Alternatives to Prison: Exploring Sentencing Alternatives in the UK

This essay provides an overview of alternatives to prison within the United Kingdom's criminal justice system. It examines various approaches to sentencing, including probation, restorative justice, electronic monitoring, and community sentencing, highlighting their evolution and significance. The essay delves into the application of these alternatives to different crimes, emphasizing their roles in rehabilitation, community involvement, and cost-effectiveness. It discusses the historical context of probation, the processes of restorative justice and electronic monitoring, and the implementation of community sentences. The analysis also considers the criticisms of these alternatives and the complexities of their relationship with prison sentencing, ultimately concluding with the importance of appropriate application and the identification of factors contributing to criminal behavior. The essay also explores the impact of early intervention programs for young offenders and the need for a comprehensive approach to address the underlying causes of crime.

Running head: ALTERNATIVES TO PRISON
Alternatives to Prison
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1ALTERNATIVES TO PRISON
In recent years various debates were conducted regarding issues related to overcrowding
of prisons in United Kingdom. From the very beginning the correctional system of United
Kingdom is struggling with the accommodation of exceeding number of young offenders in
custody (Andersen and Andersen 2014). As a result of sudden increase in custodial sentencing,
considerable pressure were imposed on the correctional centers and therefore the only option left
was finding an alternative to prisons (Brooks 2015). It can be emphasized that with the evolution
of the Criminal Justice Act and the Anti Social Behavior Act in 2003 the subject-matter of
criminal justice system was rebalanced keeping in view the condition of the victim and the
society (Bacchi and Rönnblom 2014). The purpose of this essay is to explore the different
alternatives to prison and how such alternatives can be applied to different crimes. In this regard,
the essay is commissioned to examine the alternative approaches to custodial sentencing which
includes probation, restorative justice, electronic monitoring and community sentencing.
It can be stated that in modern era alternatives to incarceration are not treated as options
because these alternatives have introduced various methods of sentencing. It can be observed that
from the very beginning probation and prison served as effective methods of sentencing
however; with the increasing crimes various other alternatives enumerated (Butler and Maruna
2016). Previously these alternatives were considered as options however; with changing time
these alternatives are recognized as intermediate sanctions. Therefore it is important on the part
of the prison officers to examine different sentencing methods available and apply them
according (Fletcher et al. 2014).However, the concept of alternatives to prisons is no longer an
alternative, with changing pace it has become the mostly recognized legitimate sentencing
options.

2ALTERNATIVES TO PRISON
In order to emphasize on the importance of alternative to incarceration, it is essential to
mention two important methods of sentencing- probation and prison. Probation formed an
integral part of the U.K correctional system for over a century (Hamilton, Fitzgibbon and Carr
2016). In today’s world it is the most widely utilized correctional method. In this regard, it can
be stated that the purpose of probation and alternatives to detention were to serve the interests of
the community and the government in the prosecution of crime. Probation can be defined as the
sanction ordered by the Court for an individual who was found guilty of crime (Kutateladze et al.
2014). When probation is sanctioned by the Court, the offender stays in the community however;
he remains under the observation of a probation officer. However, the process is not same for all
the offenders as in case of grave offences, it is necessary for the offender to serve considerable
period in prison. It is evident that prison focuses on the practice of incapacitation and
punishment. On the other probation is regarded as the most efficient alternative which
emphasized rehabilitation and community involvement in order to provide appropriate response
to crime (Mela 2016). It is noteworthy to mention here that from the beginning probation forms a
significant part of community supervision. Probation proved to be an efficient because it allowed
the offenders to communicate with their families and the society under the supervision of
correctional or probation officers (Piché, Gaucher and Walby 2014). In many cases probation are
often supplemented with various programs and tools which can be referred as electronic
monitoring which can be applied in order to address community risk factors. However, certain
restrictions are imposed on the liberties of the offenders in order to monitor their activities
(Rhodes et al. 2016). Therefore, it is required on the part of the probation officer to fulfill the
conditions of probation and the Court is at the authority to determine the activities of these
probation officers. In order to contribute towards the peace and security of the community

3ALTERNATIVES TO PRISON
various programs were introduced by probation which includes occupational training and mental
health counseling. In this regard, the Court is at the authority to impose restrictions on the
offenders for the purpose of protecting the society by reducing chances of recidivism. In modern
day the purpose of probation is to suspend a custody sentence in which the Probation Officer
communicates effectively with the probationer regarding the fact that the probationer should not
violate the orders of the Court otherwise he shall be sent to prison custody.
The purpose of restorative justice is concerned with the promotion of accountability by
involving process of reconciliation to the society. However, in practice a mediator is involved
who formulates a face to face interaction between the victims and the offenders. In United
Kingdom, the process of restorative justice often involves financial institution. It has been argued
by modern scholars that whether the concept of restorative justice proved to be efficient in
reducing rates re-conviction for serious crimes (Roberts and Ashworth 2016). It was opined by
modern scholars that restorative justice proved to be efficient in reducing re-conviction rates in
few offences. Therefore, it was emphasized by autocrats that restorative justice was applied for
the purpose of reducing re-conviction rates among both the adult and young offenders. It was
observed that the process of restorative justice proved to be significant in providing appropriate
solution in cases which involved face-to-face interactions between the victim and the offender.
Restorative justice when used as an alternative to prison sentencing has significantly delivered
cost benefits which proved to be effective in reducing healthcare costs for the victims.
The alternative of electronic monitoring can also be applied during the conviction of an
offence. Electronic monitoring is used in order to release an offender from custody on bail. In
United Kingdom, the application of electronic monitoring was introduced on community orders.
The process of electronic monitoring involves placement of a tag around the wrist or ankle of the

4ALTERNATIVES TO PRISON
offender in order to detect the whereabouts of such offender at times. In this regard, the process
allowed the prosecution of curfews on specific locations. Electronic Monitoring proved to be
effective in reducing convictions because with its application offenders can be released into the
community without serving considerable period in prisons (Piché, Gaucher and Walby 2014).
The electronic monitoring devises comprises of either radio frequency (RF) or global positioning
system (GPS) for the purpose of sending information to the monitoring company when an
offender gets out of the range. According to the perspectives of modern scholars, electronic
monitoring has been applied on different offenders who has committed heinous crimes or were
suspected of committing grave offences.
It can be rightly stated that the Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced the community
sentence in 2005. Community sentencing has been regarded as the partnership between the state,
the government of the country and the community providers. The purpose of community
sentences is to provide the offenders with an alternative to incarceration. Community sentences
is a method of alternative sentencing which is generally carried out in the name of criminal
justice in which the Court is at the authority to punish an offender without involving custodial
sentences and capital punishment (Skarbek 2014). Various restrictions and limitations were
imposed on the offenders who have committed less dangerous offences. These restrictions and
limitation included unpaid work which involved community projects, participation in activities
like education and Offending Behavior Programs, prohibition from performing certain activities,
electronic curfew and house arrest.
It has been agued by different scholars on various grounds that the above-mentioned
alternatives to prison are often regarded as cost effective. However, the efficiency of costs
depends upon the presence of a presence of cost used in administering prison alternatives as

5ALTERNATIVES TO PRISON
compared with the costs involving jail custodies. According to the perspectives of modern
authors, the alternative approaches to sentencing have created positive outcomes in the Criminal
Justice System of United Kingdom. According to the research conducted by the U.K. Ministry of
Justice it can be observed that the participation in group oriented programs reduced re-conviction
rates for some offenders (Butler and Maruna 2016). It was found that with the establishment of
various rehabilitation centers the crime rates decreased considerably as compared to capital
punishment.
A wide number of initiatives were implemented by the U.K government in order to deal
with the issues related to young offenders. With the advent of the New Youth Justice System,
various schemes were formulated with an objective to introduce early education and healthcare
programs (Walsh et al. 2014). Various Youth Offending Teams were formed in England and
Wales. These Youth Offending Teams evaluate specific issues associated with a young offender
and thereby prevent the intention of such young offender from committing further crime.
According to the research conducted by an U.K. agency it was observed that various social and
psychological issues are associated with the young offenders (Hamilton, Fitzgibbon and Carr
2016). These issues have been identified as the problematic behaviors of childhood which
included bullying in schools, anti-social activities in educational institutions and gambling. It can
be emphasized that due to the presence of these factors early childhood is highly affected.
Therefore, parental support is efficient in identifying the issues faced by children at young age
and thereby provides appropriate support. Scholars have argued that with the help of early
interventions the rate of convictions among young offenders can be eliminated.
Modern scholars focused on the efficiency of the alternatives to prison which included
probation, community sentencing, electronic monitoring and restorative justice (Skarbek 2014).

6ALTERNATIVES TO PRISON
In this regard, contemporary authors were of the opinion that a wide range of factors are
associated with the conviction of young and adult offenders which are closely related to poverty
and education. However, in recent years these factors have been mainly considered in reducing
crimes among young individuals. The alternatives to sentencing have proved to be effective in
many cases. In spite of various attempts made by the alternative approaches, various authors
criticized these alternatives on various grounds. Modern scholars emphasized that probation and
community sentences as alternatives to prison could not provide appropriate measures in
reducing crime rates (Scott and Gosling 2015). Modern scholars were of the view that probation
and community sentences could not efficiently address the nature of serious crimes which posed
as serious threat to the society. Therefore, it was argued that in order to implement the alternative
approaches to sentencing appropriately it is essential to demonstrate on the nature of the
community in order to evaluate the fact that whether the communities are able to address the
functions performed by the alternatives to prison (Ryan and Ward 2015). It is noteworthy to
mention in this regard that the relationship which exists between the alternatives and prison
sentencing is quite complex (Roberts and Hough 2015). Therefore, it is essential on the part of
the researchers to identify the impact and significance of the alternatives to prison. In this regard,
it is important to emphasize on the considerations and circumstances that why and under which
grounds the alternatives to prison prove to be effective when applied to different crimes. Various
arguments were raised on the subject-matter of reconviction by evaluating the fact that whether
the concept of reconviction is considered in regard to lifestyle of the offenders or with the risk
factors associated with them (Roberts and Ashworth 2016). However, the Criminal Justice
System of U.K in some cases could not effectively evaluate the rate of reconviction.

7ALTERNATIVES TO PRISON
In the conclusion it is important to mention that it is important on the part of the Courts to
identify the type of alternatives that shall be applied to a specific crime. Therefore, it is also
important to identify the restrictions imposed on these alternatives. It is evident that the
conditions and requirements of the alternatives vary from one individual to another. It is essential
to identify the areas that are closely linked to criminal behavior which affects the peace and
stability of the community to large extent. Lastly, it can be stated that in spite of various
structural obstacles towards the success of alternatives to prison; these alternatives proved to be
beneficial in identifying different crimes.

8ALTERNATIVES TO PRISON
References:
Andersen, L.H. and Andersen, S.H., 2014. Effect of electronic monitoring on social welfare
dependence. Criminology & Public Policy, 13(3), pp.349-379.
Bacchi, C. and Rönnblom, M., 2014. Feminist discursive institutionalism—A poststructural
alternative. NORA-Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 22(3), pp.170-186.
Brooks, T., 2015. Punitive restoration: rehabilitating restorative justice. Raisons politiques, (3),
pp.73-89.
Butler, M. and Maruna, S., 2016. Rethinking prison disciplinary processes: a potential future for
restorative justice. Victims & Offenders, 11(1), pp.126-148.
Fletcher, A., Payne, S., Waterman, D. and Turner, M., 2014. Palliative And End Of Life Care In
Prisons In England And Wales–Approaches Taken To Improve Inequalities. BMJ supportive &
palliative care, 4(Suppl 1), pp.A19-A19.
Hamilton, C., Fitzgibbon, W. and Carr, N., 2016. Punishment, youth justice and cultural
contingency: Towards a balanced approach. Youth Justice, 16(3), pp.226-245.
Kutateladze, B.L., Andiloro, N.R., Johnson, B.D. and Spohn, C.C., 2014. Cumulative
disadvantage: Examining racial and ethnic disparity in prosecution and
sentencing. Criminology, 52(3), pp.514-551.
Mela, M., 2016. Medico-legal interventions in management of offenders with fetal alcohol
spectrum disorders (FASD). In Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders in Adults: Ethical and Legal
Perspectives (pp. 121-138). Springer, Cham.
Piché, J., Gaucher, B. and Walby, K., 2014. Facilitating Prisoner Ethnography: An Alternative
Approach to “Doing Prison Research Differently”. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(4), pp.449-460.
Rhodes, W., Gaes, G., Luallen, J., Kling, R., Rich, T. and Shively, M., 2016. Following
incarceration, most released offenders never return to prison. Crime & Delinquency, 62(8),
pp.1003-1025.
Roberts, J.V. and Ashworth, A., 2016. The evolution of sentencing policy and practice in
England and Wales, 2003–2015. Crime and Justice, 45(1), pp.307-358.
Roberts, J.V. and Hough, M., 2015. Empirical sentencing research: options and opportunities.
In Exploring Sentencing Practice in England and Wales (pp. 1-17). Palgrave Macmillan,
London.
Ryan, M. and Ward, T., 2015. Prison abolition in the UK: They dare not speak its name?. Social
Justice, 41(3 (137), pp.107-119.

9ALTERNATIVES TO PRISON
Scott, d. And Gosling, H., 2015. Counterblast: Thinking beyond the punitive rationale:
Promoting therapeutic communities as a radical alternative to prison. The Howard Journal of
Crime and Justice, 54(4), pp.397-402.
Skarbek, D., 2014. Prisonomics: Lessons from America's Mass Incarceration. Economic
Affairs, 34(3), pp.411-421.
Walsh, E., Butt, C., Freshwater, D., Dobson, R., Wright, N., Cahill, J., Briggs, M. and Alldred,
D., 2014. Managing pain in prison: staff perspectives. International journal of prisoner
health, 10(3), pp.198-208.