Alternatives to imprisonment:Scope and evidence

Alex Stevens

This presentation

• Why do we need alternatives to imprisonment?

• What alternatives are used in Europe?

• Do they operate as alternatives, or as additions to imprisonment?

• What are the effects of alternatives to imprisonment on drug use and crime?

• What are the information needs in this area?

Prison populations are rising…

Mean imprisonment rates (per 100,000 pop'n)

02040

6080

100120140

160180200

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

EU15

New EU

Other CofE

Source: Council of Europe Penal Statistics (SPACE I)

… as crime falls

Indices of self-reported victimisation in 12 EU countries (base=1995)

50

60

70

80

90

100

1995 1999 2004

Theft

Burglary

Robbery

Sexual incidents

Assaults and threats

Sources: International Crime Victimisation Survey & EU Crime and Safety Survey

Prisons are overcrowded

Source: Council of Europe Penal Statistics (SPACE I), * US Bureau of Justice Statistics

0

50

100

150

200

250

Malt

aLa

tvia

Lithu

ania

Luxe

mbo

urg

UK: Nor

ther

n Ire

land

USA jails

*

UK: Eng

land a

nd W

ales

Denmar

k

Germ

any

Estonia

Nether

lands

Romania

Czech

Rep

ublic

Portu

gal

Slovenia

UK: Sco

tland

Sweden

Austri

a

Georg

ia

Belgium

Franc

e

Finlan

d

Poland

Spain

Italy

USA Fede

ral p

rison

s*

Hungar

y

Cypru

s

Greec

e

Bulgar

ia

Pri

son

den

sity

(p

op

'n p

er 1

00 p

lace

s)

… and prisons do not work

• Deterrence Imprisonment does not deter (Tonry 2004)

• Rehabilitation Longer sentences lead to more reoffending

(Gendreau 1999)

• Incapacitation: Small effects at high cost (Kuziemko &

Levitt 2004)

• Retribution If in doubt, do not inflict pain (Christie, 1981)

Alternatives to imprisonment…

• Decriminalisation

• Diversion of drug users from prosecution

• Quasi-compulsory treatment Treatment of drug using offenders that is ordered,

motivated or encouraged by the criminal justice system and takes place outside regular prisons.

Person retains the choice to go to treatment or face the usual sanction for their crime.

The alternative sanction should be the same as would be faced for any other person who committed that crime

• People should not be punished for refusing or failing in treatment.

Types of Quasi-Compulsory Treatment orders available in various EU countries

Country Type of order Stage of CJS Targeted offenders Type of diversion

Austria § 35 SMG“Vorläufige Zurücklegung der Anzeige

durch den Staatsanwalt“

From police custody or during the prosecution process

Drug crimesAcquisitive Crimes

Suspension of prosecution

§ 37 SMG„ Vorläufige Einstellung durch das Gericht“

From police custody or or pre- trial detention

Drug crimesAcquisitive Crimes

Suspension of court hearings

§ 39 SMG„ Aufschub des Strafvollzuges““Therapie statt Strafe“

From pre- trail detention or at court hearings

Any crime committed by an offender who is substance dependent

Suspension of prison sentence

England Drug Rehabilitation Requirement At trial sentencing Offenders eligible for a community sentence who are drug dependent

Condition attached to a Community Order

Germany § 35, 36 BtMG Strafaussetzung„ Therapie statt Strafe“

Pre- trial detention, Pre-trial hearings, or

during sentence.

Offenders facing prison sentences of less than 2 years

Suspension of sentence under probation supervision

§ 37 BtMG Zurückstellung der Strafe im Rahmen der

Ermittlung

Deferment of prosecution because of low seriousness of offence

Offenders who are already participating in a treatment programme and who commit minor crimes.

Suspension of prosecution

§ 38, 39 BtMGAussetzung der Strafe um Rahmen der

Strafverfolgung

Pre-trial detention, or youth/juvenile detention

Offenders facing prison sentences of less than 2 years

Suspension of sentence under probation supervision

§ 56 StGBBewährungsauflage

Court hearings Crimes committed in connection with drugs

Specific order of the court

Italy Ex art. 91 c. 3 T. U. 309/90 Court hearings, or during sentence

Drug dependent offenders facing less than 6 years remaining of a prison sentence (except Mafiosi)

Suspension of imprisonment under supervision of probation

QCT Europe - Crimes leading to QCT sentence

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Englan

dIta

ly

Austri

a

Switzer

land

Germ

any

Property

Drug dealing

Violence

Alternatives to imprisonment? The case of England & Wales

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Inde

x (1

995=

100)

Community sentencesincluding drug treatment

New sentenced prisonadmissions

… and the prison population has risen

Annual prison population, England & Wales, 1995-2007

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

1995 1998 2001 2004 2007

Decriminalisation as the real alternative

Number of prisoners under sentences for drug and other offences in Portugal, 1997-2005

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Non-drug offences

Drug offences

Effects of alternatives – The QCT Europe Sample

UK – 157 Austria – 150

Germany – 153Switzerland – 85

Italy – 300 Total – 845 people

Half in QCT

Half in ‘voluntary’ treatment

Drug use

Reductions in Drug Use

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Intake 6 months 12 months 18 months

Eu

rop

AS

I Dru

g U

se S

core

'Voluntary'

QCT

Crime

Reductions in mean reported days of offending (in past 6 months)

01020304050607080

Intake 6 months 12 months 18 months

Da

ys

'Voluntary'

QCT

Limitations

• Sample sizes were relatively small in each country.

• The sample did not compare QCT clients to prisoners (it was not possible to randomise sentencing).

• Results based on self-report.

• There were large differences between treatment centres in the quality and outcomes of treatment.

Information needs

• Is QCT being used as an alternative to imprisonment? Number of people entering alternatives to imprisonment

each year. The profile of their offences. The number of people entering prison each year.

• Does QCT ‘work’? Replication of quasi-experimental studies. Randomised controlled trials.

• Using variety of indicators (toxicology, police data). ‘Realistic’ evaluations (Pawson & Tilley, 1998).

• Including qualitative methods

• What makes QCT work better? How to improve inter-agency cooperation? Motivational enhancement:

• Contingency management?• Graduated sanctions?

Residential or outpatient?

• Cost-effectiveness of QCT.

Finally

•Thanks to QCT Europe partners: Paul Turnbull, Tim McSweeney, Neil

Hunt, Ambros Uchtenhagen, Susanne Schaaf, Kerrie Oeuvray, Daniele Berto, Wolfgang Werdenich, Barbara Trinkl, Viktoria Kerschl, Wolfgang Heckmann

•QCT Europe was funded by the European Commission’s 5th Framework RTD Programme

•For more information: www.connectionsproject.eu a.w.stevens@kent.ac.uk