Abstract
Adoption of a policy of nonimprisonment of the nondangerous would signal a shift from a reactive to a proactive response to crime and would result in the re-allocation of vast sums presently earmarked for institu tional construction. It requires legislative action.
Short of execution, imprisonment of the nondangerous (nonviolent, nonassaultive) offender is the most violent response government can make to crime. It is a waste of lives and of public funds.
The difference between the NCCD Council of Judges'Model Sentenc ing Act (1972) and the NCCD Board of Directors' policy statement on sentencing (1973) is clarified: the former allows for a prison commitment of up to five years for a "nondangerous" offender; the latter abrogates imprisonment for that category. The argument that a less punitive sanc tion (e.g., probation) is powerless unless the more punitive one (imprison ment) is a threatened possibility is rebutted.
A policy of nonimprisonment has traditionally been applied to certain favored groups of nondangerous offenders; the policy statement recom mends that it be applied, without social or economic or racial discrimina tion, to all who qualify as nondangerous, Some examples are given of imaginative and ingenious sentences that demonstrate the feasibility of not committing a nondangerous person to prison.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.