Those who argue for the extension of alternatives often use two very
practical arguments. Alternatives are cheaper, and they are more effective. Research has
been carried out to compare the re-offending rates of individuals who have served a prison
sentence with others, convicted of similar offences, who have undertaken community-based
sanctions. The results of these studies have varied, but in general have shown that
re-offending after community-based sanctions is no more likely than after imprisonment,
and some studies have shown considerably reduced rates of re-offending after
community-based sanctions.
The evidence suggests that highly focused programmes, addressing the
particular offences and needs of individuals concerned, tend to be the most successful in
terms of reducing re-offending. (Junger-Tas 1994) [18]
The cost of administering most community-based sanctions has been found
to be much lower than the cost of imprisonment. In England and Wales for instance in
1993/4 a month of prison cost ?2,190. A probation order cost ?105 per month and a
community service order ?100 per month (Home Office 1995) [17].
However, states which have introduced community-based sanctions have not necessarily or
immediately reduced the overall cost of administering criminal justice. In order to
achieve significant reductions in total costs, it is usually necessary to reduce the
prison population to such an extent that whole institutions or units may be closed. Simply
reducing slightly the population of each prison in the country does not often reduce the
numbers of buildings or staff needed by that institution, which constitute the bulk of the
expenditure.
Some countries, particularly those in economic crisis, have decided that it is not
possible to make the short term extra investment needed to establish community-based
sanctions, which would lead in the longer term to a reduction in the need for new prisons
and therefore to substantial savings.
