The second point he makes is about the potential for various alternatives to prison to accomplish reduction in the re-offending. Bottoms proposed rehabilitative effectiveness, but emphasized that this could not be the "magic bullet". The third focus is on sentence management. The author points out that quality of supervisor-offender relationship is central to the effective practices, however they seem to be neglected as promoting and motivation techniques. The fourth concern is about placing a strong accent on a research about the public opinion in terms of sentencing. Offenders and crimes are a public issue and as such are pivotal for the attitudes on favour of, or against harsh punishments.
In the end Bottoms implies to the book of the same name: "Alternatives to Prison: Options for an insecure society". He concludes that the insecure society we live in, the issue of the alternatives to prison inevitably takes political dimensions. And how the political concepts about the alternatives of incarceration will be interpreted will affect the local practices in this area.
In his article Professor Bottoms (2006) describes a research being done on alternatives to prison. The main issue that the author is addressing is what findings followed from the research task. What Bottoms (2006) argues is that there is a weak correlation between the increased incarceration rate and the reduction in crime. Bottoms (2006) presents another parallel survey, which shows the opposite statement that, the rise in the prison population in England and Wales is strongly linked to the reduction of crime - namely, more severe punishments which have deterrent effects.
To my mind Bottoms' article is an invaluable text in the field of the court system and justice as well as in criminology. The research done draws a strong indictment of the multiple shortcomings that imprisonment has. On several occasions Bottoms (2006) refers to a volume that he edited sharing the same title - Alternatives to prison: options for an insecure society. This reference to "insecure society" probes into the psychology of society and how we have become more sensitive and responsive to violent offences and the desire of community to collectively get rid of the offenders, because they seek to live in "secure" neighbourhoods. The statement that Bottoms (2006) makes is based on the statistical data that was obtained and through the surveys done.
What I have noticed in this paper was that the author concentrates namely onto what this report describes. What I would propose is for the name of the article to be changed, because otherwise it misleads the general audience, who for example is willing to receive more details information on what other ways there are besides incarceration for the criminals.
What needs to be clarified in the first place is the aim of the organization that initiated this research. I will outline briefly its work. The Esmee Fairbairn Foundation initiated an association called "Rethinking Crime and Punishment" which holds as its primary goal to facilitate the debate about prisons and their alternatives in the UK (RCP, n.d.). They have funded more than 50 projects so as to increase the public understanding and to raise the