course, are usually those people wrt whom community sentences have been tried and have failed - either because the offender refuses to complete them, or because (s) has gone on to commit further offences. And because, for most repeat minor (and not so minor) offenders, their 'sheet" will read: (a) conditional discharges; (b) if they haven't worked (or crime more serious), community sentences; (c) if they haven't worked, more community sentences (with or without "anger management" or drug treatment); (d) if they haven't worked, short prison sentence .. it is hardly surprising that your short prison sentences would see more recidivists than the previous one: because they will already be hardened recidivists by the time they even get to prison for the first time. But no, I forgot, it's not actually costs they want to reduce, what they want is to increase the trickle up effect and transfer even more money into the hands of the profiteers. In this case private prisons, which will doubtless grow in numbers over the next few years. Contrary to the claims of Civitas, prison is not the right place to rehabilitate the vast majority of offenders # No. But its the most effective way of keeping them off the streets and by definition stopping them from committing more crimes. There has to be a strong punishment and deterrence element in sentencing, not just endless opportunities for offenders to "rehabilitate". The most effective means of rehabilitating people must surely be to make them want never