The RAND Corporation’s Criminal Justice Program has a blunt view of the American prison system: more than 500,000 people are locked up in the United States, at a cost exceeding ten billion dollars a year, and despite that spending, there is no confidence that crime is actually falling as a result. RAND’s researchers conclude that prisons, as currently used, are simply not an efficient way to deal with crime, and propose alternative sentences – community service among them – in their place.
That raises a set of hard questions. What actually stands in the way of wider use of alternatives to prison? What benefits do these alternatives offer? And why, exactly, do prisons keep falling short?
The Price of Building More Prisons
Prison sentences place enormous strain on government budgets. In many American states, money that would otherwise go toward genuinely useful public services is redirected to cover prison costs instead. Florida diverted roughly $200 million away from health and education spending simply to cover prison expenses.
Despite that spending, American prisons have run at more than 10 percent over capacity for the past fifteen years, and the incarcerated population has doubled – while violent crime has kept climbing regardless. Courts in 27 states have gone as far as ruling prison overcrowding conditions unlawful. Building new prisons to relieve that overcrowding means new tax burdens on states already stretched thin, which is exactly why a growing number of officials have started taking alternative programs seriously: not as a soft option, but as a way to genuinely hold offenders accountable without the enormous cost of new prison construction.
These programs represent a real shift in how sentencing and offender selection work, not merely a stopgap for overcrowding. Most of them are still built around convicted offenders, but they differ sharply from traditional early release: offenders under these programs remain under strict supervision, which gives the approach a double benefit – genuine punishment, paired with active prevention of further offending. Some programs use electronic monitoring and home confinement enforced through the threat of real consequences; others include brief stretches of actual jail time. But the core of most of these programs is providing offenders with work, schooling, community service, and a mechanism for paying restitution directly to their victims. Supervising officers show up unannounced and administer drug testing on the spot.
A Real Shift in Philosophy
Frances Allen was convicted of income tax evasion and violating securities law, and served three months in prison before completing fifteen hours a week of community service on parole. He spent his free time leading a support group for people struggling with drug addiction and DWI offenses. His question to the group captured the whole philosophy behind these programs: “This is like recovering from a serious heart attack. How do you actually restore yourself?” He told them that crime brings shame, regret, and a real loss of self-worth – and that all of it can, in some way, be repaired.
Interest in these middle-ground punishments is growing quickly across the United States. In 1985, only two households in ten were being electronically monitored as an alternative to prison; today that number is roughly fifty per household on average, and the programs remain far cheaper than incarceration. Home confinement costs somewhere between $500 and $8,000 a year, compared to roughly $10,000 or more for a year in prison. On top of the direct savings, people serving sentences this way keep working, which means they keep paying local and state taxes, and their families are far less likely to need public welfare support than the families of someone sent to prison.
Even so, cheap and strict as these programs are, they have real critics. Traditional supporters of parole-based release worry these alternatives are only appropriate for less serious offenses, and that using them more broadly risks treating serious crime too leniently, regardless of how strict the supervision actually is. That criticism deserves to be taken seriously – but reform is still necessary.
Do They Actually Protect the Public?
The real test of these programs is simple: how well do they protect the public from further crime? So far, fewer than ten percent of offenders in these programs have gone on to be sentenced again, and what re-offending does occur tends to be minor. Compare that to the traditional prison track record, where roughly half of released prisoners commit another crime. These alternative methods appear to be not only cheaper, but genuinely more effective at preventing repeat offending – though the results still deserve careful, ongoing scrutiny before anyone treats them as settled.
Because these programs are still relatively experimental, American judges apply them cautiously, and most are reserved for offenders whose prior record is fairly minor, which helps explain the low rearrest rate. There isn’t solid evidence that violent offenders are commonly included in these programs, though some states clearly do mix them in. Nationally, more than half of the offenders in these programs were convicted of property crimes and related offenses.
Alternative sentencing spares governments the cost of a great deal of offender processing, and alongside the existing prison system, it can meaningfully reduce the pressure to build new facilities or expand old ones – while also lowering the rate of reoffending among the people it covers. The strongest case for these programs, so far, is with property crime: the evidence to date suggests that offenders sentenced through alternative programs commit fewer subsequent crimes than comparable offenders who were simply sent to prison.
Cheaper and Better – With Limits
In short, these programs cost less than imprisonment, and compared to the traditional trial-and-prison approach, they appear to do a better job of deterring crime and preparing offenders to actually re-enter society. Better methods are still being developed, and matching the right punishment to the right offender remains a genuine concern – because these programs don’t treat offenders as prisoners in the traditional sense, and critics reasonably worry that the punishment no longer feels proportionate to the crime.
One genuinely interesting wrinkle: some offenders view community supervision, with its constant oversight, as more burdensome than simply serving time. In an experimental program in Oregon, more than half of offenders actually preferred prison to the alternative sentence. That alone should complicate any assumption that these programs are automatically the “soft” option.
What the evidence makes clear is that there is no quick, easy fix for crime and punishment – but it is equally clear that simply building more prisons is not the answer either. A growing body of opinion in the United States now firmly backs alternatives to prison, built on the simple, well-supported belief that the old approach is not only expensive, but also not particularly effective at controlling crime in the first place.
A Third Theory of Punishment: Restitution
Charles Colson offers a genuinely unusual perspective on all of this. As special counsel to President Nixon, Colson served seven months in prison for his role in the Watergate scandal – which means his views on punishment come from firsthand experience, not just theory. He now chairs Prison Fellowship, a Christian organization focused on prison ministry.
American prisons have earned the nickname “graduate school for crime,” and Colson thinks the label is fair. His view is that stripping a person of their property and privacy, surrounding them with constant threat, and immersing them among people shaped by dishonesty and deprivation tends to produce exactly what you’d expect: someone who comes out more damaged and less useful to society than when they went in, rather than reformed. A prison that fails to reform a violent offender doesn’t neutralize him – it simply releases a more practiced one later.
Colson describes his own time inside in blunt terms: he genuinely feared for his life. He was surrounded by people primed for violence and spent his sentence among them, absorbing exactly the habits and attitudes that prison life reinforces.
An Expensive Failure
Locking people away, in Colson’s framing, is an expensive failure. Building a single new prison bed in the United States costs roughly $80,000, and keeping one person incarcerated runs about $17,000 a year – comparable to a year’s tuition at Harvard. Prisons are chronically overcrowded, and estimates suggest another $10 billion would be needed just to build enough capacity to relieve it. However well-run a prison might be, the environment inside rarely produces anything but the worst version of the people held there.
Why Not Make Offenders Pay?
Colson’s alternative is straightforward: why force a taxpayer to foot the bill for keeping an offender locked up, when that same person could be earning money on the outside and using it to directly compensate the person they harmed? The angrier and more embittered offenders become inside prison, he argues, the more likely they are to offend again – so why not set up a job, let the offender earn a wage, and have that wage go toward restitution instead?
This isn’t a new idea. Ancient law required a person who stole an ox to repay it fivefold; today’s more inventive judges are essentially reapplying that same principle through modern means. Every legal tradition that Western law ultimately draws from insisted that the offender and the injured party work out a resolution together – a resolution that served both people’s interests, restored what was taken, and repaired the injured party’s standing in the community. Modern criminal law has largely inverted that: the offense is framed almost entirely as a crime against the state, and the actual victim is often left out of the resolution altogether.
A Genuine Chance to Change
Paying restitution gives an offender something imprisonment rarely can: a real opportunity to rebuild a constructive role in society, rather than simply being warehoused as someone stripped of purpose. “If a person is completely broken down by an extremely harsh punishment,” Colson writes, “there is no purpose left in it at all – you’ve simply handed him a pointless, destructive experience. That is one real source of the violence inside our prisons.”
Jack Kemp makes much the same case in his 1986 book Crime and Punishment in Modern America: “Most people agree that a burglar who steals cash should return what he took and compensate his victim for lost time and the burden of going to court. People are often surprised that property crime doesn’t already work this way as a matter of course.” The appeal of restitution, Kemp argues, comes from exactly this combination of ancient precedent and plain common sense – biblical law required a person who stole from a neighbor to repay up to four times the value of what was taken. For non-violent offenses, restitution can function as a genuine substitute for imprisonment, and as the principle takes hold, it could meaningfully slow the pace of new prison construction.
The psychiatrist Albert Eglash adds a further point: paying restitution directly reduces the offender’s own sense of guilt and unresolved anxiety about the crime – the very feelings that often fuel further offending.
There is also a straightforward financial case. Restitution requires no new prison beds, no expansion of existing facilities, and a shrinking prison population means a shrinking prison payroll too.
Does It Actually Stop Crime?
The real question is whether restitution can actually prevent crime, given that imprisonment plainly hasn’t solved the underlying problem – countries with the highest incarceration rates, the United States among them, still have very high crime rates. Restitution programs appear genuinely effective at reducing reoffending, precisely because they hold the individual directly accountable for the harm they caused and give them a concrete way back into the community’s good graces – producing a kind of reconciliation that imprisonment rarely achieves. As Colson puts it: “Repeatedly chasing down and stopping crime is a far better method than simply locking someone away and hoping for the best.”
Officials across the criminal justice systems of many countries increasingly acknowledge that punishment alone doesn’t change the underlying rate or severity of crime – it’s simply an unavoidable response to it. The criminologist Van Ness argues that what actually deters crime is not the harshness of a punishment but its certainty and immediacy. If that’s true, restitution programs – run well, and applied consistently – stand a genuine chance of being more effective at preventing crime than harsher punishment ever was.
Colson illustrates the logic with a story about one offender he met: a man who had spent nineteen years in prison, from age nineteen to twenty-eight, on a drug conviction that carried a life sentence. Colson finally asked him why he’d done it. “I used to work hauling loads up to the 80th floor of the World Trade Center,” the man told him. “It was hard work, and one wrong step up there could kill you. Dealing drugs, I could make three hundred thousand dollars a week – and the worst a wrong step could cost me was prison. That was a good trade.”
That is the calculation restitution is meant to break. The immediate payoff from crime is often large enough that plenty of offenders will happily gamble a prison sentence against it – but if the punishment reliably means paying back more than the crime was ever worth, that calculation stops making sense. For organized crime and drug trafficking in particular, that means seizing an offender’s assets at the point of arrest and requiring them to work, under supervision, until the harm is genuinely repaid.
None of this argues for letting dangerous offenders walk free in exchange for a check. The honest version of this approach still calls for a strict and genuinely just framework – one that pairs mandatory restitution with real fines, and keeps prison squarely on the table wherever an offender is actually dangerous.
No Comments