Social Security as a Criminal Sanction

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This paper examines the difficulties with the use of social security as a criminal sanction. The problems are considered in the context of a specific example under the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000, which makes receipt of social security benefit conditional upon compliance with a community sentence. This concept of conditionality is inherent in the current social agenda designed to deal with claimants and offenders alike. However, the paper argues that in terms of punishment and deterrence, and benefit conditionality, the sanctions are counterproductive, since they create significant problems which ultimately undermine the objectives of the criminal justice and social security systems.
LanguageEnglish
Pages1-16
JournalJournal of Social Welfare and Family Law
Volume26
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2004

Fingerprint

social security
sanction
deterrence
pension
offender
penalty
justice
act
community

Cite this

@article{322501ace46c458f81383b5a0ada645c,
title = "Social Security as a Criminal Sanction",
abstract = "This paper examines the difficulties with the use of social security as a criminal sanction. The problems are considered in the context of a specific example under the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000, which makes receipt of social security benefit conditional upon compliance with a community sentence. This concept of conditionality is inherent in the current social agenda designed to deal with claimants and offenders alike. However, the paper argues that in terms of punishment and deterrence, and benefit conditionality, the sanctions are counterproductive, since they create significant problems which ultimately undermine the objectives of the criminal justice and social security systems.",
author = "Gr{\'a}inne McKeever",
note = "Reference text: Department of Social Security (1998) New Ambitions for Our Country: A New Contract for Welfare, Cm 3805, London: The Stationery Office. Department for Work and Pensions (2001) Opportunity for All – Making Progress, Third Annual Report, Cm 5260, London: The Stationery Office. Duff, R.A., (1998) ‘Inclusion and exclusion: citizens, subjects and outlaws’, Current Legal Problems 51: 241–266. Duff, R.A. (2001) Punishment, Communication and Community, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Field, S. (1999) ‘Trends in crime revisited’, Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, Research Study No 195, London: The Stationery Office. Flood-Page, C. and Mackie, A. (1998) ‘Sentencing practice: an examination of decisions in magistrates’ courts and the crown court in the mid-1990s’, Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, Research Study No 180, London: The Stationery Office. Garland, D. (1996) ‘the limits of the sovereign state: strategies of crime control in contemporary society’, British Journal of Criminology 36: 445–471. Garland, D. (2001) The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harris, N. (2000) Social Security Law in Context, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hedderman, C. (1999) The ACOP Enforcement Audit – Stage One. Criminal Policy Research Unit, London: South Bank University. Hedderman, C. (2000) Improving Enforcement: The Second ACOP Audit. Criminal Policy Research Unit, London: South Bank University. Hedderman, C. (2001) Setting New Standards for Enforcement: The Third ACOP Audit. Criminal Policy Research Unit, London: South Bank University. Hedderman, C. and Hearndon, I. (2000) ‘The missing link – effective enforcement and effective supervision’, Probation Journal 47: 126–128. Home Affairs Committee (1997–98), Third Report: Alternatives to Prison Sentences, HC 486, London: The Stationery Office. Home Office (1997–98) Government Reply to the Home Affairs Committee, Third Report, Cm 4174, London: The Stationery Office. Home Office (2000) National Standards for the Supervision of Offenders in the Community, London: The Stationery Office. Home Office (2002) ‘Crime in England and Wales, 2001/2002’, Statistical Bulletin Issue No: 7/02, London: The Stationery Office. Home Office Communication Directorate (2001) Making Punishments Work: Report of a Review of the Sentencing Framework for England and Wales. London: The Stationery Office. House of Commons Standing Committee F (1999–2000) Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill, HC 314, London: The Stationery Office. Kershaw, C. (1999) ‘Reconvictions of offenders sentenced to or discharged from prison in 1994’, Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, Statistical Bulletin No 5/99, London: The Stationery Office. Lundy, L. (1995) ‘Income support and strikers’, Journal of Social Security Law 2: 129–141. Mair, G. and May, C. (1997) ‘Offenders on probation’, Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, Research Study No 167, London: The Stationery Office. May, C. (1999) ‘Explaining reconviction following a community sentence: the role of social factors’, Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, Research Study No 192, London: The Stationery Office. May, C. and Wadwell, J. (2000) ‘Enforcing community penalties: the relationship between enforcement and reconviction’, Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, London: The Stationery Office. McKeever, G. (1999) ‘Fighting fraud: an evaluation of the government’s social security fraud strategy’, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 21: 357–371. Merrington, S. (2001) Objectives, Intervention and Reducing Risk, Centre for Criminological Research, Probation Studies Unit, Oxford: University of Oxford. Merrington, S. and Skinns, J. (2001) Using ACE to Profile Criminogenic Needs, Centre for Criminological Research, Probation Studies Unit, Oxford: University of Oxford. NACRO (2000) News Release Briefing Paper, NACRO, London. Plant, R. (1999) ‘Supply side citizenship?’, Journal of Social Security Law 6: 124–136. Rawls, J. (1971), A Theory of Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rose, N. (2000) ‘Government and control’, British Journal of Criminology 40: 321–339. Vincent, J. (1998) ‘Jobseeker’s allowance evaluation: qualitative research on disallowed and sanctioned claimants phase two: after jobseeker’s allowance’, Department for Education and Employment Research Brief No 86, London: The Stationery Office. Von Hirsch, A. (1993) Censure and Sanctions, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Witt, R., Clarke, A. and Fielding, N. (1999) ‘Crime and economic activity: a panel data approach’, British Journal of Criminology 39: 391–400. Worrall, A. (1997) Punishment in the Community: The Future of Criminal Justice, London: Longman.",
year = "2004",
doi = "10.1080/01418030410001694378",
language = "English",
volume = "26",
pages = "1--16",
journal = "Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law",
issn = "0964-9069",
number = "1",

}

Social Security as a Criminal Sanction. / McKeever, Gráinne.

In: Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2004, p. 1-16.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Social Security as a Criminal Sanction

AU - McKeever, Gráinne

N1 - Reference text: Department of Social Security (1998) New Ambitions for Our Country: A New Contract for Welfare, Cm 3805, London: The Stationery Office. Department for Work and Pensions (2001) Opportunity for All – Making Progress, Third Annual Report, Cm 5260, London: The Stationery Office. Duff, R.A., (1998) ‘Inclusion and exclusion: citizens, subjects and outlaws’, Current Legal Problems 51: 241–266. Duff, R.A. (2001) Punishment, Communication and Community, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Field, S. (1999) ‘Trends in crime revisited’, Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, Research Study No 195, London: The Stationery Office. Flood-Page, C. and Mackie, A. (1998) ‘Sentencing practice: an examination of decisions in magistrates’ courts and the crown court in the mid-1990s’, Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, Research Study No 180, London: The Stationery Office. Garland, D. (1996) ‘the limits of the sovereign state: strategies of crime control in contemporary society’, British Journal of Criminology 36: 445–471. Garland, D. (2001) The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harris, N. (2000) Social Security Law in Context, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hedderman, C. (1999) The ACOP Enforcement Audit – Stage One. Criminal Policy Research Unit, London: South Bank University. Hedderman, C. (2000) Improving Enforcement: The Second ACOP Audit. Criminal Policy Research Unit, London: South Bank University. Hedderman, C. (2001) Setting New Standards for Enforcement: The Third ACOP Audit. Criminal Policy Research Unit, London: South Bank University. Hedderman, C. and Hearndon, I. (2000) ‘The missing link – effective enforcement and effective supervision’, Probation Journal 47: 126–128. Home Affairs Committee (1997–98), Third Report: Alternatives to Prison Sentences, HC 486, London: The Stationery Office. Home Office (1997–98) Government Reply to the Home Affairs Committee, Third Report, Cm 4174, London: The Stationery Office. Home Office (2000) National Standards for the Supervision of Offenders in the Community, London: The Stationery Office. Home Office (2002) ‘Crime in England and Wales, 2001/2002’, Statistical Bulletin Issue No: 7/02, London: The Stationery Office. Home Office Communication Directorate (2001) Making Punishments Work: Report of a Review of the Sentencing Framework for England and Wales. London: The Stationery Office. House of Commons Standing Committee F (1999–2000) Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill, HC 314, London: The Stationery Office. Kershaw, C. (1999) ‘Reconvictions of offenders sentenced to or discharged from prison in 1994’, Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, Statistical Bulletin No 5/99, London: The Stationery Office. Lundy, L. (1995) ‘Income support and strikers’, Journal of Social Security Law 2: 129–141. Mair, G. and May, C. (1997) ‘Offenders on probation’, Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, Research Study No 167, London: The Stationery Office. May, C. (1999) ‘Explaining reconviction following a community sentence: the role of social factors’, Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, Research Study No 192, London: The Stationery Office. May, C. and Wadwell, J. (2000) ‘Enforcing community penalties: the relationship between enforcement and reconviction’, Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, London: The Stationery Office. McKeever, G. (1999) ‘Fighting fraud: an evaluation of the government’s social security fraud strategy’, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 21: 357–371. Merrington, S. (2001) Objectives, Intervention and Reducing Risk, Centre for Criminological Research, Probation Studies Unit, Oxford: University of Oxford. Merrington, S. and Skinns, J. (2001) Using ACE to Profile Criminogenic Needs, Centre for Criminological Research, Probation Studies Unit, Oxford: University of Oxford. NACRO (2000) News Release Briefing Paper, NACRO, London. Plant, R. (1999) ‘Supply side citizenship?’, Journal of Social Security Law 6: 124–136. Rawls, J. (1971), A Theory of Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rose, N. (2000) ‘Government and control’, British Journal of Criminology 40: 321–339. Vincent, J. (1998) ‘Jobseeker’s allowance evaluation: qualitative research on disallowed and sanctioned claimants phase two: after jobseeker’s allowance’, Department for Education and Employment Research Brief No 86, London: The Stationery Office. Von Hirsch, A. (1993) Censure and Sanctions, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Witt, R., Clarke, A. and Fielding, N. (1999) ‘Crime and economic activity: a panel data approach’, British Journal of Criminology 39: 391–400. Worrall, A. (1997) Punishment in the Community: The Future of Criminal Justice, London: Longman.

PY - 2004

Y1 - 2004

N2 - This paper examines the difficulties with the use of social security as a criminal sanction. The problems are considered in the context of a specific example under the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000, which makes receipt of social security benefit conditional upon compliance with a community sentence. This concept of conditionality is inherent in the current social agenda designed to deal with claimants and offenders alike. However, the paper argues that in terms of punishment and deterrence, and benefit conditionality, the sanctions are counterproductive, since they create significant problems which ultimately undermine the objectives of the criminal justice and social security systems.

AB - This paper examines the difficulties with the use of social security as a criminal sanction. The problems are considered in the context of a specific example under the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000, which makes receipt of social security benefit conditional upon compliance with a community sentence. This concept of conditionality is inherent in the current social agenda designed to deal with claimants and offenders alike. However, the paper argues that in terms of punishment and deterrence, and benefit conditionality, the sanctions are counterproductive, since they create significant problems which ultimately undermine the objectives of the criminal justice and social security systems.

U2 - 10.1080/01418030410001694378

DO - 10.1080/01418030410001694378

M3 - Article

VL - 26

SP - 1

EP - 16

JO - Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law

T2 - Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law

JF - Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law

SN - 0964-9069

IS - 1

ER -