Insurance fraud is widespread in some countries. Consumers often bear its cost as insurance companies try to recover their losses to remain commercially viable.

The courts understandably take a severe view of those who commit fraudulent acts. Still, prison sentences for fraudsters are not always in the community’s best interest.

The Maltese courts have recently commuted a five-year effective jail sentence for an insurance fraudster to 240 hours of community service following a retrial.

The magistrate justified the commutation of the original sentence relying on the probation officer’s recommendation “that the accused ought to continue along (his rehabilitation) path, focusing on his family”. Community work was suggested by way of punishment.

There is a risk that the magistrate’s decision might be interpreted as the court being “soft on crime” or just administering a “slap on the wrist”.

However, the magistrate presiding over this case made it clear that the accused had pleaded guilty to serious offences, not only because of the illicit gain made but also because they struck at the very core of the relationship between insurer and client, which must be managed “with utmost good faith”.

There are various reasons for encouraging alternatives to imprisonment, even in cases of serious crimes, depending on the particular circumstances of each case. One good reason is that it gives the courts more discretion to administer justice.

Each offender and crime is unique, and prison time may not always be the most effective response. If courts have options other than imprisonment, they can better tailor a cost-effective sentence that fits the offender and the crime, protects the public and provides a better opportunity for rehabilitation. 

Having alternatives to incarceration, including community service, strengthens families and communities.

Prison time separates the offender from his family, especially children, sometimes for decades.

Through alternative sentencing, offenders can keep contact with their families, in their neighbourhoods and jobs, and allow them to earn money, pay taxes, and contribute to their communities. The prison rehabilitation process often fails because of overcrowding and the lack of adequate facilities needed to promote rehabilitation.

A number of international studies confirm that 40 per cent of all people leaving prisons will re-offend and be back in prison within three years of their release.

Punishments other than prison help offenders – including those who have committed drug-related crimes or have mental health challenges – by offering better opportunities to confront the underlying causes of their crimes and prevent them from committing new ones. Alternative sentencing can indeed help protect the public by reducing crime.

In some countries like the US, the judiciary has broad discretion on when it can apply alternative sentencing, including mandatory community service. Research conducted in the US also confirms that eight in 10 adults believe that alternatives to imprisonment, including probation, restitution, community service or rehabilitative services, are the most appropriate sentence for non-violent, less serious offenders, and that prison is appropriate only if these alternatives fail. 

Community-based interventions can do more than imprisonment to keep communities safe and can do so at a much lower cost.

The supervision of probation can be accompanied by more active steps to require and help offenders find jobs and provide them with other supports to build law-abiding lives.

It, therefore, makes sense for judges to be urged – and legally enabled – to opt for probation or community service in more of the sentencing cases brought before them.