3. How well can community sanctions serve the purposes of criminal punishment?
The degree to which community sanctions serve the purposes of criminal punishment depend largely on the underlying philosophy of criminal punishment in society. Specifically, to the extent criminal punishment is intended as retributive punishment, community sanctions do not serve the purpose of criminal punishment.
Conversely, to the extent criminal punishment is intended to rehabilitate prisoners to facilitate a successful return to a productive life after their release, community sanctions may serve the purposes of criminal punishment more than absolute terms of incarceration.
In the most modern approach to reducing crime in society and recidivism among released convicts, criminologists emphasize the importance of directing efforts designed to reduce the complex underlying social and sociological factors that are considered substantially responsible for creating criminality in the first place. That approach is furthered much more by an emphasis on rehabilitation and on alternatives to incarceration, such as various forms of community sanctions, than by incarceration regardless of individual potential for rehabilitation.
In the case of incorrigible, so-called "career criminals," it is difficult to support community sanctions in lieu of incarceration, both from the perspective of protecting society from criminals as well as in a realistic understanding that many criminals are simply beyond the type of help provided through community sanctions. However, for many first-time offenders and other nonviolent types of criminals, long sentences of traditional imprisonment are less likely to transform them into law-abiding citizens than community sanctions. In many cases, extended periods of incarceration...
Sometimes, the long-term association with other more experienced criminals actually serves as a form of training ground for future criminal activities after release from custody; presumably, that is contrary to the purposes of criminal punishment even to the extent its established purpose is retribution.
For first-time offenders and offenders convicted of certain types of non-violent crimes, appropriate community sanctions may serve a more worthwhile purpose than absolute terms of incarceration. Particularly in the case of younger offenders, their conviction provides an opportunity for the state to impose mandatory types of academic instruction, vocational training, and even mandatory counseling necessary to counterbalance the effects of various social circumstances that contribute to criminality amongst individuals who may still be capable of conforming their future behavior to the laws of society.
In that regard, even individuals who were reluctant to complete their educational (and other) responsibilities previously become much more receptive to the need to do so when offered specifically as an alternative to incarceration. The institution of probation in lieu of incarceration and parole in lieu of serving the full sentence of incarceration imposed by the courts are both powerful incentives to comply with rules established by the criminal justice system as conditions of suspended or shortened periods of confinement. Especially from the modern perspective of criminology that regards complex societal factors and manifestations of social, educational, and vocational inequality as a major cause of crime, community sanctions are more consistent with the ultimate goals of the criminal justice system than traditional, absolute periods of incarceration.
