Download UNIV 112 Unit 3

Camus 1
Sarah Camus
Professor Pallo
UNIV 112-083
29 April 2016
Community Service is not the Perfect Punishment
During my time in elementary school, classes excitedly collected donations ranging from
old clothes and toys to weekly allowances that would then be given to charities that dispersed the
collected items to the local communities. Later, we middle schoolers acted as though community
service was uncool, but inwardly felt a twinge of elation in knowing our contributions could
positively affect someone. Upon entering high school and college, however, community service
became collectively viewed as a negative experience rather than as a positive opportunity to act
selflessly in the pursuit of genuinely aiding those in need.
The shift towards viewing community service in a negative manner takes root in the fact
that governing bodies frequently require and enforce community service, giving the impression
that it is a punishment rather than a privilege and opportunity. Arguably the most popular
example, in the United States of America, a federal judge can mandate that criminal offenders
serve a certain number of community service hours rather than endure other punishments, such
as jail time (Liu). This then creates a distorted view of community service, a perspective that
identifies community service as a disciplinary tool. Furthermore, this practice of using
community service as a punishment creates significant issues, and therefore community service
should no longer be used as a disciplinary tool in the penal system as it currently is.
Camus 2
Community service being used as a punishment results in several major problems.
According to Eric Liu, the origin and reasoning behind the practice is found within the popular
theory that community service as a punishment produces “restorative or rehabilitative justice.”
Therefore, based on the premise of the practice, one would assume that a sentence of community
service produces lower rates of recidivism, which is the habitual relapse into patterns of, in this
case, crime, when compared to other punishment alternatives. However, according to a four-year
long study conducted by Gerard Wheeler and Amy Rudolph, “[t]here were no significant
differences in recidivism” between those offenders sentenced to community service and those
placed on probation without community service. Although this study only compared data from
community service and standard probation cases, this finding greatly discredits the use of
community service as a punishment because of the practice’s failure to display the expected
results based on the reasoning behind the practice. The major premise behind using community
service as a disciplinary tool lies within the purported theory that it produces lower rates of
recidivism compared to other alternatives, but the research conducted thus far indicates that idea
holds no validity.
Another significant concern that arises with using community service as a punishment is
the idea of community service being something to avoid. In general, people want to evade
punishment, and subsequently hold a negative view of those tools used for discipline. For
example, staying in the realm of the penal system, one possible punishment for forgery is
standard probation supervision (Wheeler and Rudolph). Because of its purpose as a penalty for
violations of the law, standard probation supervision is then viewed as unfavorable and to be
avoided. In the same fashion, with community service being another disciplinary option for the
Camus 3
same offense (Wheeler and Rudolph), it would be fair to assume that the perception of
community service is overwhelmingly negative. In agreement with this idea, Eric Liu writes that
using community service as a penalty for violating the law “broadcasts an image of community
work as [being] unpleasant and to be avoided.” Community service’s current role and
implementation as a punishment within the penal system promotes the idea and practice of
evading community service.
Arguably the most compelling issue with community service as a punishment is the
resulting degradation and devaluing of community service. In his article, Eric Liu illustrates this
concept through example when he writes that an offender, whose actions played a prominent role
in the suicide of a roommate, received a sentence of 300 hours of community service, and at
other colleges and universities students received cords at graduation for completing 300 hours of
community service. The efforts of those devoted to consulting and aiding the community are
significantly undermined by the community service done solely to pay a debt to society without
any focus on the needs of the community. Thus, community service is reduced to a method of
paying dues to the judicial system rather than an opportunity to connect to and benefit the
community. This current practice of using community service as a disciplinary tool devalues
community service as a whole because of the focus placed on the offender rather than the actual
community and its needs.
There are several popular counterarguments that hold validity and therefore must be
addressed; one of these counterarguments is that community service as a punishment is cheaper
than other alternatives, such as jail time. According to the United States, specifically the U.S.
Camus 4
Probation and Pretrial Services, community service “save[s] taxpayer dollars that would
otherwise go for prison costs.” However, this statement does not address the other punishment
alternatives, such as standard probation supervision, and their subsequent costs. In their study
partly funded by the National Institute of Corrections, which is a division of the United States
Department of Justice, Gerard Wheeler and Amy Rudolph found that those offenders sentenced
to community service payed 55% more in total fees than those placed under standard probation
supervision, and the community service cases cost more in total fees to the Probation Department
than standard probation services which is a constantly-used punishment. Although community
service as a punishment has yet to be compared financially to all other currently existing
punishment alternatives, the research completed thus far indicates that community service is
more costly to the offenders and the Probation Department, and subsequent taxpayers, when
compared to standard probation supervision.
A second popular counterargument is that using community service as a punishment
offers more benefit to both the offender and community than other punishment alternatives. As
previously stated, the premise and ultimate purpose surrounding community service used as a
disciplinary tool is a theory of reformative and reparative justice (Liu). This concept is seen
through the idea that offenders atone for their wrongdoings by giving back to the community
they have harmed (United States). However, the community’s actual needs are often not a
prioritized in the process because community organizations must be tax exempt, nonprofit,
politically unbiased, and willing to take on the offenders (United States). These requirements
eliminate community organizations that could otherwise be able to aid in the fulfillment of
genuine needs in the community. This selection process results in a lower amount of community
Camus 5
organizations able to participate, and therefore displays a less realistic representation of the needs
within the community; this leads to the inability of community service as a punishment to
effectively assess and meet the needs of the community.
The popular counterargument based in ethics maintains that community service as a
punishment builds and repairs the moral character of the offender. This argument takes root in
the premise of using community service as a punishment to create restorative and rehabilitative
justice (Liu). As previously addressed, community service as a punishment does not produce
lower rates of recidivism in offenders as compared to standard probation supervision (Wheeler
and Rudolph), which indicates, in terms of relapsing into criminal behaviors, the offender shows
no significant change, moral or otherwise. When discussing the ethical benefits of giving back to
the community, a prominent component of the argument holds that, through serving the
community as a punishment, the offender symbolically repairs the harm done by him or her
(United States). However, according to a study conducted by Ester Blay, the results display that
“the reparative element is at best [weak] and indirect” (70). This finding indicates that
community service as a punishment lacks an effective, transformative moral component for the
offender, because the reparative quality of the punishment does not directly affect and impact the
offender and therefore his or her morality.
Several solutions are proposed to combat the issues surrounding using community service
as a disciplinary tool. One possible solution to the issue involves community service within the
penal system becoming voluntary rather than mandatory. Within this solution there are two
possible options; the first option consists of community service being voluntary and an option
amongst the options presented by the judge or court system. The second option involves the
Camus 6
community service still being voluntary, but also counting towards the sentence of the offender.
With this option, an offender would volunteer to participate in a community service program
while also fulfilling his or her sentence through other means, such as standard probation
supervision or fines, and the service would count towards a reduced or lowered sentence, such as
a shorter probation period or lowered fines. This overall solution still has the potential to offer
minimal to no genuine benefit to the community because of the possibility of the offender
volunteering for community service with his or her focus solely on reducing his or her sentence
rather than benefitting the community. Although the possibility of manipulation exists and this
issue would require a significant amount of study and consideration, this solution overall has
increased potential of benefitting both the offender and community through the community
service being voluntary.
Another possible solution to the issues surrounding using community service as a
disciplinary tool involves creating other punishment alternatives. Currently, not many options
exist in terms of punishments within the penal system. Even if community service remains an
option for punishment, because of the shortcomings of the alternatives, community service as a
punishment will be a default, regardless of the issues surrounding it. Each punishment option
within the penal system has positive and negative qualities, but there is not a fair amount of
options that can best accommodate all parties involved. More suggestions and ideas for possible
punishments need to be created in order to evolve alongside society. With each option having its
specific pros and cons, and not all options fitting for every case, efforts need to be made, through
research, experimentation, and general study, to expand the list of punishments within the penal
Camus 7
system in order to reduce the desire and motivation to have community service as a punishment
as it currently stands.
The final possible solution includes eliminating the use of community service as a
punishment entirely from the penal system. If the alternative punishment involves jail time, this
solution will be less cost-effective in terms of the taxpayers. However, if standard probation
supervision essentially becomes the alternative punishment, because of its lower total cost to the
offender and the government (Wheeler and Rudolph), this is a more cost effective solution. In
addition, this solution will reduce the stigma surrounding community service through eliminating
the major source of community service’s poor image (Liu). Overall, this option has the potential
to be a financial benefit and a significant influence in counteracting the negative reputation
surrounding community service and therefore is the best option of the three solutions proposed.
Although community service is often considered the optimal punishment option within
the penal system, the practice creates significantly detrimental and counterintuitive issues and
should therefore be completely removed, as it currently is, from the penal system. Because
community service as a punishment does not result in lower rates of recidivism as compared to
standard probation supervision, promotes the concept of community service being negative and
to be avoided, and devalues overall community service, the current implementation of the
practice generates valid concerns and problems. However, to fully grasp the practice in addition
to potential benefits or consequences, more research needs to be conducted. Thus far, the
qualitative nature of the issue has provoked valuable ideas and considerations which can lead
into a larger discussion of the true implications of using community service as a punishment
Camus 8
within the penal system and whether the practice should be continued as is or altered to better fit
into an ever-changing society.
Camus 9
Works Cited (MLA)
Blay, Ester. “’It Could be Us’: Recent Transformations in the Use of Community Service as a
Punishment in Spain.” European Journal of Probation 2.1 (2010): 62-81. SAGE
Journals. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.
Liu, Eric. “Why Community Service Should Not be a Punishment.” Time. Time Inc., 12 Jun.
2012. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.
United States. Federal Corrections and Supervision Division. U.S. Probation and Pretrial
Services. Court and Community: An Information Series about U.S. Probation and
Pretrial Services. United States Probation Office – District of New Mexico.
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Jan. 2003. Web. 30 Apr. 2016.
Wheeler, Gerard R., and Amy S. Rudolph. “Does Sentencing Felony Probationers to Community
Service Affect Recidivism and Economic Sanction Compliance?: A Four-Year
Longitudinal Study.” National Institute of Corrections Library. U.S. Department of
Justice: National Institute of Corrections., 31 Oct. 2006. Web. 24 Apr. 2016.