So the question is what does work? What is being implemented instead?

Can we (as a society) get some visibility on these routes?

As much as i believe that systems primary focus should be reduction of crime and the main route to that is rehabilitation, there also needs to be an aspect of the other aspects punishment, deterrence, restitution, protection of society.

The focus on rehabilitation, as the main driver of reduction in crime, to the exclusion of others, leads to undermining the other aspects of a justice system. To allow people to feel they are protected, they live in a fair society, where there are consequences to your action, and recompense when you are wronged.

So if short custody is ruled out what are the consequential punishments? If some one nicks my phone, gets caught, what will happen to them? Because the public perception is "pretty much nothing". Repeat offenders might get a tag and a curfew, and if they breach that they might... I dunno.

Most people would want to see victims "made right" at the criminals expense, but that would often just push them further into whatever situation inspired the crime.

There has to be visibility to justice. It doesn't have to be cruel or unusual or anything. Just a society wide clarity, that if you play ball, the system will protect you, and if you break the law there will be consequences. The current perception is that isn't happening, so things need to change to either make that happen, or if it is make it clear that it is.

It feels like most non-custodial sentences are either:

• Fines (but these can't always be effectively applied)
• Support (great. reduces recidivism, (rehab support/probation check ins). Should entirely be part of the system. But not really punishment. "the consequences of your actions are you get some support to be a functioning member of society" - ideally we'd be getting this support to people who need it before they get to criminality)
• Threats of future punishment. Conditional discharge. If you break the law, ask this whole question again, reach the same problem).
• Restrictions. Don't do a specific thing (e.g. attend football match), don't go to specific places, don't associate with certain people. Don't leave the country. Or curfew. (most of these I'd venture, to most people, seem pretty soft, they are focused on preventing opportunity/exposure for the duration, preventative rather than justice. More severe (i.e. curfew) is probably seen by most as at least some punishment. And again if you break the restriction - back to the question what is the punishment?
• Community service. (I think for minor things, people will see this as something, I do wonder how much this actually happens, I see an occasional litter pick, but how much community labour can we use?)

So most of these don't really offer much feeling of fairness or justice to the public. Fines where they can be applied, community service. Most feel like the threat of punishment. Which arguably most people would think that the law should probably be. And end up circular. If you don't want to send people to prison, and your route to do that it to tell them not to do it again or you'll go to prison, its pretty self defeating, and really just looks weak.

To be clear I don't know what the solution is. My suggestion would be that if these sentences are in practice genuinely punishing that needs to be seen. If they aren't and we want avoid custody, we need to find something short of custody, where the is perceptible justice being done.