During the 1970s, the United States and England began experimenting with alternative methods of sentencing inmates. These alternative sentencing programs increased in popularity and implementation during the 1980s. Such programs developed as public pressure on the criminal justice system increased. People demanded stiffer penalties for repeat offenders. Due to decreased space in detention facilities, administrators often chose to distinguish high-risk offenders from low-risk offenders. Consequently, low-risk offenders were often provided with alternative sentencing options.
Examples of alternative sentencing programs include house arrest, weekend sentencing, work release arrangements and community service. If sentenced to house arrest, an eligible inmate may be allowed to serve his sentence at his own residence. Weekend sentencing, by contrast, permits inmates to enjoy freedom during a standard work week, while reporting to specified correctional facilities on weekends to fulfill the terms of their sentences. Work release programs allow eligible individuals to integrate into their communities by means of employment under controlled conditions. Certain inmates are offered the opportunity to reduce fines associated with sentencing in exchange for hours of service within their community, by means of community service programs.
Rehabilitation is often the focus of group therapy programs, which target offenders who suffer from substance abuse problems, anger control issues or even shoplifting compulsions. Such programs seek to provide counseling from trained professionals, as well as from an inmate's peers who in many cases have suffered from similar problems. Through fulfillment of a sentence in a therapy program of a course that is targeted to needs of particular inmates, individuals may be able to remedy psychological or emotional problems that triggered their earlier criminal conduct. Additionally, through work release and community service programs, inmates are also offered opportunities to provide for their families or to benefit their communities.
Alternative sentencing options are often erroneously deemed to be less expensive than traditional methods of incarceration. Superficially, the average monthly cost of an alternative sentencing program is likely to be less than the cost of a minimum security prison, according to research by the United States Sentencing Commission. However, substantial investment, training and supervision costs are also associated with such programs, which ultimately inflate costs associated with their implementation. Furthermore, costs to society may also be greater, since even an inmate on house arrest can prove guilty of committing acts of domestic violence or engage in drug related crimes
Alternative sentencing is typically only offered to low-risk first-time offenders, who are not guilty of committing violent criminal acts or violating drug laws. For the safety of the citizens of a community, narcotics dealers and violent criminals are denied alternative sentencing options, based on a bill championed by Washington State prosecutor Norm Maleng, approved in 1987. Once enrolled in an alternative sentencing program, an inmate must abide by the program's rules and regulations. Failure to do so may result an extension of an inmate's sentence, or deferral of the inmate to a comparably more severe form of sentencing.