Hi, I'm Mrs. Ulchin, and I'm going to be taking you through this citizenship lesson.

I'll be explaining all of the information that you need, and I'll be pausing and telling you when you need to complete tasks.

I hope you enjoyed the lesson.

This lesson is how does sentencing in England and Wales compare to elsewhere, and it's taken from the unit of work, what can we do to reduce crime? The outcome for today's lesson is that by the end of the lesson, you'll be able to describe different countries' approaches to sentencing and evaluate their effectiveness.

So the keywords for today's lesson are sentencing, which is the process of giving a punishment to a person found guilty in a court case.

Rehabilitation, which in this context, is a process of returning to, or helping someone return to a healthy, or good way of life, after they have offended.

Retribution, which is a response to criminal behaviour that focuses on holding offenders accountable through punishment, and re-offending, when someone commits another crime after previously being convicted or punished for one.

So the lesson outline, is first of all, going to look at how does sentencing work in Scotland? Then, what are the global differences with sentencing? And then, beginning to think about how effective is sentencing in other countries.

And we're going to start by looking at sentencing in Scotland.

So Scotland has a separate legal system to England and Wales, we share a legal system, so England and Wales share one, and this separation is really important, as it means Scotland also has different sentencing guidelines, which are provided by the Scottish Sentencing Council.

In England and Wales, the sentencing guidelines are provided by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.

So Jun is saying, "Is sentencing in Scotland completely different?" And Sofia is saying, "No, there are still lots of similarities.

You're not going to go to Scotland and it's completely different, but there are, however, some key differences." So let's have a check.

Who sets the sentencing guidelines in Scotland? Is it A, the Scottish Sentencing Judiciary, B, the Scottish Sentencing Parliament, or C, the Scottish Sentencing Council? It's C, the Scottish Sentencing Council.

One key difference is how young people are sentenced, and even who is classed as being a young person in Scotland.

The Scottish Sentencing Council follow research that states maturity isn't fully reached until someone is 25 years old, and therefore, offenders that are 24 or under are sentenced differently to people that are 25 and older.

Judges must apply an individual approach and ensure the sentence takes into account maturity, which isn't simply based on age, and reduces future criminal behaviour.

The Scottish Sentencing Council guidelines are based on the belief that those that are 25, 24, sorry, and under, are on the whole, less able to make sensible judgments.

So might make some silly judgements in terms of their behaviour and what they're doing in terms of the law, that they're more easily influenced or even exploited.

They are less likely to understand the consequences for their actions, and they're actually more likely to take risks.

So all of these things are considered when sentencing someone that's 24 or under.

So Jun is saying, "Does this mean under 25s can't receive harsh sentences?" And Sofia is saying, "No, absolutely, all sentencing options are still available, but rehabilitation must be the key factor when sentencing someone 24 or under In Scotland." The guidelines state that the nature and duration of a sentence passed to a person 24 or under should be different to what would be passed to an older person.

And if a custodial sentence is given, and that means sentencing someone to prison, it should be shorter than a custodial sentence that will be given to an older person.

So Jun is saying, "Well, what about justice for the victim; is that not considered?" "And yes, it absolutely is.

In Scotland, the guidelines state that harm to the victim is actually the key factor that judges must consider, but they must consider this alongside rehabilitation." Let's have a check, True or false? If a 22-year-old citizen commits a crime in Scotland, they cannot be sentenced to prison.

So pause and think, is that true or false and why.

It's false.

Although prison should be a last resort for prisoners that are 24 or under, harm to the victim is still considered and prison sentences absolutely can be given.

So how does sentencing work in Scotland? Let's keep on looking at this and go a little bit deeper.

So the this focus on rehabilitation extends to the rest of the Scottish population, via a special legal rule that's called, "presumption against short prison sentences." This is really, really different, as this means that judges are discouraged, but they're not banned from giving prison sentences of 12 months or less.

The Scottish Sentencing Council, believe that short prison sentences are a bad choice for lesser crimes, as a disruptiveness of the punishment, makes rehabilitation difficult.

So by sending someone to prison for a short amount of time for a lesser crime, it's potentially going to mean that relationships might break down, they probably might lose their job, they might lose their home, and therefore, rehabilitation becomes really, really tricky.

And therefore, Community Payback Orders, which are community sentences, are much more preferred, and much more likely to be given.

And that's not just for people that are 24 or under, that's for the whole population.

So let's have a think about the missing words.

Pause, have a read of the statement, and try and work out what the missing words might be.

And here they are, the Scottish Sentencing Council believe that "short" prison sentences are a bad choice for "lesser" crimes as the "disruptiveness" of the punishment makes rehabilitation, once back in the community difficult.

So for Task A, I want you to explain one reason why people might agree, and one reason why they might disagree with Scotland system, of aiming to avoid prison sentences for younger citizens, or for those who have committed lesser crimes.

So you're redeveloping those critical thinking skills here by thinking about agree and disagree points.

And Sofia is reminding you to, "Consider rehabilitation and justice in your answer." So pause while you have a go at this task.

So you may have identified the following reasons in your argument.

So for agree, you might have said, it is based on research about how a young person thinks and acts.

They also might agree because it's heavily focused on rehabilitation, so it aims to tackle the root cause of crime, whereas sending someone to prison when it may not be needed can be disruptive, and make rehabilitation less likely.

Whereas, people might disagree because England and Wales don't sentence 18 to 24-year-olds differently, so why should Scotland? They might also think that avoiding prison sentences where possible, does not provide justice for the victim, and nor does it deter others.

So it doesn't put other people off committing the same crime.

We're now going to look at some global differences with sentencing.

So sentencing varies not only across the UK, like what we've looked at with Scotland, but globally as well, as countries have differing views on its purpose.

So for example, Norway is a country which is often viewed as having a very distinct approach to sentencing, with the rehabilitation of offenders being a really clear focus.

Jacob is asking, "Where is Norway?" Why don't you pause and have a go at answering that yourself? "So Norway is in Northern Europe," so not too far away, "and it has a small population of about 5.

5 million people." And Norway spends a much higher amount of money per prisoner than the UK does.

This funding aims to ensure that all prisoners receive really high-quality psychological support, so therapy, counselling, as well as education services, where they can get qualifications, and improve things like their literacy.

So Jacob's saying, "That must be really expensive!" And Lucas is saying, "Yes it is, it is expensive, that does cost money.

However, it's seen as investing in the country longer-term, with the hope that this will reduce future crime and all the costs that are attached to it." So although it might cost a lot of money initially, it's seen as saving money in the future, with hopefully, less people committing crimes.

So let's have a quick check.

What are the missing words from this statement? Pause, and have a read, and let's see if you can get them right.

So Norway spends a lot of money on prisons to ensure that all prisoners receive high quality "psychological" support and care as well as access to "education" services.

In Norway, prison is a last resort, and it looks very different from prison in the UK as well.

So key features of Norwegian prisons include the following.

So things like private rooms, en-suite bathrooms, kitchens, lots of recreational spaces, a more relaxed environment, and minimal barriers between prisoners and guards.

So for example, in a Norwegian prison, you would likely see people in the prison sharing a kitchen and cooking together, more recreational spaces, where people can sit and socialise together, or watch television together.

Less barriers, although they do still have some, of course, between prisoners and guard.

So the emphasis is absolutely much more on rehabilitation and psychological and education support, as the prisons themselves being a punishment because through going to prison, they've already lost their liberty, their freedom, so it's not seen as being something that should be torturous as well.

And Norway takes a very long-term approach to sentencing.

So they really invest heavily in prisons and prisoners, to hopefully reduce future crime within the future.

So let's have a quick check.

Can you identify three features of a Norwegian prison? Pause, and have a go.

So you may have, I have identified some of the following.

So you might have talked about having en-suite bathrooms, kitchens, lots of recreational spaces, a more relaxed environment, and minimal barriers between prisoners and guards.

The USA also has differences in its approach to sentencing and it's viewed as being more retribution focused.

Life sentences, without the possibility of parole are used much more frequently in the USA than they are in the UK.

In the USA, they may also be applied for repeated mid-level offences, known as the "three strikes" rule.

So actually, you could commit offences that are sort of mid-level, but actually if you commit them a number of times, you could still receive this really harsh sentence in the USA.

In the USA, life sentences with a possibility of parole do still exist.

However, offenders are often not eligible for parole until serving about 20 years.

So Jacob is saying, "So in the USA, life really does mean life?" And Lucas is saying, "Pretty much, the USA pass very long prison sentences more frequently than the UK." So in the USA, if you get given a life sentence, that is going to be for a very, very, very long time, potentially, your whole life, where that's not always the case in the UK.

So let's have a check, True or false? England and Wales pass life without the possibility of parole sentences more frequently than the USA.

Pause, have a think if that's true or false, and then tell me why.

It's false, and why? The USA use this type of sentence more frequently, including for mid-level crimes, if they are repeat offences.

The USA also sentences young people differently, and this is linked to the different types of law that the USA has.

So the USA has federal law and state law.

Federal law is made by the national government, which is congress, where state law, is made by each state's own government, for example, Texas's government 'cause the USA is huge, and it's made up of lots of different States.

Federal law applies to the whole of the USA, whereas, state law, applies only within each state.

So with federal law, everyone has to follow that, whereas state law, that will be slightly different sometimes in different states.

Federal law includes issues that impact the whole country.

So things like terrorism, immigration, whereas, for state law, it's going to include local issues.

So things do that, education and traffic, and things like that.

So in the USA, states set different ages of criminal responsibility.

So that's state law, so different states are going to have different ages of criminal responsibility.

However, for federal crimes, so crimes for the whole USA that's seen as federal, there's actually no minimum age requirement.

And this means that depending on the crime, children as young as 13 can be tried as adults, and receive the same sentences, including life without parole.

Jacob is saying, "Does this mean there are teenagers in the USA that are serving life sentences?" And Lucas is saying, "Yes, but this is reducing with some states banning life without parole sentences for children." Another key difference in sentencing in the USA, and this is a huge difference, is that the USA can impose the death penalty.

In 2024, there were 21 states that still had the death penalty, although some rarely use it.

So although there's 21 states that actually can give that sentence, some of those states haven't for many, many years.

The death penalties reserved for the most serious of crimes, such as murder, terrorism, and treason.

So that's when you are threatening the life of the president.

"In 2024, there were over 2,000 Americans on Death Row awaiting execution." So it is still a sentence that is clearly used.

So thinking about the countries that we've looked at so far, just as a little bit of a midpoint summary, we've looked at some sentencing that's rehabilitation focused, and some that's retribution focused.

So for example, we had Norway, which is a country that's viewed as being very much rehabilitation focused.

England and Wales as well as Scotland, are seen as somewhere in the middle, and use a sentencing that both rehabilitates, and also has retribution as well.

Although some people might view Scotland as being slightly more rehabilitation focused, due to how they treat people 24 and under, and trying to reduce short-term prison sentences.

And then we have the USA, which is a country that's viewed as being very much retribution focused, so a whole scale there.

So let's have a check.

Which of these statements about age of criminal responsibility in the USA is correct? A, it is the same across the whole of the USA, B, it depends on the state and if it's state or federal law, or C, it is the same as mainland Europe? And it's B, it depends on the state and if it's state or federal law.

For this task, I'd like you to explain two differing approaches to sentencing, using the USA and Norway as a examples.

You can use the following sentence starters to help you.

So the USA can be viewed as a country that uses retribution focused sentencing because.

And Norway can be viewed as a country that uses rehabilitation focused sentencing because.

Pause while you complete this task.

So your answer might have looked like this.

The USA can be viewed as a country that uses retribution focus sentencing, because any states can and do pass long sentences to young offenders, including life without parole.

The USA also use life without parole frequently, including for repeated crimes.

Lastly, 21 states in the USA still use the death penalty.

Norway can be viewed as a country that uses rehabilitation focused sentencing, because they invest heavily in prisons and prisoners, ensuring that these facilities are designed to be more therapeutic, in both appearance and atmosphere.

Prisoners are also provided with lots of psychological and educational support whilst in prison.

We're now going to start to consider how effective is sentencing in other countries.

So when deciding whether sentencing is effective, there are a range of factors to consider, and it's quite subjective and difficult to do.

But one of the key factors that people look at is re-offending rates.

Are people committing crime again after they have served their sentence? Because that's what re-offending means.

You're re-offending, you are offending again, even though you have passed through sentence.

Re-offending rates are important as they indicate a sentence's effectiveness, and they also impact overall crime levels.

So let's have a look at some statistics.

So these give us the percentage of people that re-offended within two years of having a sentence passed.

And you can see, that England and Wales and Scotland are fairly similar.

Scotland's slightly higher than England and Wales.

So England and Wales, 39% of people re-offend within two years, and in Scotland it's 44.

But the big difference is when we look at Norway and USA, because in Norway, only 20% of people re-offend after a two-year period.

Whereas in the USA, it's 60%, so a whole 40% are higher, so huge differences there.

And Lucas is telling us that, "The USA has one of the highest re-offending rates in the world." And Sofia is telling us that, "Norway has one of the lowest." So even though we've only looked at England and Wales, Scotland, Norway, and the USA in this lesson, actually, if you look globally, the USA has one of the highest re-offending rates, and Norway does have one of the lowest.

So let's have a check.

Put the country's in order with the lowest two-year re-offending rate first.

So whichever's got the lowest, you're gonna give a 1, and then a 2, 3, and so on.

So pause while you have a go at this check.

So Norway has the lowest, followed by England and Wales, followed by Scotland, and then the USA with the highest.

The re-offending figures could indicate that sentencing is more effective in countries that focus more heavily on rehabilitation, and they're less effective in countries that focus more heavily on retribution.

But Lucas is saying, "But what about the victims of crime? What do they think about rehabilitation and retribution?" Because that also could be a factor that we look at, when assessing and evaluating sentencing.

And Sofia's saying, "Good point! I wonder how the victims would rate the different types of sentencing?" Victim satisfaction and perception of the effectiveness of sentencing is difficult to measure, and that's because different victims of crime might have different opinions about what they want to happen to the offender.

So some victims of crime, may want to see the offender punished really harshly.

This might help them to cope with what's happened to them, and feel like they're getting justice.

Whereas, other victims may find reassurance in knowing that the offender has been rehabilitated and has learned from their crime, and will hopefully, not go on to commit that crime against someone else.

So different people are going to have different perceptions about what sentencing should do.

Norway does have programmes, such as the National Mediation Service, that purposefully engage victims in the sentencing process, and also support restorative conversations between victims and offenders.

In the USA, many states campaign against the death penalty, and harsh youth sentencing, this could indicate that not all US citizens feel retribution focused sentencing is always effective.

So really interesting points there, so in the USA, where you have got really high retribution sentencing, there's actually quite a lot of people in that country that are campaigning against that, they don't agree with that.

And in Norway, where there's lots of rehabilitation, actually, lots of victims of crime, are actually really supportive over that process.

Let's have a check.

So one of the key restorative programmes used in Norway i called A, the National Mediation Service, B, the National Restorative Service, or is it C, the National Offending Service? It's a the National Mediation Service.

So for Task C, I want you to think about which country uses sentencing most effectively, England and Wales, Scotland, Norway, or the USA? Now, there's no right or wrong answer for this, you're using those critical thinking skills to formulate your argument.

So explain your answer based on what you've learned this lesson.

One way to structure your answer could be this.

You could provide a summary of how each country approaches sentencing, that would be really, really good for your knowledge.

And then have a closing paragraph, which explains the one that you think is the most effective and why.

And Lucas is reminding you, "When you're writing your answer, you might want to consider factors like the use of life without parole, how youth offenders are treated, re-offending rates, victim justice, and the overall prison experience." So lots of things that you could write about there.

So pause, while you complete this task.

So your answer may have included the following.

England and Wales approach to sentencing combines retribution and rehabilitation to provide justice and support.

Whole life sentences are used sparingly, but they do exist.

Youth offending is different and recognises a greater need for rehabilitation.

Scotland take a similar approach to sentencing, however, Scotland is slightly more restorative in its approach.

They have a heavy focus on community sentencing, and youth offending includes all offenders 24 and under, with prison being used sparingly.

Norway has one of the best re-offending rates globally.

They place a heavy focus on rehabilitation that is also victim focused, through the National mediation Service.

Heavy investment in prisons ensures that prisoners are better equipped for life after prison.

Whereas the USA, takes a retribution focused approach to sentencing, which ensures that victims receive justice.

The death penalty can also be used for serious violent crime.

Now, your closing paragraph depends which one you prefer, and which you think is the most effective.

So if you went for Scotland or Norway, perhaps, it might look like this.

Each country has a different approach to sentencing with pros and cons.

I think Scotland and Norway's approach is most effective because they focus on rehabilitation, using community sentences and only sending people to prison when necessary.

This approach offers a chance to improve and get support, rather than just being punished.

However, you may have concluded differently, you might have gone through the USA approach.

Let's have a look at that.

The USA's approach, though harsher, is effective because it prioritises justice for victims, and accountability for offenders.

Strict sentences send a clear message that crime has serious consequences.

While less focused on rehabilitation, it emphasises deterrence and retribution, helping to maintain law and order.

So in summary, for how does sentencing in England and Wales compared to elsewhere? Sentencing is different when comparing England and Wales with Scotland.

Scotland places a heavier emphasis on community sentences and has a different approach to youth justice.

Norway has a rehabilitation focus method of sentencing, they invest heavily in prisons with the aim of reducing future crime.

The USA uses retribution focus sentencing using life without the possibility of parole sentences more frequently than the UK.

Some states also use a death penalty.

Norway could be viewed as having the most effective method of sentencing due to their low re-offending rates, but this is a complex topic, as victim justice is another factor to consider.

So well done for working so hard at this lesson, I hope you enjoyed it and I hope that you'll come back for some more citizenship lessons in the future.