ALTERNATIVES TO PRISON
Options for an Insecure Society

Edited by Anthony Bottoms, Sue Rex and Gwen Robinson
Cullompton: Willan, 2004

There is an expression in French: “C’est un incontournable!” The expression is meant to convey in the strongest terms that something is of signal value and one cannot (or one ought not to) forego possessing the item in question. I can think of no more direct and demonstrative phrase with which to underscore the value of this superb volume. In my estimation, Alternatives to Prison Options for an Insecure Society will prove to be a quite valuable title in the field of criminology, and specifically it will come to be seen as an invaluable text in the domain of penology and sentencing. Not only have the editors drawn a strong indictment of the multiple drawbacks to imprisonment save in the cases of violent offences or offenders, they have done so in a way that it sensitive to and responsive to the needs of a collectivity that believes itself to be “insecure”, whatever may be the true state of affairs, at least as may be judged by statistics and surveys.

Indeed, this text together with three other recent publications, The Effects of Imprisonment, edited by Alison Liebling and Shada Maruna [Cullompton: Willan, 2005], Prisoner Reentry and Crime in America, edited by Jeremy Travis and Christy Visher [new York: Cambridge University Press, 2005] and The New Punitiviness, Trends, theories, perspectives, edited by John Pratt, David Brown, Mark Brown, Simon Hallsworth and Wayne Morrison [Cullompton: Willan, 2005] represent a small collection of “must-read” books in this area.

By way of introductory comment, Alternatives to Prison is a follow-up publication to an earlier text, Community Penalties: Change and Challenges, edited by Anthony Bottoms and Sue Rex, together with L. Gelsthorpe, published as well by Willan, in 2001. Both texts are distinguished on the one hand by the prominence of the collaborators the editors have enlisted and by the excellence of the research projects discussed and analysed, on the other. Their latest project focuses much needed attention, and advances welcome erudition and necessary critical scholarship, to a variety of developments in the area of alternatives to imprisonment. In particular, the editors have illuminated the path-breaking studies touching upon technology, notably electronic monitoring, managerialism, effectiveness and risk management, creative mixing of intermediate penalties and reparation and restorative justice, to name but a few examples. An additional element of significance to be highlighted briefly involves the critical contribution of the editors and contributors in the area of probation, both to assist offenders to avoid imprisonment in general and to avoid prison by overcoming the types of anti-social behaviour that lead to criminality. No doubt the book’s contribution has been enhanced to an appreciable degree by reason of the various contributions of Dr. Gwen Robinson whose Ph.D. thesis dealt with “Probation, risk and governance”.

Leaving the general nature of the comments advanced to date, it will be of assistance to focus attention on some of the specific areas of excellence found in Alternatives to Prison. Firstly, I wish to note the outstanding analyses found in Chapters 7 and 8. The first, bearing the title “Reparative and restorative approaches”, was written by Professor Gill McIvor while the second, “Rehabilitative and reintegrative approaches”, was penned by Professor Peter Raynor. In each case, I sought to underscore the important passages by means of a highlighter but gave up quite quickly, preferring to exercise some parsimony by scanning the entire chapters as I found very little that was not worth highlighting. In each case, the authors have drawn comprehensive introductions followed by detailed overviews of operational issues, evidence-based beliefs and cutting-edge scholarly studies, and completed by concluding comments that are sound and defended wholly by the preceding discussion.

Secondly, I wish to make plain the repeated assistance found throughout the book respecting the pains of imprisonment and how these must be alleviated if we are to achieve true penal reform. From page 3 to the outstanding concluding chapter on pages 416-421, the reader is reminded of the many negative collateral consequences that flow from incarceration that are not only not consonant with the ultimate protection of the community, but which may well be inimical to the public interest but failing both to deter and by failing to serve the imperatives that undergird desistance. In this respect, I pause to note that the great writer Ernest Hemingway expressed this fundamental truth in these terms: “Prison is nothing. Prison only makes hatred.” (Refer to Chapter 3, paragraph 82 of For Whom the Bell Tolls, (1941)).

The only additional references that need to be identified are to two subsequently published texts. The first, written by Professor Julian V. Roberts’, The Virtual Prison Community Custody and The Evolution of Imprisonment [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004],¹ contains additional valuable instruction on the potential reach of community based penalties and the second, Proportionate Sentencing Exploring the Principles, by Andrew von Hirsch and Andrew Ashworth, [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005]. is of assistance in demonstrating the need for proportionate responses to wrongdoing not only with regard to the length of a period of detention but with respect to the incidents of a community based penalty or sanction.

The third element of excellence that I wish to review concerns the various contributions touching upon alternatives to prison as they affect young persons. In this respect, I commend the various comments and studies touching upon the Scottish welfare based system of assisting young persons who are in conflict with the law. In particular, I point to pp. 15-16, pp. 47-48, p. 138, pp. 210-211² and pp. 229-230. Time and again, the editors and the contributors point to the lessons drawn from a variety of studies and jurisdictions to illustrate the errors of the traditional English and Welsh practice (and, necessarily, of the Canadian experience). More importantly, we are provided with a wealth of examples of “what works” in relation to youthful offenders that ought to be implemented and, as well, to instances of deleterious practices, notably shaming, that must be eliminated if true justice is to be afforded to this vulnerable strata of offenders. In addition, I note that interested readers may profit from studying the recently published Hard Lessons Reflections on Governance and Crime Control in Late Modernity, edited by Richard Hil and Gordon Tait [Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2004].

The fourth salient contribution that warrants particular reference surrounds the issue of sentence selection. Chapter 12, “What guides sentencing decisions?” by Professor Martin Wasik and “Sentence Management”, by Dr. Gwen Robinson and Professor James Dignan, which forms the following chapter, provide a stellar review of the many relevant principles and, of no less importance, the great many irrelevant factors, that are at play in seeking to produce a fit and proper sentence. The seemingly effortless discussions identify the most important controversies and the emerging areas of scholarship that may not be ignored. In particular, the discussion surrounding the discount for a guilty plea and the question of risk as prophesied (or distorted) by a prior record are quite well researched and insightful.

The fifth and last element to be emphasized surrounds the question of the fine, reasons of space precluding a more thorough discussion of the many other salient aspects of this text.³ As a judge, I was amazed at my lack of understanding of the various dynamics that have combined to undermine the resort to this sanction and I welcome the various interventions indicating that much greater attention ought to be paid to this form of intermediate penalty, especially on pages 147-157.⁴ Moreover, I point to the excellence of the various contributions touching upon the questions surrounding the difficulty in collecting monetary penalties and the potential for compounding penalties unfairly (and unwittingly) in cases of fines meted out to impoverished individuals.

Alternatives to Prison Options for an insecure society is a scholarly text comprised of 16 path-breaking contributions that may each be studied separately, or in a smaller thematic combination, to great profit. Additionally, the valuable index permits interested readers to obtain a legion of highly valuable observations on criminology in general, and penology in particular. Although not all of the studies reviewed in this superb title are directly relevant to Canadian courts, the various discussions are overwhelmingly germane to the domestic issue of reducing the recourse to imprisonment. These salient qualities mark it as an essential acquisition.

^1. Reviewed by the writer in (June 2005), 50(3) Criminal Law Quarterly 349-356.

^2. Interested readers are encouraged to read Professor Nigel Walker’s entertaining and illuminating biography, A Man Without Loyalties A Penologist’s Afterthoughts, [Chichester: Barry Rose Publishers Ltd., 2003] and the interesting review of the origins of this Scottish philosophy as set out in Chapter 7, pp. 74-85.

^3. I do not wish to be understood to suggest that the book is without flaws. For example, I disagree strongly with the proposition that “… short sentences are now generally recognised as being largely ineffective…” and point to the fact that it is the standard Canadian penalty for a second offence of impaired driving. Leaving aside the merits of this last comment, I would have been pleased to receive better guidance on the issue of the criminological foundation to attack such brief sentences in light of the repeated references in the book to the English legislation directing minimum two week sentences for a host of wrongdoing.

^4. On the related issue of the unit fines and alternatives to prison, see the interesting remarks of Justice Ronald Bartle in his memoirs Bow Street Beak [Chichester: Barry Rose Publishers Ltd., 2000[, at pp. 172-173.