The idea of a "community sentence" typically conjures images of a slap on the wrist for most people. However, in many countries, community sentences are viewed and implemented as a serious, structured alternative to short prison terms intended to provide public safety and lower the risk of reoffending.
To have fewer victims, safer communities, and fewer lives stuck in repeat, the obvious question needs to be asked: What else are other countries doing differently, and what can we learn from them?
MYTH vs FACT
MYTH: Community sentences do not really punish offenders.
FACT: Community sentences may include such things as close supervision, unpaid labour, curfews, electronic monitoring, and mandatory programs. In theory, community sentences should be just as demanding and time-sensitive as those in the actual world, where choices and consequences occur immediately.
MYTH: Sending someone to prison is always the best way to ensure their safety and the safety of others.
FACT: Very short prison sentences can be severely disruptive and fail to address why the offender committed the crime. If an individual goes to prison, his/her family can lose their home, job, or ability to achieve stability. These same issues often exist when he/she returns, increasing the likelihood of re-offence.
MYTH: Using community sentences will be too lenient on crime.
FACT: Other countries are using prisons less frequently while developing legitimate alternatives. The goal is not to be lenient toward criminals, but rather to utilise methods that effectively reduce harm and re-offending in the future.
What's Really a Community Sentence?
A community sentence is NOT "nothing will happen." Community sentencing can involve:
1. Ongoing supervision (and strong requirements for compliance)
2. Voluntary unpaid work in your community
3. Having to adhere to curfews or being electronically monitored
4. Getting treatment for substance abuse issues or mental health concerns
5. Attending courses/training/employment programs
When done effectively, community sentencing is not about "just sitting around." Community sentencing can be very structured, and at times, more difficult than a short jail term, which takes someone away from daily life, but does nothing to resolve the underlying cause of the offence.
How Other Countries Typically Approach Sentencing Differently
There are many differences in how countries approach sentencing. However, some countries have been identified as having the most effective results, including parts of the Nordic region and certain European Systems. These countries typically focus on the following key areas:
1) Rehabilitation = Public Safety (Not "Nice to Do")
Some of the countries that are often referred to for rehabilitation first are countries such as Norway. While there may be a perceived sense of softness in these approaches, they are very much based in reality. When the goal is a safer society, then the objective of a rehabilitation program is to minimise the opportunity for individuals to commit additional crimes.
Therefore, the focus should be on addressing the reasons why people engage in crime. For example, addiction, trauma, lack of education, unemployment, unstable housing, and social isolation.
Bottom line: The purpose of a sentence is to change behaviour. Therefore, a sentence that addresses behaviour is going to provide greater public safety than a sentence that merely isolates an individual for a period of time.
2) Provide Credibility to Community Sanctions = Hold Individuals Accountable
Wherever community sanctions have proven successful, they were developed to mean something. The components of effective community sanctions typically include:
1. Clear expectations for the individual receiving the sanction
2. Swift consequences when the individual fails to comply with the terms of their sanction
3. Consistent supervision of the individual
The success of community sanctions ultimately rests upon the credibility of the system.
Where community sanctions are viewed as vague, and/or the enforcement of those sanctions is inconsistent, the public will lose confidence in the effectiveness of the community sanctions -- regardless of whether the sanctions result in reduced recidivism.
Bottom Line: Community sanctions must demonstrate credibility by being adequately funded and administered consistently.
3) Utilise Prison More Strategically, and Alternatives More Thoughtfully
Finland is another country that has demonstrated significant long-term improvements in its criminal justice policies. Over time, Finland has significantly reduced the number of inmates within their correctional facilities, while simultaneously increasing their investment in prevention and providing social support to at-risk populations.
The fundamental premise of Finland's approach is simple. Reserve prison for instances where it is necessary for public protection purposes. In contrast, utilise community-based sanctions for cases in which they can help minimise the potential harm to others, and maximise the likelihood of positive outcomes for the individual.
Bottom Line: Successful systems identify the level of risk associated with each case and provide the most effective level of intervention.
4) Don't Ignore the Practical Barriers that Increase the Likelihood of Recidivism
Even the most well-intentioned sentence will fail to meet its intended objectives if the individual cannot successfully establish themselves after release from custody.
This process of rebuilding involves a multitude of routine activities:
1. Applying for employment
2. Obtaining access to educational/vocational programs
3. Navigating benefit and documentation processes
4. Re-establishing relationships with family/support systems
5. Scheduling appointments and meeting requirements
Increasingly, all of these routine activities require one common factor: digital access.
Without reliable digital access, individuals become disconnected from the modern world, and the pathway to establishing stability becomes increasingly narrow.
Bottom Line: Re-entry into society is not simply a concept -- it is logistics.
5) Measure What Matters Most — Improve Accordingly
While many systems that produce improved outcomes track and measure their results, some examples of measures include rates of recidivism, completion rates of programmes, and employment outcomes.
The continuous cycle of measurement provides valuable information to decision-makers regarding what interventions are producing successful outcomes, what interventions are ineffective, and therefore, what interventions can be improved upon.
Bottom Line: Do we want improved outcomes? We must treat this as an outcome issue -- Not a Culture War.
Where Rebooted Fits In
At Rebooted, we support reintegration. We help get secure, usable laptops into the hands of people rebuilding their lives, so they can access learning, training, job applications, and essential services.
It’s not glamorous — but it’s foundational.
Because if we’re serious about reducing reoffending, we can’t just demand change. We have to make change possible.
If you want to help
-
Donate devices through your workplace (end-of-life laptops can be life-changing)
-
Introduce us to your IT team or CSR lead
-
Support our work so we can refurbish, secure, and distribute more laptops
If you’re able to support Rebooted, get in touch: hello@rebooted.me
SOURCES:
-
First Step Alliance, ‘What We Can Learn From Norway’s Prison System: Rehabilitation & Recidivism’ (26 November 2023). https://www.justice.org.uk/reports/time-better-spent-improving-decision-making-in-prisons#download-the-full-report
-
Source: John Pratt, “A Global Perspective on Incarceration” (2010), The Prison Journal.https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15564886.2010.485910