Families and other social networks can play an important role in supporting and encouraging an offender as they rehabilitate. Wives, husbands and children can effectively monitor the behaviour of an offender when trained staff are unavailable. Given that the imprisonment of an adult family member is emotionally traumatic and financially damaging, families have a strong incentive to ensure that rehabilitation is successful.  Disruptive family environments are also catered for by the proposition resolution. Where family breakdown is a cause of criminality, social workers and rehabilitation specialists will be able to “treat” the family alongside the offender. Underlying drug or alcohol addictions can be addressed. ‘Therapeutic programs’, as they are termed, enable offenders to be rehabilitated by and within the community in a ‘living-learning situation’ [i] .  Prison on the other hand is an unsupportive environment where offenders are blamed for their behaviour and sometimes coerced into rehabilitation programs [ii] . In a prison context, an offender would be treated in isolation, without the opportunity to address underlying familial issues that might cause reoffending. Prison can be iatrogenic (increase risk) by removing offenders from their source of social support, families, jobs and accommodation; rehabilitation is more likely to be effective when it is used in conjunction with those factors, not apart from them. Furthermore, the available evidence suggests that prison staff hold ‘rather unsympathetic’ attitudes towards prisoners [iii] , inferring a culture unfavourable to effective rehabilitation.  Although an offender may be prevented from committing crime for the duration of a prison sentence, this does not represent a significant advantage over the proposed resolution. For the reasons set out above, a prisoner released from a custodial sentence is likely to be incentivised to engage in crime (due to a lack of employment opportunities and social isolation), and will commit more serious types of crime.  [i] Day, A., Casey, S., Vess, J. &amp; Huisy, G., “Assessing the Social Climate of Prisons”, February 2, 2011 from Australia Institute of Criminology, Page 8/Page 32  [ii] Day A. &amp; Ward T., “Offender Rehabilitation as a Value-Laden Process” in International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology (June 2010: Vol 54. N.3) Page 300  [iii] Day A. &amp; Ward T., “Offender Rehabilitation as a Value-Laden Process” in International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology (June 2010: Vol 54. N.3) Page 294