COMMUNITY-BASED APPROACHES THAT SUPPORTDESISTANCE: A REASSESSMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS
Dr. Matti Joutsen*

I. APPLICATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED SENTENCES AROUND THE
WORLD
Thirty years ago, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial
Measures (the Tokyo Rules) 1 were adopted by the General Assembly. Ten years ago, theUnited Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures
for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules) 2 were similarly adopted.
So far, no reliable overview has been prepared of how community-based sentences 3 arebeing used in practice in the different jurisdictions around the world. 4 No readily available
source is available. As noted by the Secretary-General in his report to the Thirteenth United
Nations Congress in 2015,
Sentencing policies refer to the responses of the criminal justice system to thevarious offences as regards the types of sentences, including non-custodial
measures. A comparative assessment of sentencing policies of criminal justicesystems would require the analysis of the type of sentences, including the length ofcustodial sentences handed out to convicted persons, while taking account of theseriousness of the criminal offences committed. At the international level, there are
no available data on the length and type of sentences that allow this type ofcomparative analysis. 5
The situation is slowly changing. In one region of the world, Europe, comparative
statistical data on community-based sentences are being collected. This is only partiallygood news, since not does it cover only one region, but also the process of collection wasSpecial Advisor, Thailand Institute of Justice.
General Assembly resolution 45/110, annex.
2
General Assembly resolution 65/229 annex.
3
Although the Tokyo Rules and the Bangkok Rules use the wider concept “non-custodial measures,” themain focus in this paper is on sentences, which can be defined broadly as punishment imposed by a court(or other duly constituted authority) on an offender, following a formal procedure. The concept includes
decisions made in restorative justice and mediation proceedings.
The terms “non-custodial” and “community-based” are synonyms. The term “alternatives toimprisonment” is widely used but will not be used here, as it implies that imprisonment is the standard andexpected response, and other measures are, in some sense, exceptions to the norm.
4
The present paper updates and supplements data contained in an unpublished paper, Joutsen 2015. This
earlier paper also included data, not repeated here, on the use of restorative justice measures and monetary
sanctions.
5
A/CONF.222/4, para. 37.
*
1- 83 - 83 -

begun fairly recently, and it is too early to use this data set to assess patterns on other thana very general level. However, it does provide a point of departure for at that one region. 6
In time, some data may become available also on a global basis. The American
Probation and Parole Association, together with Community Supervision Solutions, haslaunched the “Supervision Around the World” (SAW) Project, which seeks to collectinformation on community supervision practices in every country around the world. 7 TheSAW Project will identify countries offering supervision services, document current
practices, and create an interactive internet repository for the information that it obtains onsupervision programmes.
A second initiative launched recently, the Global Community Corrections Initiative, issimilarly seeking to collect global data on the use of community corrections. 8 During theinitial stage, the initiative is seeking to identify experts in each of the fifty countries withthe highest prison populations and obtain through them information on the use ofcommunity corrections, both as sentencing options and as post-release measures.
There are several reasons why data on community-based sentences has been so difficult
to collect, and have not been particularly usable for comparative purposes:• community-based sentences are used primarily at the lower end of offence
seriousness, and it is at this end that the scope of criminalized conduct (i.e., conductthat may lead to a response by the criminal justice system) varies considerably fromone jurisdiction to the next;• community-based sentences as a response to criminalized conduct may be imposed
not only by the courts, but also by the police, the prosecutor and even otheradministrative authorities, and decisions may also be taken by community-based
bodies (as with the case of mediation and restorative justice measures);• community-based sentences, even if imposed by a court, are not necessarily enteredinto a centralized register nor recorded in the statistics; and• the terminology varies from one jurisdiction to another, and thus even communitybased sentences referred to by the same term (for example “probation”) may not becomparable.
More generally, there are the considerable difficulties in making comparisons between
how the criminal justice system operates in different countries. 9 Nonetheless, thirty years
after the adoption of the Tokyo Rules and ten years after the adoption of the Bangkok Rules,
it is of interest to try to examine how community-based sentences are being used in different
jurisdictions around the world. This paper is based on the available literature and statistical
data, and seeks to bring together a number of different observations about patterns.

Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics (SPACE II), Aebi and Hashimoto 2018, and Aebi et al. 2019.
The Council of Europe project uses the term “alternatives to imprisonment”. The working definition does
not include for example measures imposed on the basis of juvenile criminal law, nor persons under theaftercare of probation agencies. Heiskanen et al 2014, p. 27.
7<http://communitysupervisionsolutions.com/saw-project/>.
8
GLOBCCI.ORG
9See, for example, Nelken 2007.
6- 84 - 84 -

A. The Benchmark: International Patterns in the Use of Imprisonment
The patterns in brief:• imprisonment (incarceration, custodial treatment) is without question the basic
form of punishment in criminal justice systems around the world.
• although the global rate of prisoners per 100,000 in population has been stable
over the past few years, the rate has been increasing rapidly in some individual
countries, and decreasing in others.
• the prisoner rate varies considerably from one country to the next, and even from
one neighbouring country to the next – even if these countries have somewhat
similar legal systems and degree of development.
• clear regional and sub-regional patterns can be detected in the use of
imprisonment, as measured by prisoner rates. In general, imprisonment is used
least in Africa and Asia, and most in North America and Latin America.
• in several countries with a high prison population, a present trend is towards“decarceration”, a deliberate policy of lessening the use of imprisonment.

The best current source of data on prison populations around the world has beendeveloped by Roy Walmsley: the World Prison Population List. The most recent versionof this list, the twelfth edition, provides data as of September 2018. 10 The list provides
information on the total prison population and the prisoner rate (the number of prisoners
per 100,000 in population) in almost all countries in the world. The map below is based on
this data.
One point of caution. Sentences, including sentences of imprisonment, are used indifferent ways by different countries. The use of only one indicator, such as the number ofprisoners per 100,000 in population, can be misleading. The data on prisoner rates reflect
only one dimension of the use of prisons: how many prisoners are being held at a certain
time, as a proportion of the total population. Dünkel notes that prisoner rates are a functionof the number of persons entering prison, and the length of stay. Consequently, similar
prisoner rates may hide considerable differences in these two factors. 11
Furthermore, overall prisoner rates do not show possible demographic differences
within the population. Research has shown that the burden of imprisonment falls unequallyon different population groups, with the greatest burden tending to fall on vulnerable
population groups, such as racial and ethnic minorities, and migrants. 12

Walmsley 2019.
Dünkel 2015 provides data showing that Sweden, with a prison population rate of 57 per 100,000, andGermany, with a prison population rate of 76 per 100,000, have roughly the same rates. Even so, theaverage length in Sweden is only two months, while the average length in Germany is four times longer,
eight months. Both are highly developed countries, with roughly the same level and structure of crime, andwith roughly the same criminal justice processes and efficiency – and yet they use sentences ofimprisonment in quite different ways.
12
See, for example, Garland 2014, and in respect of the situation in the United States, Travis and Western(eds.) 2014.
10
11- 85 - 85 -The 2018 edition of the World Prison Population List shows that the global prison
population has continued to grow, exceeding 11 million in 2018. It also draws attention toregional trends, including an almost tripling in the total prison population of South America
since the year 2000 (an increase of 175%), a more than doubling of the total prison
population of south-eastern Asia (an increase of 122%), and an almost doubling in Oceania(an increase of 86%). 13
In just the three years since the previous edition of the World Prison Population List
had been published, the total prison population had increased by around one half in suchcountries as Indonesia (45% increase in prisoners per 100,000 of general population), thePhilippines (48%), Egypt (53%), Nicaragua (61%) and Cambodia (68%). 14
As can be seen from the map, on the regional level, prisoner rates are highest in Northand South America, and lowest in Africa and South-Central Asia. 15
There are many differences within regions. For example, while Africa as a whole has
the world’s lowest prisoner rates, the median prison population rate for western Africancountries is 53, whereas for southern African countries it is 244.
There are even more distinctive differences within Europe. The map shows a relatively
sharp divide between west and east, with prisoner rates in Eastern Europe considerably
higher than in the west. A particularly marked divide can be found between the Nordic
countries on one side, with prisoner rates ranging around 50 to 70, and the neighbouring
Baltic countries (200 – 300) as well as the Russian Federation (467), on the other.
Although the sub-regional differences in Europe are relatively stable and have existed
for a long time, there have been considerable shifts within countries. Dünkel 2015 notesthat from 1984 to 2014, there has been a clear increase in the prisoner rate in for example
England and Wales (from 84 per 100,000 to 149 per 100,000), France (31 to 98), Portugal(70 to 136) and Spain (38 to 140). In some other countries, there has been a decrease; forexample, in Finland from 97 to 55. In the Russian Federation, there has been a significant
decrease in just a fifteen-year period, from 730 per 100,000 in 1999, to 467 per 100,000 in
2014. 16

Walmsley 2019.
Walmsley 2019. The same source notes that during this same relatively brief three-year period, there has
been a significant decrease in the Russian Federation (10%), Viet Nam (11%), Japan (15%), Ukraine(19%), Kazakhstan (21%), Romania (22%) and Mexico (23%).
15
The seminal and in my view most perceptive analysis of national differences in prisoner rates is to befound in the third chapter of Christie 2000. He focuses on the European region. Lappi-Seppälä 2003
contains a global analysis.
16
According to Walmsley 2019, this decrease in the Russian Federation has continued, as the prisoner rate
on 1 December 2020 was reported to be 336 per 100,000 (https://www.prisonstudies.org/country/russianfederation).
13
14- 86 - 86 -

Reassessing the role of community-based sentences

Prisoners per 100,000 in population, 2018
Colour code: dark red: over 300; red: 150 – 299; yellow: 100 – 149; dark green: 70 – 99; light green: under 70
Source: Roy Walmsley, World Prison Population List, twelfth edition (data as of 30 September 2018)

To turn to Asia, Thailand had a prison population of 250,000 in 2002 (400 per 100,000
in population), but through greater use of pre-trial diversion and early release for drug
addicts, the amount had been reduced to 160,000 by August 2005 (250 per 100,000). Morerecently, however, the trend has reversed, with an increase to 210,000 prisoners in 2010
and 364,000 in 2018 (320 and 526 per 100,000, respectively). Japan, in turn, has had arelatively stable rate, with gradual growth to a peak of 81,000 in 2006 (64 per 100,000),
and a subsequent steady decrease to 52,000 in 2018 (41 per 100,000). 17
B. International Patterns in the Use of Probation
The patterns in brief:
•

•

•

17

the quantitative data on the use of probation, either world-wide or within aregion (such as Europe) is so poor that clear patterns cannot be detected. The
reason is that probation exists in many forms, and is used for many purposes.
the statistical data does suggest, however, that there are huge differences
between countries in the use of probation. Some countries use probation
extensively, others use it rarely.
qualitative data at least in Europe suggests that the use of probation is
expanding, as is the range of functions that probation agencies fulfil.

International Centre for Prison Studies website.
- 87 - 87 -

Probation is generally understood as a sentence in which the offender continues to livein the community, but under the supervision of a judicial authority, probation service orother similar body. 18 The element of “under supervision” is important, and distinguishes
this sentence from, for example, simple conditional sentences where the offender is under
no obligation to report to anyone. However, it should be noted that the extent to which
probation actually involves supervision varies considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Probation agencies can be found throughout the world. For example, in Europe they
can be found in almost every country, although with a wide variety in structure and infunctions. Most of the original probation agencies were state-run, but some were nongovernmental, and today some are privately-run businesses. The work of many probation
agencies covers the entire country, but some are regional or even local. In respect offunctions, before the trial stage some probation agencies prepare social inquiry reports forthe prosecutor, and may provide information also to other decision-makers in the criminal
justice system. Some probation agencies provide assistance to victims of crime, andorganize restorative justice interventions. In respect of sentences, probation agencies may
organize not only probation, but also community service orders. And in respect of prisoners,
some probation agencies provide social support for relatives of inmates, and guidance andsupport to prisoners themselves (including debt regulation) in order to prepare for theirrelease and assist with aftercare residential homes. 19
Because of the considerable differences in organization and functions of probation
around the world, there is little statistical data that can be compared. Even in the one region
with a long tradition of compiling comparative statistics, Europe, a research team that has
taken a close look at this regional data warns that cross-national comparisons of thenumbers and rates of persons under the supervision of probation agencies may be
misleading. 20
Bearing that caution in mind, Table 2 in Appendix 1 provides European data on use ofprobation in 1999, 2007, 2013 and 2017. Despite the difficulties inherent in the data, it canbe concluded at the very least that there are considerable differences between European
countries in respect of how often probation is used. For example, England and Wales,
France, Germany and especially Poland appear to use probation very often, in tens of
thousands of cases each year, while in some other European countries, only a few hundred(or even fewer) offenders begin to serve probation during a year.
One source that provides some data on the use of “community corrections” in different
countries around the world is the Global Community Corrections Initiative referred to at
the beginning of this paper. On the website of the initiative, information is provided on the
total number of prisoners and the total number of persons in “community corrections” in
2016. 21 This is provided below in Table 1. As a source, it must be treated with caution, inparticular as it does not give country-specific data on how “community corrections” isHandbook for Prison Leaders 2010, p. 120.
Dünkel 2015. See also Heiskanen et al 2014, pp. 15 – 16, and tables 1 and 2, on pp. 40 – 41 and 43 – 44.
20
Aebi et al. 2014, p. 300.
21
See <http://www.globcci.org/prisonPopulationMap/prisonPop2Map.html>. The project seeks to collectdata from the fifty countries in the world that have the highest prison population (presumably on theassumption that these countries would also use make extensive use on probation). However, data on
probation is apparently available only from 38 of these 50 countries.
18
19- 88 - 88 -

defined. However, the implication given is that this involves probation, i.e., supervision in
the community.
Bearing in mind that the data in Table 1 should be treated with caution, an examinationof the table raises some intriguing questions. Assuming that the data in the “community
corrections” column refers to the number of persons on probation, and that how community
corrections is defined in the different countries is at least broadly similar, it can be seen thatsome countries (Malaysia, Morocco, Myanmar, and, in respect of adults, Nigeria) do not
use probation.
A second observation is that some countries use probation very rarely, in proportion to
the number of persons kept in imprisonment. The outlier here is Argentina, with some
85,000 persons in prison, and only some 3,400 persons in community corrections. Other
countries in which the number of persons in community corrections is dwarfed by theprison population are Australia, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan, Peru and the Philippines.
Conversely, some countries have a community corrections population that is about
three times the size of the prison population: Germany, the Republic of Korea and inparticular Poland.
Table 1. Corrections population: total number and per 100,000 in population, by typeof sentence, in 2016 (unless otherwise noted in respect of the year)
Source: http://www.globcci.org/prisonPopulationMap/prisonPop2Map.html
Note: the 2016 prisoner data provided here differ from that provided in the 2016 edition of
the World Prisoner Population List compiled by Roy Walmsley. The calculation ofprisoners and community corrections offenders per 100,000 are by the author.
Countryprisoner
population

prisoners
per100,000

community
corrections
population

Argentina
Australia
CanadaChile
China
Colombia
FranceGermany

85,28342,492
41,14549,063
1,649,804
118,92570,71062,194

198
178
115
274
119
239
110
70

3,433
14,298
101,716
58,198707,058
57,099174,510
180,000 (2010)

community
corrections
population
per
100,000
8
66
284
326
51
115
272
202

Indonesia
Italy
Japan*
Kazakhstan
Kenya

248,389
59,13555,96733,98954,000

98
97
44
192
118

55,00059,554
15,27822,5007,861 (1995)

22
97
12
127
172

Korea, Rep. of55,198110

165,818 (2007)

330

Malaysia
MoroccoMyanmarNigeria

55,41382,512
79,66873,631

182
242
150
40

no probationno probationno probationno probation for adults-- 89 - 89 -community
corrections
population as
percentage ofprisoner population
4%
37
247
119
43
48
247
289
(note different years)
22
100
27
66
146
(note different years)
300(note different years)-

Pakistan

83,71845

23,396 (2015)

13

Peru
Philippines
PolandRussianFederation
South Africa
Spain
Thailand82,023
188,278
73,524
582,889

263
190
193
404

16,11043,194 (2017)
290,000
423,092

53
44
760
295

158,11159,087364,288

292
128
540

70,35655,342
216,616 (2013)

128
120
319

TurkeyUkraineUnited Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan
Viet Nam

232,886 297
292,406374
56,246
154
63,944
176
83,014146
190,439202
2,121,600 699
4,650,900
1531
43,900150
probation est. 2018
130,002 140
47,00050*
Data provided by Mika Kitagawa, UNAFEI

28(note different years)
20
23
394
73
44
94
59
(note different years)
126
114
139
219
36

Finally, there are vast differences in the number of persons in community corrections(presumably referring by and large to the number of persons under supervision) per 100,000
in population. At one end, there were apparently only eight persons in community
corrections per 100,000 in Argentina, twelve persons per 100,000 in Japan, and thirteen
persons per 100,000 in Pakistan in community corrections. At the other end of the range
there were 760 persons in community corrections per 100,000 in Poland, and over twicethat number, 1,531 persons per 100,000, in the United States. 22
Once again, caution needs to be exercised in interpreting this data, especially since nofurther particulars are provided on how the data was obtained, and more importantly on
how each reporting country had defined the concept of “community corrections” inresponding to the request for data.
To look at the qualitative data on probation, which are available only for the European
region, one pattern that has been noted is the growth in the number of new probation
agencies. According to the coordinator for the Council of Europe SPACE II project, thesenew probation agencies have often been detached from the national prison administration,or have expanded on the basis of local offices. A second pattern is the growth in probation
workload, much as a result of the diversification of probation functions at different stagesof intervention (e.g., pre-trial, enforcement, management of postponed sentences,conversion of sentences, or post-release stages). 23 In commenting on the observation thatthe number of prisoners in Europe has not decreased despite the growth in probation,
Delgrande notes:
The paradox of increasing patterns for prison and probation is a very complex
phenomenon and many researchers try to explain this evolution from judicial,political, security or criminal policy perspectives. It can be concluded that for theperiod lasting from the early 2000s until now, the part of prisoners sentenced toshort custodial terms (less than one-year custody) did not decrease at all. In fact it
Noting that there were 699 prisoners per 100,000 in population in the United States, it would seem that in2016, over 2 per cent of the total population of the United States was under the control of the criminal
justice system.
23
Delgrande 2015.
22- 90 - 90 -seemed that there was an overuse of CSM [community sanctions and measures] forthe persons who were not supposed to go to prison. 24
Delgrande’s point refers to what is called the “net-widening” effect of new communitybased sentences. Often, new sentences are developed specifically to replace short terms ofimprisonment, but in practice they may replace less restrictive sentences.
C.

International Patterns in the Use of Community Service Orders

The patterns in brief:• community service orders are a new sanction that is clearly increasing in
use around the world, although so far, the main area of growth appears to
be largely in Europe and North America (with a few notable exceptions in
Asia and Africa).
• in Europe in particular, community service orders are in wide use.
• different forms of community service make comparison difficult.

A community service order (CSO) requires the offender to perform a certain number ofhours of unpaid work, usually for an agency or organization or the benefit of the community.
The community service order was first introduced in England and Wales during theearly 1970s. Following a 1976 Council of Europe resolution 25 calling for member states toconsider adopting community service orders, its use spread to a number of other European
countries. In Asia and in the Pacific region, CSOs have been introduced in at least Australia,Fiji, Hong Kong, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, Sri Lanka and Thailand, and in the
Republic of Korea as a supplement to other sentences. 26 In Latin America and the
Caribbean, community service exists in at least Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica and Mexico. 27
In Africa, it exists in at least Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Kenya, Malawi,
Mozambique, Namibia, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia andZimbabwe. 28
There are considerable differences between countries in respect of the total number of
persons undergoing community service. Table 3 in Appendix 1 contains data from Councilof Europe member states for 1999, 2007, 2013 and 2017 on the use of CSOs. Perhaps theclearest trend that can be seen is the growth in the number of countries using CSOs, and in
the number of CSOs imposed. (Both developments can be seen in respect of Europe in thetable.)A second observation is the large differences in use from one country to another. Some
European countries impose only a few thousand CSOs annually, others (in particular
England and Wales, France, the Netherlands, Poland and especially Spain) impose it very
often.
Ibid.
Resolution (76)10 (1976), available at <https://rm.coe.int/16804feb80>.
26
Sugihara et al 1994, pp. 100, 104, 184 and 201; Challinger 1994, p. 263; Singh 2005, p. 90; Rujjanavet
2005, p. 108; Reddy, p. 224.
27
Carranza et al. 1994, p. 407.
28
Penal Reform International 2012, and Saleh-Hanna 2008 p. 387.
24
25

- 91 - 91 -

Examining the available data on the qualitative use of community service orders,
McIvor et al. note that the stated and actual functions of CSOs “have always been very
unclear and conflicting”. According to them, while the various stated functions of a morehumane alternative to prison, rehabilitation and reparation “are largely shared acrossjurisdictions, within different jurisdictions they are assigned varying degrees of importance.
Furthermore, the relative importance attached to different aims has changed over time ineach jurisdiction.” 29 Melvor at al. also say that rehabilitation continues to remain a statedfunction of CSOs, but it is becoming more narrowly defined as reduction of the risk ofreoffending, and conversely the retributive aspects of CSOs “are being stressed in an effort
to garner public and judicial support”. 30
Dünkel, in turn, notes that the general experience with CSOs has been positive. By andlarge CSOs do appear to be replacing short-term imprisonment, and thus the “net-widening
effect” may not be particularly strong. 31
D. International Patterns in the Use of Electronic Monitoring
The patterns in brief:• electronic monitoring is a new measure that has been spreading in manyindustrialized countries.
• electronic monitoring is used not only as a sanction, but also as analternative to pre-trial detention, and as a condition of parole.
• due to the expense of the measure, electronic monitoring is not in very
wide use in developing countries.
In electronic monitoring, the offender is ordered to remain at home or, at specified times,
at his or her place of employment, educational institution, or other accepted location. The
offender has a monitor attached (usually to his or her wrist or ankle) to help in ensuring
compliance with the order.
Electronic monitoring was first used in the United States in 1983. 32 Its purpose is toensure that the offender remains where he or she is supposed to be, or alternatively that theoffender does not enter proscribed areas or approach specific persons, such as potential
victims. It can be used as a sentence in its own right, or as a condition of probation (oranother community-based sentence). Before conviction, it can be used as an alternative to
pre-trial detention (as for example in Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Northern Irelandand Portugal), and at a later stage, as a condition of a prison furlough or of parole fromprison (as in Finland and Sweden).
Although electronic monitoring is a very recent innovation in corrections, it has spread
relatively rapidly from the United States, first to the United Kingdom, and then to Canada,
New Zealand, Australia and South Korea, and to a large number of countries in Europe.
Table 4 in Appendix 1 provides data showing the rapid spread in Europe. While only fivecountries in Europe appeared to be using electronic monitoring in 1999, in 2007 it was in
McIvor et al. 2010, p. 87.
Ibid.
31
Dünkel 2015.
32
Burrell and Gable 2008; Albrecht 2005.
29
30- 92 - 92 -

use in at least 10 European countries, in 2013 in at least 15, and in 2017 in at least 21.
According to Mombelli 2019, electronic monitoring is being used or is being experimented
with in some 40 countries around the world. 33
Equally impressive is the growth in the use of electronic monitoring in individual
countries. Poland, which did not have the sentence as recently as 2007, had almost 17,000
offenders starting to serve an electronic monitoring order in 2013 (Poland did not provide
data for 2017). In France, almost 30,000 offenders began to serve such an order in 2017.
For at least these two countries, electronic monitoring is not just a technological novelty,
but something that is in very wide use.
The differences between countries in the use of electronic monitoring are also evident
in comparison to population. Aebi et al. have calculated that the average total number of
persons in Europe under electronic monitoring in 2010 was quite low (8 per 100,000
population), with the highest rate for England and Wales (42), and the lowest rate in Serbia(close to zero). 34
From the qualitative point of view, Dünkel notes the controversial nature of electronicmonitoring, and the evident danger of net widening. The contribution of electronicmonitoring to the easing of prison overcrowding appears to have been very limited,
although positive results have been reported at least in Finland, the Netherlands andSweden. 35
II. ARE COMMUNITY-BASED SENTENCES MORE EFFECTIVE THAN
IMPRISONMENT?
Conventional wisdom is that community-based sentences are suitable for only a distinct
range of offences: petty offences (and, in some jurisdiction, medium-level offences), andthat the response to more serious offences should be imprisonment. That statement needs
to be subjected to analysis; it needs to be “unpacked”.
What we deem a petty offence and, respectively, a medium-level and serious offence,varies from one jurisdiction to the next, and from one time to another. 36 For example, as
noted by Yukhnenko et al (2019), more or less the same drug trafficking offence can leadto a community-based sentence in one jurisdiction, and to a sentence of five to ten years of
imprisonment in another.
Furthermore, the range of offences covered by, respectively, community-based
sentences and imprisonment varies from one jurisdiction to the next, and from one time toanother. In some jurisdictions, community-based sentences are used more thanMombelli 2019.
Aebi et al. 2014, p. 300.
35
Dünkel 2015. Also Graham and McIvor 2015 conclude that electronic monitoring alone does notdecrease the risk of reoffending, but should be combined with support and supervision.
36
Christie 1968 has explained the variation with the concept of the “penal value” of a certain sentence. He
argues that in any given society, the “penal value” of, for example, a sentence of ten years of imprisonment
can vary considerably over time, depending for example of the amount of conflict in society and thestandard of living.
33
34- 93 - 93 -

imprisonment. In other jurisdictions, in turn, very few community-based sentences are used
at all.
Both factors suggest that the dominant role of imprisonment in each of our jurisdictions
can and should be reconsidered. If some jurisdictions can maintain social control, prevent
crime and protect the victim and the community with a low level of imprisonment, weshould try to learn from their experience. As noted by the UNODC,
It can be argued that the position of imprisonment as the main punishment for
medium-level, and even for more serious, offences is not and should not be selfevident. Other forms of punishment could just as well be used, as long as they canbe regarded as credible and as fulfilling whatever the function of punishment is seen
to be in society. Imprisonment is not the only type of punishment, nor necessarily
the best type of punishment, especially (but not only) in the case of juveniles, anddisadvantaged groups such as drug users and the mentally ill. Imprisonment should
be reserved for the most serious offences and the most dangerous offenders. In othercases, deterrence, education, rehabilitation, just deserts and even incapacitation canbe promoted by other types of punishment, at a significantly lower social, humanand economic cost. It is for this reason that the United Nations Standard Minimum
Rules for Non-custodial Measures (the Tokyo Rules) and the United
Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures
for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules) were drafted.
It needs to be emphasized that this paper is not intended to suggest that imprisonment
is not an appropriate response to crime. As noted above by the UNODC, imprisonment
should be reserved for the most serious offences and the most dangerous offenders.
However, it should not be used indiscriminately when the same functions can be achieved
through community-based sentences.
In pursuit of such a reconsideration of the role of imprisonment, the following section
examines whether imprisonment does indeed fulfil different purposes of punishment, or isany more effective in fulfilling them than community-based sentences. After all, as notedby the UNODC above, imprisonment is widely believed to• deter the person sentenced from repeating his or her offence;• rehabilitate the offender (by increasing awareness and acceptance of norms, and thus
by leading the offender to reject a criminal lifestyle);• incapacitate the offender, by placing him or her behind locks and bars, thus
presumably keeping the rest of the community safe: and• serve as a warning to other potential offenders not to commit an offence.
As for the “just deserts” purpose of punishment, the question of whether or not
imprisonment is “better” that community-based sentences rests essentially on theperception of the severity of each respective sentence.
This section will also consider the cost implications of both imprisonment andcommunity-based sentences.

- 94 - 94 -

A. The Claim That Imprisonment Is Better Than Community-Based Sentences at
Deterring the Offender from Committing New Offences
The “special prevention” function of a sentence, the impact that it has on the offender,
is seen to operate through a combination of deterrence (warning), rehabilitation (educationand seeking to ensure that the offender can be reintegrated into the community as a lawabiding member) and incapacitation. To the extent that punishment actually has this
impact, it is difficult to distinguish between deterrence and rehabilitation. We cannot know
for sure that, if an offender does not commit a new offence after being punished, this isbecause the offender fears new punishment (the deterrence aspect) or is better adjusted (isbetter able to function as a lawful member of society).
A second difficulty lies in how to research the impact of punishment. Much as
criminologists would welcome the possibility, judges in most jurisdictions would not agree
to a massive experiment, in which offenders guilty of more or less similar offences are
randomly split into two groups, with one being sentenced to imprisonment and the otherbeing sentenced to community-based sentences, and the researchers then seeing whichgroup is less likely to commit new offences (and possibly even interviewing the offenders
in an attempt to see whether deterrence or rehabilitation was the primary factor in such
desistance).
A third difficulty lies in drawing conclusions from whatever results can be gleaned fromresearch. Offenders are different and have different life situations and motivations.
Individual jurisdictions have different forms of imprisonment and community-based
sentences, and their theoretical deterrent and rehabilitative impact may well be quite
different. Finally, even in individual jurisdictions, different sentences may be implemented
in different ways, and consequently could well have a different impact on the offenders
serving the sentences.
Without seeking to generalize too far, one way to proceed is to examine the deterrence
argument from the point of view of short-term imprisonment, as compared to communitybased sentences. If the term of imprisonment is only a few weeks or months, the offenderpresumably could not receive the benefit of very extensive educational, health or social
welfare services which would assist him or her in reintegration into the community.
Studies that can shed a light on this have been carried out in a number of countries. One
example is Wermink et al. (2010), which used the matched samples approach 37 in acomparison of reoffending after short sentences of imprisonment (up to six months) with
reoffending after sentences of community service. The study concluded that the reoffending
rate for those sentenced to community service was roughly one half of that of offenders
sentenced to short-term imprisonment, a result which is in line with earlier studies carriedout in the Netherlands.
Going beyond studies in just one country, a recent review brought together the resultsof a number of studies conducted around the world, similarly comparing the impact ofcommunity service with that of short sentences of imprisonment (Yukhnenko et al. 2019).
Once again, the over-all conclusion was that offenders sentenced to community service hada lower rate of reoffending than did offenders sentenced to short terms of imprisonment.
The matched samples methodology seeks to make any two samples being compared as similar to one
another as possible (such as in respect of the age and gender of the offender and the length of the sentence).

37- 95 - 95 -

On this basis, it would seem that the belief in imprisonment as a greater deterrent thancommunity-based sentences can at least be questioned. At this stage, we need not try to
draw more general conclusions. Imprisonment may well have a deterrent effect on at least
some offenders and in some jurisdictions, but in some cases community-based sentences
produce better results.
B. The Claim That Imprisonment Is Better Than Community-Based Sentences at
Rehabilitating the Offender
One of the fundamental purposes of custodial corrections is to take the offender awayfrom a possibly criminogenic environment and place him or her in a closed rehabilitative,
therapeutic or educational institution for treatment. The treatment may be tailored for the
special health and or mental health needs of individual offenders (e.g., counselling, anger
management, psychiatric treatment, substance abuse), or may be designed to help a wider
spectrum of offenders realize the need to abandon a criminal lifestyle (e.g., religious
counselling, education, vocational training, cognitive skills).
Extensive research has been conducted on the rehabilitative effect of custodialcorrections. 38 Among the classics in the field is Robert Martinson’s 1974 article, “Whatworks? – Questions and answers about prison reform.” Martinson summarized a numberof studies and concluded that “with few and isolated exceptions, the rehabilitative efforts
that have been reported so far have had no appreciable effect on recidivism”. 39 David
Farabee, in his 2005 book Rethinking Rehabilitation: Why Can’t We Reform Our
Criminals? also concluded that on a general level, correctional treatment is not working.
Many reasons have been identified for this failure in corrections. If the penal philosophy
is based on a belief that offenders can be “forced” to change their lifestyle (an approachthat critics refer to as “coercive treatment” or “mandatory treatment”), the offenders may
respond by seeming to adapt to the regime and change their behavioural patterns in afavourable manner, but on release immediately return to a criminal lifestyle. It has also
been pointed out that custodial treatment in itself can do little about the situation in which
the offender will find himself or herself on release. Indeed, as has often been noted, being
sent to prison may in a variety of ways worsen the offender’s ability to function as amember of society.
Custodial corrections in most jurisdictions are underresourced and overburdened. The
availability and quality of counselling, treatment, education and vocational training (as wellas other forms of support and assistance) may be severely limited. With too many prisoners
and too little resources, the staff is unable to conduct a proper risk and needs assessment,much less provide an individualized treatment plan that addresses the needs of each andevery prisoner. Treatment that is specifically tailored to individual offenders (or small
groups of offenders with similar characteristics) in individual cultural contexts has beenshown to work, but matching offenders and treatment programmes, and successfully
implementing such programmes, is very resource intensive.
It should again be emphasized that the research has been conducted primarily in a few industrializedcountries, and it is doubtful that the results can be generalized to all jurisdictions. Indeed, some jurisdictions
report very low rates of reoffending for entire prison populations after offenders have been released from
custodial treatment. However, generally the empirical research to verify these reports is missing.
39
Martinson’s conclusions have been summarized in the short phrase, “nothing works”, but Martinson
himself has disavowed this. He notes that there are successful forms of treatment, but these are tailored to
specific groups, and must be well resourced and managed.
38- 96 - 96 -

Without the supervision of the staff, many prisoners will be spending much of theirtime in a very criminogenic environment, one in which criminal values can be instilled,
new and better ways to commit offences can be learned, new criminal partnerships can beformed, and in general the offenders can become more deeply committed to a criminal
lifestyle.
Poorly resourced and overpopulated prisons may furthermore provide an unhealthy
environment, with gang violence, contagious diseases, substance abuse, and a variety offactors that result in mental health issues.
Throughout 2020 and into 2021, the Covid-19 pandemic has brought renewed attention
to the need to reduce prison populations. The UNODC has noted
Reassessing the resort to imprisonment in general and identifying categories ofprisoners which are at particular risk of being affected by the Covid-19 disease willbe essential to curb the continuing inflow of prisoners and to accelerate the releaseof suitable categories of prisoners. For many countries, reducing the prison
population may even constitute a precondition for introducing meaningfulprevention and control measures. Judges and magistrates play a key role in thisregard and will need to make decisions to remand or sentence an individual subject
to enhanced scrutiny in light of the virus. … Alternatives to pretrial detention andthe commutation or temporary suspension of certain sentences will be valuable
instruments to reduce new admissions to prisons. 40
The criminogenic prison environment can be compared to community-based sentences,which allow the offender to remain in the community. He or she can continue with family
responsibilities, education, vocational training and employment. In most jurisdictions, thequality of community-based health, social services and other services may be rather basic(the constraint on resources is certainly not limited to prisons), but they would tend to bebetter than what is available in a custodial environment. Community-based sentences may
also reduce the social stigma of being an “ex-convict”. Consequently, if rehabilitation is
the goal, providing it in a community setting is more effective. As noted in a recent andrigorous meta-analysis of the available research, “Strong meta-analytic evidence indicatesthat community-based treatment programmes for at-risk or adjudicated individuals,
especially juveniles, are more effective than those offered in secure settings.” 41
The belief that imprisonment is better than community-based sentences at rehabilitating
offenders can thus be questioned. Once again, we need not try to draw more general
conclusions. There are cases where offenders can and will benefit from being taken awayfrom a criminal environment and provided with a variety of services. However, we should
not be under the illusion that imprisonment in underresourced and overburdened
institutions in general is rehabilitative.

40
41

UNODC 2020, p. 4. See also Council of Europe (2020a) and Council of Europe (2020b).
Weisburd et al. 2016, p. 77. See also pp. 94-95.
- 97 - 97 -

C. The Claim That Imprisonment Is Better Than Community-Based Sentences atProtecting the Community Through Incapacitation of the Offender
A widely held and understandable belief is that imprisonment has an incapacitating
effect. By placing a criminally active offender who is dangerous to his or her environment
behind bars, the community (or a specific victim) is made safer.
Let there be no doubt about it, serious offenders who are a threat to society or a threat
to specific victims should be placed in prison: those guilty of deliberate offences involving,for example, serious danger to life, health and well-being, serious drug trafficking, serious
theft, serious fraud, serious economic crime and serious crimes against the environment,
and offences that endanger national security.
The research results on the incapacitating impact of imprisonment appears to be mixed,
largely due to the methodological difficulties. Two of the main difficulties lie in predicting
how many offences a prisoner would have committed (based on his or her criminal history)
if he or she had not been sentenced to imprisonment, and the extent to which this individual
would, in time, have desisted from crime. 42
Furthermore, the belief in the incapacitating effect of imprisonment should not be
exaggerated. There are at least three reasons for this. First, offenders may be able tocontinue to commit offences while in prison. This is true in the sense that offenders may
commit for example violent or property offences against one another or staff members
while in prison, and also because offenders may continue to plan and direct offences frombehind prison walls.
A second reason has to do with the possibility (if not probability) in many cases thatremoval of one offender from the community may lead to him or her being replaced byanother offender. This phenomenon has been noticed for example in organized criminal
activity, in particular in drug trafficking.
A third reason is that most persons sentenced to imprisonment will in time be released.
Although it may seem counterintuitive to say that greater use of community-based
sentences increases the safety of the community, what is noted above of the inability of
most prisons in general to rehabilitate offenders suggests that sending a person to prison
may, in the long run, decrease community safety. While in prison, offenders in prison may
learn new ways of committing crime and may form new criminal attachments. This leads
to a cycle of release and imprisonment, which does little to build safer communities.
It can also be noted that allowing offenders to remain in the community provides themwith greater opportunities to enter into community-based substance-abuse programmes,
seek employment, find suitable housing and maintain their family responsibilities, all ofwhich could further contribute to a decrease in the rate of reoffending.
Some recent studies that have examined data on how imprisonment increases the rateof reoffending have concluded that using community-based sentences instead of short-term
sentences of imprisonment can indeed reduce the number of future offences, and in this42

See Travis and Western (eds.) 2014, pp. 140-145.
- 98 - 98 -

way increase public safety. 43 It is clear that this effect depends on a number of variables,in particular the sentencing practice in the jurisdiction in question. In jurisdictions which
already make extensive and effective use of community-based sentences, the effect of sucha shift would presumably be less than in a jurisdiction which makes heavy use of
imprisonment. However, the results of the study do at least draw attention to the periodic
need to reassess our approach to sentencing.
D. The Claim That Imprisonment Is Better at General Prevention Than CommunityBased Sentences, By Warning Others Not to Commit Offences
Asides from the special preventive argument that imprisonment can deter, rehabilitate
and incapacitate the individual offender, imprisonment has also been argued to have ageneral preventive impact, by dissuading other members of the community from crime by
example. This general preventive impact is seen to have three components, the severity, thecertainty, and the celerity (speed after commission of the offence) of the sentence.
Extensive research has been conducted on the correlation (and possible causal
connection) between the use of imprisonment and the crime rate. Of the three components(severity, certainty and celerity), the severity of the sentence has been the easiest to change.
If imprisonment had a clear general preventive impact, then an increase in the use of
imprisonment – stipulating imprisonment as the mandatory sentence for a greater range ofoffences, and using longer sentences (for example through “three strikes” laws) – should
result in a decrease in crime. The preponderance of evidence suggests that there may beslight decrease, but in general this decrease is so modest that it is offset by the social, humanand financial costs of the increase in imprisonment. 44 It could also be argued on the basisof the statistical evidence that increasing the severity of sentences has the opposite effectfrom what was intended: placing more people into imprisonment tends to be correlated withan increase in the crime rate. 45 There are, furthermore, examples of countries, such as
Finland, where a deliberate and considerable decrease in the use of imprisonment did notincrease crime rates (as one would have assumed on the basis of a purported generalpreventive impact).
It has been pointed out that persons planning to commit an offence (to the extent thatrational planning is at all involved) tend to discount the likelihood of detection,
apprehension and conviction. Overall, in many countries the likelihood that an offender
will be arrested and brought to justice for such offences as theft, burglary, drug trafficking
and trafficking in persons is quite small.

For example, a major study in the United Kingdom published in 2019 concluded that replacing short
sentences of imprisonment (less than six months) with community-based sanctions reduced reoffending by
13 per cent. See <https://www.gov.uk/government/news/justice-secretary-urges-evidence-led-approach-tocut-crime>.
Cowan et al. (2019) examined the use of police and court diversion in Victoria, Australia. The authors
calculate, on the basis of an examination of over one million cases, that for each 100 offenders diverted,eight crimes could be prevented per year. Thus, the authors estimate that greater use of police diversion in
Victoria could have prevented tens of thousands of offences.
44
See, for example, Travis and Western (ed.) 2014, pp. 134 – 140.
45
This conclusion has been contested. Much depends on what time period is considered; for example, in thecase of the United States, it has been observed that the increase in the use of imprisonment from the 1970s
to the 1990s ultimately was followed by a fall in reported crime (beginning during the 1990s) (see, e.g.,
Travis and Western (ed.) 2014, pp. 33 – 69). However, if imprisonment does have a general preventive
effect, this effect should arguably have been seen in a much shorter time span.
43- 99 - 99 -The conclusion is that also the general preventive impact of imprisonment, as compared
to community-based sentences, can be questioned.
E. The “Just Deserts” (Retributive) Argument: The Claim That Imprisonment Is
Demanded by the Public Sense of JusticeIn debates on public policy, an often-repeated argument is that the public “demands”
imprisonment as a response to crime. Imprisonment has become such an entrenchedinstitution in our society that it becomes almost a visceral response to offences. Populist
politics have, moreover, encouraged such a visceral response by emphasizing individualfeatures of particularly horrific offences, and then generalizing them to cover broader
categories of offenders and offences.
It is true that simplistic opinion polls (asking loaded questions along the line of “do you
support harsher punishment for rapists and murderers?”) tend to produce predictable
responses (“yes, the public does demand longer sentences”). Research, however, hasrepeatedly shown that there is considerable variety in the attitudes of different members of
the public, and not one general “sense of justice”. More importantly, when respondents areprovided with more detailed information regarding the background of individual
defendants (criminal record, ethnic background, gender, substance abuse, social history)
and the circumstances of the case, the responses tend to fall more in line with current
sentencing practice by the courts, including application of such fundamental principles asproportionality and equity. 46
Along the same lines, Jan van Dijk has used the international data produced fromvictimization surveys to examine possible correlations between general public opinion(punitiveness) and the rate of imprisonment. He concludes that, worldwide, there is no
relationship between public attitudes towards sentencing and actual imprisonment rates. 47
Indeed, van Dijk has noted that
Public opinion survey research supports the broad proposition that the public, when
considering whether hypothetical cases should result in a sentence to prison, is more
likely to favor a noncustodial sentence when that option is fully developed.
Information at the country level has shown that public attitudes are influenced byavailable sentencing options. If alternative, noncustodial sentences are introduced
in a country, the proportion of respondents favoring this option usually goes up
sharply in the aftermath. … In this regard, it is worth pointing out that noncustodial
sentences are not widely available in developing countries. Reliance on prison
sentences in developing countries seems partly determined by the lack of viable
alternatives for which new institutional arrangements would have to be put inplace. 48
The conclusion is that, when the public sense of justice is assessed, community-based
sentences do find wide support as a response to a broad range of offences. The ability ofthe public to understand and accept such sentences should not be underestimated.

See, for example, Kääriäinen 2018 and the literature cited.
van Dijk 2008, p. 264.
48
van Dijk 2008, p. 265.
46
47

- 100 - 100 -F. The Cost-Effectiveness of Community-Based Sentences
The implementation of any sentence brings with it a variety of costs: human, social andfinancial. These costs are generally factored into public policy decisions on theadministration of justice and are deemed to be offset by the benefits that are seen to result
from bringing an offender to justice. This raises the question of whether the benefits
believed to come from sentences of imprisonment can be achieved through communitybased sentences, but at a lower overall cost.
The human costs of serving a sentence extend primarily to the offender, but they also
affect his or her family. In the case of imprisonment, the human costs to the offenderinclude of course the loss of liberty, but separate reference could be made to the disruptionof contacts with family members, 49 interruption of education, vocational training or
employment, the resulting poorer likelihood of being able to return to the job market at thesame level of income and financial stability, 50 and the possible worsening of health andmental health.
The impact of imprisonment on family members can take many forms. Offenders who
have served time in prison may have difficulties in forming relationships, and thus
partnerships would tend to be unstable, leading perhaps to broken families even after theoffender has been released from prison. The offender may be the main caretaker of thefamily, and placing him or her in prison may deprive the family of necessary parental andfinancial support. Imprisonment tends to weaken family bonds, and affect the well-beingof children, to the extent that the children have behavioural problems, such as aggression
and delinquency, as well as their dropping out from school. These same human costs areless likely as a consequence of community-based sentences, since the offender is able toremain at home, at school and at work.
In assessing the social costs of sentences, it should be kept in mind that any stateimposed sanction – whether imprisonment or a community-based sentence – is part of aprocess of state control, a process which also includes policing, arrest of a suspect, thecriminal procedure and conviction. Policing in any society tends to have a focus onvulnerable communities, which are often regarded as high-crime areas. When we consider
that a sizeable proportion of prisoners come from vulnerable communities, this should raisequestions about the impact of multilayered and concentrated forms of disadvantage in thesecommunities: high crime, but also poverty, poor health, unemployment and intrusive state
control. For this reason, it is difficult, if not impossible, to try to assess the social impact
resulting from sending an offender to prison instead of applying a community-based
sentence.
That said, the fact that the prisons in many countries have an overrepresentation ofvulnerable groups such as racial and ethnic minorities strongly suggests that imprisonment
increases social, economic and political inequality in society. Those in prison tend to bepoor, undereducated, unemployed, in poor health and (in some jurisdictions)disenfranchised. The experience is that the impact of imprisonment will not improve, but
in practice worsen their prospects for full integration into society as law-abiding members.
It should be noted that especially in the case of violent offenders, members of his or her family may
welcome the offender being taken out of the home and being placed in prison. However, in most cases theoffender will be released within a few months or years.
50
Research and experience in many countries indicate that potential employers are reluctant to hire persons
with a criminal record, and in particular persons who have been in prison.
49- 101 - 101 -Although they have been guilty of offences, and should be brought to justice, the questionis whether a sentence of imprisonment is the most appropriate, proportional and effective
response to their offences. 51
As for the financial costs, and without entering into the accounting and budgetarydetails of prison management as opposed to the management of community-based
sentences (which vary considerably for example in accordance with the level of economic
development and the administrative structure in different jurisdictions), these costs include
investment in construction and maintenance of prison facilities, capital costs, staff costs,
the cost of various health, mental health, educational and other support services forconvicted offenders, and technology (whether for example for security in prison, or forelectronic monitoring devices in community-based sentencing). There are also hidden costs,
such as those associated with taking an offender away from his or her employment (to theextent that offenders sentenced to imprisonment are gainfully employed).
Reference should also be made to the financial benefits of correctional administration,
including the economic benefit of providing employment for correctional (and affiliated)personnel, and the income from prison industries. When looking at the bottom line,
however, the financial cost per offender of implementing imprisonment as opposed to
implementing a community-based sentence is many times higher. The conclusion is that,from a costs-benefits perspective, community-based sentences can be implemented atlower costs-per-sentence than imprisonment.
G. What Do We Know About the Relative Effectiveness of Different CommunityBased Sentences?
The general conclusion that can be drawn from the previous sections is that the positionof imprisonment as the punishment of choice for medium-level, and even for more serious,
offences is not and should not be self-evident. In many cases community-based sentences
would seem to fulfil the different functions of punishment in society. Imprisonment should
be reserved for the most serious offences and the most dangerous offenders.
A separate issue is what types of community-based sentences “work”, and why: do they
deter, do they rehabilitate, do they serve as a warning to others in the community, do theyprotect the victim and the other members of the community, does the public regard themas appropriate, and are they cost-effective?
This is a large and complicated issue, and it is made more complex by the diversity oftypes of sentences, the diversity of jurisdictions, and the diversity of offenders who aresentenced. What is more, there is perhaps surprisingly little rigorous research on theeffectiveness of community-based sentences, and caution has to be used regarding theextent to which research results in one jurisdiction can be generalized to apply elsewhere.
When speaking about community-based sentences, however, this discussion on relative
effectiveness can and should be largely limited to those sentences that are intended to havea special preventive impact on the offender. 52 We can leave aside for example monetary

Travis and Western (eds.) 2014.
It should be recalled that some sentences or measures, such as restorative justice processes, are designed
to have an impact also on other persons affected by the offence.
51
52- 102 - 102 -fines, which are primarily intended to have a general preventive effect. 53 (In many
jurisdictions, this means that in practice most community-based sentences would be leftoutside the scope of our examination.)
It should first be noted that most offenders will not necessarily commit new offences.
The criminological literature on the prediction of reoffending refers to the concepts of“false positives” and “false negatives”. In this context, a “false positive” refers to anindividual who, according to risk assessment, is presumed to be likely to reoffend, but infact would not commit a new offence. A “false negative” in turn, is an individual who ispresumed to become law-abiding, but would in fact commit a new offence (an occurrence
which may largely be due to situational circumstances). Although in general, risk
assessment tools have had poor success in predicting future behaviour, what we do know
is that it is easiest to predict correctly who would not reoffend than it is to predict who
would commit a new offence. Out of a cohort of, for example, one thousand persons who
have committed an offence, it is easier for us to predict with relative assurance the several
hundred who will not commit a new offence, than it is for us to predict the perhaps one
hundred who will commit a new offence. 54
Many offenders come from a community that is beset with multiple social problems:poverty, unemployment, lack of economic opportunities, lack of basic services, family
breakdown, marginalized populations and poor social cohesion. If the goal is the preventionof reoffending and thus also the protection of the community, also community-based
sentences should seek to come to grips with these problems. 55
A recent meta-analysis of the available research on “what works” in community-based
sentences can be summarized for the present purposes as follows. Those sentences that seek
to strengthen informal and supportive social controls and reintegration, and to maintain or
repair social bonds (such as restorative justice programmes) have a favourable andstatistically significant effect. The authors suggest that this is because such sentences arehighly specific and targeted, and they involve one-on-one interactions and the building of
personal relationships. On the other hand, sentences that simply place the offender in thecommunity without seeking to provide him or her with a way to internalize or restore
conventional values and relationships do not have an appreciable special preventive impact
on the offender. The authors conclude by saying that this suggests “that interventions
should be implemented at a high level of focus – whether at small places or with high-risk
individuals – and incorporate specific risk factors.” 56
Fines, however, cannot be totally ignored when discussing the appropriateness of different sanctions. If
an offender is unable to pay the fine, he or she may be sentenced to prison for non-payment.
54
Longitudinal studies have generally suggested that a small percentage of a population cohort are “hardcore offenders”, who commit the majority of offences, both petty and serious.
55
Paragraph 29 of the background document to Workshop 2 (A/CONF.234/9) notes that “When prisoners
are released into the community, they frequently encounter a wide range of social barriers to re-entry, suchas challenges in access to employment, housing, treatment for drug use disorders and prosocial support. The
continuum of care from prison to the community through robust coordination, in particular between
institutional and community corrections services, is crucial. Ensuring an adequate period of support
facilitates a smooth transition to society. This can take the form of a support staff assigned to work with theoffender in prison and in the community during an initial transition period, to assist the offender in finding
housing and employment, and generally helping the offender to navigate through the initial stages of reentry.”56
Weisburd et al. 2016, pp. 97-98. The approach used by Weisburd et al. is based on a rigorous assessmentof the available research, and, using the same method developed in Sherman et al. 1997, divides measures
into “what works”, “what doesn’t work”, “what is promising”, and “what requires more research”.
53- 103 - 103 -Along the same lines, the authors conclude that diversion with services is distinctly
more effective than simple diversion. 57 The authors further conclude that electronicmonitoring, when compared with traditional or intensive probation, or even with
incarceration, was ineffective in preventing reoffending. They argue that this is due to thefact that electronic monitoring is based on formal social control and surveillance. 58 This isechoed by Graham and McIvor, who review international experiences with electronicmonitoring, and conclude that
Overall, the electronic monitoring programmes and approaches which are shown to
reduce reoffending during and/or after the monitored period are mostly those which
include other supervision and supportive factors (e.g., employment and education,social capital) associated with desistance. The effective approaches discussed here
have developed on the basis of high levels of integration with supervision andsupport from Probation Officers and other staff and services. In other words, themore effective programmes and approaches, in Europe in particular, are thosewhere EM is not a stand-alone measure. 59
Overall, Weisburd et al. conclude,… the potential crime-supressing elements of the community, such as positivesocial controls, are not necessarily leveraged by simply placing an offender in thecommunity and assuming that the desire to remain there will act as a sufficient
deterrent to recidivism. The more successful community programs suggest that atargeted and focused approach may be required. 60
This targeting and focusing revolves around the nature of the offence and the offender.
For example, substance abusers, offenders with mental health problems, offenders guiltyof domestic violence, and sex offenders may respond well to community-based sentencesthat contain a treatment and support component.
III. PROMOTING WIDER USE OF COMMUNITY-BASED SENTENCES 61
There is a strong interest throughout the world in replacing imprisonment with
community-based sentences. The repeated resolutions and declarations of the United
Nations Congresses on this subject, adopted by consensus, show that all member states areagreed – at least in principle – on the need to reduce imprisonment and to expand the useof effective community-based sentences. Even so, when the United Nations moved toadoption of the Tokyo Rules in 1990, and asked member states to provide data on the statusof community-based sentences, many replied that appropriate community-based sentences
are simply not available, or that the available community-based sentences are used far lessthan they might be or, when used, are used as substitutes for other community-based
sentences and not for imprisonment (the so-called net widening effect).
Weisburd et al. 2016, p. 99.
Weisburd et al. 2016, p. 100. Also, Dünkel 2015 concludes that the research results on the contribution ofelectronic monitoring to the prevention of reoffending is not evident, and that electronic monitoring seems
to be promising only in combination with social support by the probation and aftercare services.
59
Graham and McIvor 2018.
60
Weisburd et al. 2016, p. 100.
61This section of the paper is an updated and abridged version of Joutsen 1990.
57
58- 104 - 104 -The available data presented in this paper on the use of community-based sentences
around the world suggests that even today, thirty years on, Member States continue to meetwith these same challenges.
The main reasons for the inconsistency between stated goals and actual practice arearguably to be found in law, sentencing constraints, policy, resources and attitudes. These
problems cannot be dealt with in isolation from one another. The use of community-based
sentences can be expanded effectively only if all the problems are recognized and dealt
with. The steps that should be taken on different levels and by the different stakeholders
involved are outlined in the following.
STEP 1 Ensure that the law clearly provides an adequate range of community-based
sentences
In most jurisdictions, the courts can impose only those sentences that are expressly
provided in statutory law. In these systems, the first step must be to ensure that statutory
law provides for an adequate range of community-based sentences and outlines theprocedures and conditions for their imposition and implementation. The legislation should
specify the purposes of the sentence and the expectations of the legislator as to the range
of offences for which the sentence may or should be used. This would help judges indetermining the proper place of the measure within the penal system, in line with suchfundamental principles of sentencing as proportionality and equity. 62
Another statutory measure would be a requirement that the court justify why it imposesa sentence of imprisonment rather than a community-based sentence. Such a measure
would compel the court to consider why none of the available community-based sentences
are appropriate in the case at hand. England and Wales has established a Sentencing
Council, which has issued mandatory guidelines for courts on the imposition ofcommunity-based sentences. 63 These provide, inter alia, that
A custodial sentence must not be imposed unless the offence or the combination of
the offence and one or more offences associated with it was so serious that neither
a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified for the offence.
There is no general definition of where the custody threshold lies. The
circumstances of the individual offence and the factors assessed by offence-specificguidelines will determine whether an offence is so serious that neither a fine alone
nor a community sentence can be justified. Where no offence specific guideline isavailable to determine seriousness, the harm caused by the offence, the culpabilityof the offender and any previous convictions will be relevant to the assessment.
The clear intention of the threshold test is to reserve prison as a punishment for themost serious offences. 64
When a new community-based sentence is introduced, it may be difficult for thelegislator and/or the court to assign the sentence its appropriate place in the penal system. 65
See for example paragraph 22 of the background document for Workshop 2 (A/CONF.234/9).
<https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/about-us/>.
64
Ibid.
65
Although in theory the legislature could provide specific sentencing guidelines, most such guidelines deal
primarily with the length of sentences of imprisonment, and at most with the borderline between
62
63- 105 - 105 -Is 40 hours of community service the equivalent of one month of imprisonment, forexample? Is it more or less severe than a suspended sentence of a certain length? Insentencing, the court must make a choice among a number of different sentences using
multiple criteria which compare the seriousness of the offence to what are deemed to be
the relevant characteristics of the offender and the penal value of the community-based
sentences available, either singly or in combination. 66
The introduction of community-based sentences is therefore not enough. The courts
should be given clear guidance on how the new non-custodial sentences fit in with present
sentencing policy. This guidance may be provided not only by the legislator, but also by
judicial practice (court precedents), and by sentencing guidelines adopted for example by
the Supreme Court, judicial conferences or professional associations.
Where this would not be deemed a violation of the principle of the separation of theexecutive and the judiciary, the executive branch could consider the possibility of providing
the court with annotated information on current court practice. This can be done in the formof a publication giving the “normal” sentencing range for the basic types of offences, withindications of how, in court practice, aggravating and mitigating circumstances haveaffected the sentence. Such information would be provided to the courts simply as a tool,
showing the judges what other courts have done in similar cases.
Since the selection of the sentence is often determined by the motion of the prosecutor,
or by the way in which the prosecutor otherwise presents the case, also prosecutorial
guidelines could be developed to identify cases which would seem suitable for theimposition of community-based sentences.
STEP 2 Review substantive criminal law in order to ensure that it is in line with thefundamental values of society
Changes in society are often reflected in changed attitudes towards certain behaviour.
A review of criminal law may show that existing penal provisions on certain offences werepassed at a time when these offences were deemed particularly reprehensible; in the lightof present attitudes, a community-based sentence may well be deemed more acceptable,
appropriate and proportionate than imprisonment. The public attitude towards the use of
imprisonment may have changed; in many countries, its “penal value” has increased.
Where imprisonment at one time was imposed in decades, it may now be imposed in years;
where it was once imposed in years, it may now be imposed in months or even in weeks.
At the lower end of the scale of offence seriousness, the possibility of imprisonment
could be eliminated entirely through decriminalization and depenalization. Such “offences”
as vagrancy and public drunkenness have been decriminalized in many countries. Althoughimprisonment and suspended sentences (probation). The most widely known such guidelines are theMinnesota Sentencing Guidelines, which stipulate a “presumptive sentence” for offences. These have been
applied since 1980. The most recent version was adopted as of 1 August 2020; Minnesota Sentencing
Guidelines 2020. The basic sentencing grid can be found at <https://mn.gov/msgcstat/documents/Guidelines/2020/2020StandardSentencingGuidelinesGrid.pdf>.
66
The Sentencing Council for England and Wales has issued very detailed and mandatory guidelines on abroad range of offences. The Sentencing Council’s guidelines for the imposition of community andcustodial sentences (Sentencing Council 2016) provides clear guidance for example on the imposition andlength of community service orders, the imposition of electronic monitoring orders, the imposition andamount of fines, as well as the imposition of custodial sentences.
- 106 - 106 -these offences are rarely imprisonable offences in themselves, the persons who are fined
are usually unable to pay any fines imposed, or because of their circumstances would often
be in violation of conditions imposed on, for example, community service. Such nonpayment or technical violations often lead to imprisonment. In this way, decriminalizationof petty offences reduces the use of custodial measures.
STEP 3 Key stakeholder groups should be provided with information and training on thefunctions and use of community-based sentences.
Even if the law provides for a wide range of community-based sentences, and even if
the courts have clear guidelines on how these sentences should be imposed, communitybased sentences will not be used as long as the courts – and other influential groups ofstakeholders – do not consider them effective, appropriate and proportionate in dealing withoffenders. The preamble to the Tokyo Rules lists as such key groups law enforcement
officials, prosecutors, judges, probation officers, lawyers, victims, offenders, social
services and non-governmental organizations involved in the application of communitybased measures.
Ensuring that judges and other key stakeholders understand the purpose and rationaleof community-based sentences and that they are favourably disposed towards using suchsentences requires providing them with information and training. The key groups should
be made aware of the general benefits of community-based sentences and of the generaldrawbacks in the wide use of custodial sentences. They should be made familiar with theexisting community-based sentences and their specific purposes; they should be madefamiliar with sentencing and enforcement. They should be trained in the basic principles oflaw, criminology and psychology (as well as other disciplines) required in their respectiveroles. Finally, they should be made familiar with the rules, procedures and practices of thevarious other services involved, in order to make it easier for them to understand the
problems involved in community-based measures, and the possibilities of working together
to solve these problems.
The credibility of community-based sentences can also be enhanced if these are notseen to be excessively lenient. Visibly punitive measures (such as electronic monitoring)might therefore be an attractive option in some jurisdictions. Even terminology might beused to enhance the perception of community-based sentences as punitive. Instead of
speaking of the “waiving of measures” or “absolute discharge”, for example (both terms
may imply to the general public that “nothing happened”), one might speak of “punitive
warnings” or “penal warnings”.
STEP 4 Criminal justice decision-makers and representatives of community-based service
agencies should work in closer cooperation in order to identify and respond to the needsof offenders, in particular members of vulnerable populations, such as racial and ethnic
minorities, alcohol and drug users, the homeless and foreigners
One theme that has been repeated again and again in the debate over the greater efficacy
of community-based sentences over imprisonment is that many offenders have a large
range of challenges, ranging from health and mental health issues, lack of education and- 107 - 107 -vocational training, lack of a permanent home, to difficulties in forming stable
relationships. 67
Merely imposing a community-based sentence on an offender (unless the sentence itself
addresses underlying needs, such as is the case with a community-based substancetreatment order) will do little to help the offender in responding to these challenges. For
this reason, the various agencies as well as appropriate non-governmental organizations(including peer-support groups) and even the private sector, should find ways of working
in closer cooperation with criminal justice agencies, and of doing outreach work towards
offenders in order to ensure continuous support.
Criminal justice practitioners (the police, prosecutors and judges) will be among thefirst to point out that they are not “social workers”, and that they do not have the training,
resources or time needed to provide offenders with various forms of assistance. That said,
methods of referrals (with due respect to issues of consent and privacy) can be developed,
ranging from simply mentioning to appropriate offenders what services are available andhow to use them, through provision of brochures, to the establishment of community liaison
offices in connection with police stations or courts to serve as a “one-stop shop” foroffenders.
A more direct way of promoting cooperation is to stipulate conditions on police,prosecutorial and court dispositions requiring that the offender be in contact with specificcommunity-based services.
STEP 5 Secure a steady resource base for personnel, training and facilities
The success of community-based sentences in practice depends on the availability ofresources for their implementation. Just as imprisonment requires the prison facilities,
personnel and a prison programme, for example probation requires a suitable infrastructure
for the arrangement of supervision, and community service requires not only a suitableorganization but also designated and appropriate places of work.
The most efficient route to increase the credibility of community-based sentences andthus to promote their use is that the state and local community provide the necessary
resources and financial support for the development, enforcement and monitoring of suchsentences. Particular attention should also be paid to the training of the practitioners
responsible for the implementation of the sentences and for the coordination between
criminal justice agencies and other agencies involved in the implementation of thesesentences in the community.

Paragraph 23 of the background document for Workshop 2 (A/CONF.234/9) notes the importance, insentencing, in case dispositions and in providing rehabilitative interventions, of assessments to identify theoffenders’ individual risks, needs and environmental factors that may have a positive or negative impact on
their chances of successful social reintegration.

67- 108 - 108 -STEP 6 Ensure a continuous research component in planning
One area of concern relates to the possible dysfunction of wider use of communitybased sentences, in particular the so-called net-widening effect. 68 Statistical evidence fromvarious countries clearly suggests that community-based sentences are either used far lessthan they might be or, when used, are used as substitutes for other community-based
sentences and not for imprisonment. In addition, when suspended sentences are pronounced,
the period of imprisonment imposed may be longer than if an unconditional sentence toimprisonment were to be used. In the event of activation of the original sentence, theoffender can therefore go to prison for longer than would otherwise have been the case.
Such dysfunctions of the greater use of community-based sentences may detract fromthe benefits, or even prove to be so serious that rational criminal policy is endangered.
Research has an important role in identifying and suggesting ways to overcome thesechallenges.
With respect to sentencing, research is needed on the factors that are considered by thesentencing judge or tribunal. Unexpected factors may have a decisive influence on thesentencing process. The little research that is available has suggested, for example, thatsome judges will not consider community-based sentences that require a social enquiry
report. Further in regard to sentencing, it is possible that the imposition of communitybased sentences can be made on discriminatory grounds, as has been argued to be the casewith sentencing to imprisonment.
One area of research that is related to research on sentencing, concerns attitudes.
Certainly, the attitudes of the sentencing judge affect his or her decisions on what available
options to use. As important as the attitudes of the sentencing judge are the attitudes ofother persons involved in the implementation of community-based sentences. In particular,
the degree to which a community-based sentence is accepted by professionals as well as by
the community influences the probability that this sentence will actually be applied.
Research on changes in attitudes (showing the causes and extent of such changes) might
be of assistance in the planning of the introduction or expansion of community-based
sentences. A key factor in the success achieved with the use of any community-based
sentence is the extent to which the policymakers, courts, other practitioners and agencies
and the community are provided with evidence-based data on the effectiveness of thissentence.
IV. COMMUNITY-BASED SENTENCES WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THEPERSPECTIVE OF THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS
The assumption that imprisonment best fulfils the various functions of punishment andthus is suitable for medium-level and more serious offences has resulted in a general growthin the number of prisoners. However, societies around the world are becoming increasingly
The background paper for the Workshop (A/CONF.234/9, para. 4(e)) notes:“The overuse of non-custodial measures, as well as their use without appropriate community support, canlead to ‘mass supervision’ and ‘net widening’, whereby the number of persons controlled by the criminal
justice system increases. The excessive use of supervision for low-risk offenders may increase thereoffending risk, owing to unnecessary interventions”.
68- 109 - 109 -aware that the use of imprisonment has significant human, social and economic costs. With
the increase in the number of prisoners, prisons are becoming overcrowded. Since theprisons themselves are often outdated, understaffed and underresourced, hundreds ofthousands of prisoners around the world are being “warehoused” in poor conditions that
impair their physical and mental health and make rehabilitation programmes difficult.
Our overreliance on prison also has an impact on equality in society. In many
communities a considerable number in particular of young men belonging to racial or
ethnic minorities, migrant groups and other such vulnerable groups are or have been in
prison and have to deal with the stigma of being ex-prisoners (a particular difficulty inseeking employment) and possibly also the deprivation of certain rights, such as the rightto use public housing.
In adopting the Tokyo Rules and the Bangkok Rules, the Member States of the United
Nations agreed that the use of imprisonment should be lessened, and the use of communitybased sentences should be expanded.
This review has questioned the basis underlying the predominant role of imprisonment
in our criminal justice system. When assessed in the light of the different functions ofsentencing (deterrence of the offender, rehabilitation, general prevention, “just deserts”,
even incapacitation), we can conclude that imprisonment on a whole has not been able todeliver in accordance with what policymakers and the public have been expecting. In manycases, community-based sentences can fulfil the same functions, and they can do so at lesshuman, social and financial cost. We need to reassess the respective role of imprisonment,
and of community-based sentences.
In 2015, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution that shouldcause us to seriously rethink our dependence on imprisonment, and in turn look for a greaterrole for community-based sentences: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A fair,rational, humane and effective criminal justice system is important in its own right. It
protects societies against crime. It brings offenders to justice. It ensures that the rights ofthe victim are respected and protected. When it fulfils its function fairly, it plays animportant role also in ensuring that the conditions are in place to allow for sustainable
development.
Our criminal justice system is therefore quite properly seen in the light of Goal 16 of
the Sustainable Development Goals, which deals with the promotion of a just, peaceful andinclusive society through peace, justice and strong institutions. It has been said many times
that a strong legal system, including a strong criminal justice system, is a critical enabling
factor in reaching the other Goals. When the rule of law is lacking, the sustainable
development goals that we are seeking are undermined. At the same time, equitable andpredictable forms of justice are fundamental to building societies that have a strong
foundation in the rule of law, and that facilitate growth and development.
All the Goals, however, are cross-cutting. We should see Goal 16, and the operation of
the criminal justice system in the wide sense, in the broader context of the 2030 Agenda.
This means in practice that we should take into consideration how the decisions thatcriminal justice practitioners make could have an impact on the different aspects of the lifeof the victim, the offender and the community – on physical and mental health, on education,
on employment and economic survival, on the rural or urban environment, and so on. For- 110 - 110 -example, when a police officer decides to arrest a suspect (instead of letting him or her gowith a caution), this may affect the suspect’s employment or education. If a judge decides
to impose a sentence of imprisonment, this decision may remove the only provider from afamily, thus leading to the break-up of the family, with a knock-down effect on the
education and future development of the children.
This should not be understood as criticism of the decision to arrest, or of the impositionof the sentence of imprisonment. These decisions may be justified in themselves, and may
even, under the circumstances in the case, be mandatory under the law. Imprisonment has
a definite and important role in protecting victims and society, and in responding tooffenders who have committed serious offences, and who continue to pose a great threat ofharm.
However, it is important to realize that decisions in the criminal justice system do haveconsequences in different sectors of life and society, and that the decision-maker could andshould consider whether the decisions could be made differently, in a way that promotes
sustainable development more broadly, while still ensuring that the purposes of criminal
justice are met. Moreover, judges and decision-makers often have discretion in making
their decision, and in weighing whether or not to opt for a custodial or a community-based
sentence. For this reason, the entire question of sentencing should be examined also within
the context of the Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the General Assembly in2015.
Having served time in prison deepens the problems faced by members of vulnerable
populations and contributes to their marginalization. This in turn, breeds poverty(hampering progress on Goal 1 of the SDGs), which is one of the major root causes ofcrime and violence. Marginalization also often results in poor nutrition (SDG Goal 2), ill
health (SDG Goal 3), illiteracy (SDG Goal 4) and other challenges to sustainable
development.
Because community-based sentences do not restrict the liberty of offenders as much as
imprisonment, they allow offenders to continue their responsibilities as a family member
and a member of the community, and to continue their education (SDG Goal 4) or
employment (SDG Goal 8) without interruption. Moreover, offenders can continue toutilize the various social welfare and health services (including substance abuseprogrammes) which are easier to provide in the community than in custodial environments(SDG Goals 1 and 2).
Further reasons for the promotion of non-custodial sentences and measures are that they
help to reduce inequality (SDG Goal 10) and strengthen the inclusiveness, safety, resilienceand sustainability of the community (SDG Goal 11).
The strong interest throughout the world in replacing imprisonment with communitybased sentences, noted at the outset of this paper, can be seen in various trends. The strengthof these trends varies from one jurisdiction to the next:• a diversification of community-based sentences through, for example, adoption of
new community-based sentences, increased possibilities for adding conditions toexisting community-based sentences, and increased possibilities for combining
different community-based sentences.
- 111 - 111 -• the diversification of community-based sentences has been paralleled in somecountries by an extension of community-based sentences to a greater range ofoffences and offenders.
• a greater use of the classical community-based sentences such as the fine andprobation.
• development of community-based sentences that include one or a combination ofsuch components as work (as in community service), compensation/restitution andtreatment.
• a renewed interest in traditional indigenous measures (such as restorative justiceprocesses), and in sentences that rely on traditional infrastructures.
Despite these developments, a gap remains between policy and practice regarding
community-based sentences. This gap is reflected on several levels:• On the statutory level, many states report that they do not have an appropriate rangeof community-based sentences, or that the legislation does not provide clear guidanceon the purposes, imposition or implementation of these sentences.
• On the level of sentencing practice, the gap is reflected in the continuing
predominance of imprisonment as the “norm”, as the main measuring stick insentencing. Community-based sentences are either used far less than the law would
allow, or they are used as alternatives for other community-based sentences.
• On the level of resources, the implementation of some community-based sentences
remains hindered in many areas because of the lack of the necessary personnel,
support structures, and funds.
The gap can be diminished only through a change in attitudes. The legislator should bemade aware of the need for legislation that supports the goals of community-based
sentences. The judge and prosecutor (as well as the other practitioners involved) should bemade aware of the need to seek the appropriate community-based sentences and to apply
them whenever possible. Those who decide on resources should be made aware of thebenefits to be derived through expanded use of community-based sentences, and theimportance of well-staffed, well-trained and well-resourced community-based support
services working in close cooperation with the criminal justice system. Where an offender
does have a need for treatment, criminal justice practitioners should seek to ensure that heor she is referred to the proper agencies for help. Finally, the community should be madeaware of the importance of the reintegration of the offender into the community for the
benefit of the offender, the victim and the community as a whole.
Promoting a greater role for community-based sentences is part of sustainable
development.

- 112 - 112 -Appendix 1
Statistical data on the use of selected community-based sentences in Europe
The following three tables have been prepared on the basis of the Annual Penal
Statistics of the Council of Europe (SPACE II). Each table contains data for 1999 (the firstyear for which this data is available), 2007, 2013 and 2017 for selected European countries.
There is a structural difference between 1999 on one hand and the other three years on
the other: the data for 1999 refer to the number of community-based sentences given, while
the data for 2007, 2013 and 2017 refer to the number of persons starting to serve such asentence.
Please note that the number of persons starting to serve a sentence during a year –referred to in SPACE II as the “flow” – is a different indicator from the number of persons
serving a sentence on a given day – referred to as the “stock”. Thus, these figures cannot
be compared with the “stock” figures provided by the Global Community Corrections
Initiative that are given in Table 1 in the preceding text.
These data should be used with caution. It can be seen that data is often missing. For
example, in Table 2, only Denmark and Ireland have provided data for all four years.
A second observation is that there appear to be large differences in the data from year
to year coming from some of the individual countries. For example, the data for the
Netherlands in Table 3 appears to show that almost 37,000 persons began to serve acommunity service order in 2007, and over 32,000 did so in 2017, but in 2013 this was thecase with only 200 persons. Such huge swings can be the result of major changes inlegislation or in the organization of community service in the country in question, but they
can also be because the person(s) responding from these countries used different
interpretations of community-based sentences from year to year, or that there was a simple
error in filling out the questionnaire or in compiling the resulting table.
Table 2. Annual number of probation orders ordered (1999), number of persons that have started toserve probation (2007, 2013 and 2017)(Source: SPACE II; selected countries that have provided data for some years)( - = data not provided; *** = sentence does not exist / not applicable)country
1999
2007
2013
2017
Austria
14,974
1,705
1,984
Denmark
1,702
1,289
1,822
1,290
England & Wales
58,36843,13442,520Finland
1,297
575
France62,111
69,642
67,385Germany
94,30080,111
Hungary
1,891
2,653
Ireland
1,500
163
732
615
Italy
2,779
6,171
8,691
the Netherlands***
13,073
7,930
8,398
Norway528
589
610
Poland128,561
263,761
255,055
Portugal
1,595
8,739
9,387
Scotland
6,028
Spain
***
28,225
13,503Sweden
5,258
***
***
Switzerland
2,096
175
396
563

- 113 - 113 -Table 3. Annual number of community orders ordered (1999), annual number of persons who havestarted to serve community service (2007, 2013 and 2017)(Source: SPACE II; selected countries that have provided data for some years)(- = data not provided; *** = sentence does not exist / not applicable)country
1999
2007
2013
2017
Austria
***
3,187
4,249
3,784
Denmark
970
3,259
3,617
4,396
England & Wales
49,59730,27822,177
Finland
3,630
2,960
2,106
1,465
France23,36830,80932,116
Germany
Hungary
5,178
13,537
Ireland
1,342
1,516
2,257
2,215
Italy
***
38
8,903
9,335
the Netherlands
17,29036,928200
32,306
Norway
2
2,228
1,980
Poland103,406
Portugal
2,724
14,31810,057
Scotland
6,200
7,800
9,888
Spain
151,354
84,073Sweden
3,066
4,939
5,814
4,341
Switzerland
2,096
5,354
2,065
33,055

Table 4. Annual number of electronic monitoring orders (1999), annual number of persons who havestarted to serve an electronic monitoring order (2007, 2013 and 2017)(Source: SPACE II; selected countries that have provided data for some years)(- = data not provided; *** = sentence does not exist / not applicable)country
1999
2007
2013
2017
Austria
***
***
724
891
Denmark
***
1,103
2,512
2,163
England & Wales
661
5,058
7,994
Finland
***
***
223
241
France***7,900
27,10529,569Germany***
42
28
Hungary******
Ireland
***
***
Italy
***
***
***
the Netherlands
47
916
***
***
Norway
***
0
1,889
3,265
Poland******16,927
Portugal
585
185
294
Scotland
206
1,500
2,900
Spain
0
2,904
2,344
2,343
Sweden
3,529
3,364
1,987
1,642
Switzerland
***
463
196
235

- 114 - 114 -REFERENCES
A/CONF.222/4 (2014), State of crime and criminal justice worldwide. Report of theSecretary-General to the Thirteenth United Nations Crime Congress, Report of theSecretary-General to the Thirteenth United Nations Crime Congress, Vienna
A/CONF.234/9 (2019), Workshop 2. Reducing reoffending: identifying risks anddeveloping solutions. Background paper prepared by the Secretariat, Vienna
Aebi, Marcelo F. et al (2014), European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice
Statistics, Fifth edition, HEUNI publication no. 80, Helsinki
Aebi, M. F., & Hashimoto, Y. Z. (2018). SPACE II – 2018 – Council of Europe Annual
Penal Statistics: Persons under the Supervision of Probation Agencies. Strasbourg:
Council of Europe, 2018, available at http://wp.unil.ch/space/files/2019/09/SPACEII_report_2018_Final_190930_rev.pdf
Aebi, Marcelo F., Yuji Z. Hashimoto and Melanie M. Tiago (2019), Probation andPrisons in Europe, 2018: Key Findings of the SPACE reports, Strasbourg: Councilof Europe
Albrecht, Hans-Jörg (2005), Electronic Monitoring in Europe. A Summary andAssessment of Recent Developments in the Legal Framework and Implementationof Electronic Monitoring, available at https://www.mpicc.de/files/pdf1/albrecht.pdf
Burrell, William D. and Robert S. Gable (2008), From B.F. Skinner to Spiderman toMarthan Stewart: The Past, Present and Future of Electronic Monitoring of
Offenders, Probation and Parole: Current Issues”, pp. 101 – 118
Carranza, Elias, Nicholas J. O. Liverpool and Luis Rodríguez-Manzanera (1994).
Alternatives to Imprisonment in Latin America and the Caribbean, in Zvekic,
Uglješa, Alternatives to Imprisonment in Comparative Perspective, pp. 384 – 438
Challinger, Denis (1994), Alternatives to Imprisonment in Australia and New Zealand, in
Zvekic, Uglješa, Alternatives to Imprisonment in Comparative Perspective,
UNICRI, pp. 253 – 275
Christie, Nils (1968), Changes in Penal Value. Scandinavian Studies in Criminology, vol.
2, Oslo
Christie, Nils (2000), Crime Control as Industry, 3rd edition, Routledge
Council of Europe (2020a), Prisons and Prisoners in Europe in Pandemic Times: An
evaluation of the short-term impact of the COVID-19 on prison populations,available at https://wp.unil.ch/space/space-i/
Council of Europe (2020b), Prisons and Prisoners in Europe in Pandemic Times: An
evaluation of the medium-term impact of the COVID-19 on prison populations,available at https://wp.unil.ch/space/space-i/- 115 - 115 -Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics (SPACE II) website, available at
http://wp.unil.ch/space/space-ii/
Cowan, David, Heather Strang, Lawrence Sherman and Sara Valdebenito Munoz (2019),
Reducing Repeat Offending Through Less Prosecution in Victoria, Australia:
Opportunities for Increased Diversion of Offenders, Cambridge Journal of
Evidence-Based Policing, vol. 3, pp. 109 - 117
Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public (1990), Government Proposals for Legislation(Government “White Paper”), Cm 965, London
Delgrande, Natalia (2015), interview, Confederation of European Probation, available at
http://cep-probation.org/the-complex-world-of-statistics-in-probation
van Dijk, Jan (2008), The World of Crime. Breaking the Silence on Problems of Security,
Justice and Development Across the World; Sage Publications, Los Angeles,
London, New Delhi and Singapore
Dünkel, Frieder (2015), Imprisonment and Community Sanctions: The Role of Crime
Policy and Sentencing Practice in Europe, paper presented at the 80th Anniversaryof the Criminological Association of Finland, Helsinki, 23 April 2015
Farabee, David (2005), Rethinking Rehabilitation: Why Can’t We Reform Our
Criminals?, Washington, D.C.
Garland, David (2014), Cultures of Control and Penal States, in Beyond Punitiveness:
Crime and Crime Control in Europe in a Comparative Perspective. Selection ofPresentations of Plenary Sessions of the EUROCRIM 2013 Conference,
Proceedings of Criminology Special Issue No. 73, Budapest, pp. 57 – 87
General Assembly resolution 45/110, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Noncustodial Measures (The Tokyo Rules), 14 December 1990
General Assembly resolution 65/229, United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women
Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok
Rules), 21 December 2010
GLOBCCI.ORG (undated), available at http://www.globcci.org/index.html
Graham, Hannah and Gill McIvor (2015), Scottish and International Review of the Usesof Electronic Monitoring, Scottish Centre for Crime & Justice Research, research
report no. 8/2015, University of Stirling, available athttps://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/22183/1/Scottish%20and%20International%20Re
view%20of%20the%20Uses%20of%20Electronic%20Monitoring%20-%20Graham%20a
nd%20McIvor%202015.pdf

Handbook for prison leaders (2010), A basic training tool and curriculum for prison
managers based on international standards and norms. Criminal Justice Handbook Series,
UNODC, Vienna- 116 - 116 -Harrendorf, Stefan and Paul Smit (2010), Attributes of criminal justice systems:
resources, performance and punitivity, in Stefan Harrendorf, Markku Heiskanen
and Steven Malby (eds.), International Statistics on Crime and Justice, HEUNIand UNODC, Helsinki, pp. 113 – 151
Heiskanen, Markku, Marcelo F. Aebi, Willem van der Brugge and Jörg-Martin Jehle(eds.) (2014), Recording Community Sanctions and Measures and Assessing
Attrition. A Methodological Study on Comparative Data in Europe. HEUNI
publication no. 77, Helsinki
Herradura, Ismael Juanga (2009), Improving the Treatment of Offenders Through the
Enhancement of Community-Based Alternatives to Incarceration: The Philippine
Experience, Resource Material Series No. 79, UNAFEI, Tokyo, 2009, pp. 199 –213
International Centre for Prison Studies website, available at
http://www.prisonstudies.org/about-wpb
Joutsen, Matti (1990), Expanding the Use of Non-custodial Measures, UNAFEI Resources Material Series no. 38, Tokyo, pp. 181-196
Joutsen, Matti (2015), The Framework for Application of the Tokyo Rules: International
Patterns in the Use of Community-Based Sanctions, unpublished paper given atthe 25th Anniversary Seminar on the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for
Non-Custodial Measures, UNAFEI, Tokyo, 7 – 9 September 2015
Kääriäinen, Juha (2018), Attitudes and public punishment preferences: Finnish results ofScandinavian sense of justice research, Journal of Scandinavian Studies in
Criminology and Crime Prevention, 19:2, pp. 152-169, available athttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14043858.2018.1502946
van Kalmthout, Anton and Ioan Durnescu (2008), Probation in Europe, Nijmegen
Lappi-Seppälä, Tapio (2003), Prisoner Rates: Global Trends and Local Exceptions,
Annual Report for 2002 and Resource Material Series No. 61, UNAFEI, Tokyo,
pp. 37 – 60
Martinson, Robert (1974), What works? – Questions and answers about prison reform,
The Public Interest, pp. 22-54, available athttps://www.gwern.net/docs/sociology/1974-martinson.pdf
McIvor, Gill, Kristel Beyens, Ester Blay and Miranda Boone (2010), Community Service
in Belgium, the Netherlands, Scotland and Spain: A Comparative Perspective,
European Journal of Probation, vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 82 – 98
Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and Commentary (2020), Minnesota Sentencing
Commission, available at https://mn.gov/sentencing-guidelines/guidelines/- 117 - 117 -Mombelli, Armando (2019), Swiss-made ankle bracelets ride global prison reform trend,
Geosatis, 5 November 2019, available at https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/geosatis_swiss-made-ankle-bracelets-ride-global-prison-reform-trend/45333054
Nelken, David (2007), Comparing criminal justice, in Mike Maguire, Rod Morgan andRobert Reiner (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, Fourth Edition,
Oxford, pp. 139 - 157
Penal Reform International (2012), Alternatives to imprisonment in East Africa. Trends
and challenges. London
Reddy, Bala (2009), Community-Based Alternatives in Sentencing [Singapore], Resource
Material Series No. 79, UNAFEI, Tokyo, pp. 220 – 243
Rujjanavet, Somphop (2005), Country Report – Thailand, in Resource Material Series
No. 67, UNAFEI, Tokyo, pp. 103 – 112
Saleh-Hanna, Viviane (2008), Colonial Systems of Control. Criminal Justice in Nigeria,
OttawaSentencing Council (2016), Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences.
Definitive Guideline, London, available athttps://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Imposition-definitiveguideline-Web.pdf
Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S.
(1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising.
Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Institute ofJustice, available at http://ncjrs.gov/works
Singh, Runjit Singh a/l Jaswant (2005), Non-Custodial Sentencing Options in Malaysia,
in Resource Material Series No. 67, UNAFEI, Tokyo, pp. 88 – 92
Sugihara. H., K. Horiuchi, N. Nishimura, A. Yamaguchi, S. Sato, I. Nishimura, Y.
Nagashima, M. Nishikawa and F. Saito (1994), An Overview of Alternatives to
Imprisonment in Asia and the Pacific Region, in Zvekic, Uglješa, Alternatives to
Imprisonment in Comparative Perspective, UNICRI, pp. 95 – 202
Tonry, Michael and Richard Wills (1988), Intermediate Sanctions, unpublished draft
report, November 1988, cited in Annesley K. Schmidt, An Overview ofIntermediate Sanctions in the United States, report prepared for the ResearchWorkshop at the Eighth United Nations Crime Congress
Travis, Jeremy and Bruce Western (eds.) (2014), The Growth of Incarceration in the
United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences, National Research Council of
the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., available athttps://johnjay.jjay.cuny.edu/nrc/NAS_report_on_incarceration.pdf- 118 - 118 -UNODC (2020), COVID-19 preparedness and responses in prisons. UNODC Position
Paper, 31 March 2020, available at https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-andprison-reform/COVID-19/20-02110_Position_paper_EN.pdf
Walmsley, Roy, World Prison Population List (2019), twelfth edition, available athttps://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/wppl12.pdf

Weisburd, David, David P. Farrington and Charlotte Gill (eds.) (2016), What Works in
Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation. Lessons from Systematic Reviews, New
York, Heidelberg, Dordrecht and London
Wermink, Hilde, Arjan Blokland, Paul Nieuwbeerta, Daniel Nagin and Nikolaj Tollenaar(2010), Comparing the Effects of Community Service and Short-Term
Imprisonment on Recidivism: A Matched Samples Approach, Journal of
Experimental Criminology, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 325-349, available athttps://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/14462106/2010-WerminkHComparing.pdf
Yukhnenko, Denis, Achim Wolf, Nigel Blackwood and Seena Fazel (2019), Recidivism
rates in individuals receiving community sentences: A systematic review, PLoS
One. 14(9): e0222495, available athttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6754149/- 119 - 119 -