take personal responsibility for your own decisions. These people aren't stealing bread because they're starving. Most of us can provide a bleeding heart sob story, but most don't go around committing crime. I'm aware that prisoners often need therapy, but people on the outside can't access therapy either so?......

Justice is nuanced and cannot be applied in any real way without circumstance. I think it’s ludicrous to suggest anyone should be sentenced without all circumstances including those you mentioned being considered. Draconian zero tolerance hard line thinking is pathetic.

I don't think it effects sentencing all that much.

Having worked in youth justice there were in my opinion, too many staff who thought a bad background or trauma meant the person shouldn't really be held responsible and it wasn;t 'trauma-informed' to suggest otherwise.

Which has contributed in my opinion, to the horrible rise in serious youth crime and knife crime.

I think the tide is turning now and David Camerons 'hug a hoodie' philosophy has been proven to be an abject failure.

There should be absolutely no argument for sentencing guidelines to recommend lighter sentences for people according to their backgrounds. Judges already have recourse to mitigating factors when deciding on sentences so there is already leeway in the system. Any more than that and you really do have two tier justice.

But there is absolutely a place for prison to be a rehabilitating experience for all people. I agree with PP that personal background information could be used in prisons to evaluate prisoner need.

Also I would say we need to be mindful of discrimination in the justice system and within policing. If certain young people are more likely to be stopped and searched because of appearance/ family reputation- they're more likely to be repeatedly done for offending while others may escape with no record. Is it fair to make examples of those people who have only been caught out due to discrimination and unjust structures? I wouldn't say that's ethical either.

Remember that these lived experiences may also be used to direct the person once inside to appropriate services to try to work through the trauma thus preventing future offending. They do not reduce the sentence of child abusers because they were abused themselves, I asked this at a q&a and was told categorically no, it’s about directing towards therapy or placement in most appropriate facility eg a prison with specific facilities