>>What may pass as a nice social experiment in some places around here, is still not backed up with as wide a social action as in Netherlands (and I imagine most of Europe as well). Here, it has to fight for its right to existence, has to prove that it works against a majority (or a very loud or rich minority - effect is the same) which sees these attempts as bleeding heart pinko librul soft-on-crime --> soft-on-terror --> soft-on-defence --> therefore traitor stuff.

>>And since I know you expect me to say that, I will: programs, but no system. System has got 1% of the people behind bars.
>
>I do agree with you, however, there are programs across the country which are being tested where the person sentenced is not sentenced to prison time, but to a program run by either tax paid employees or volunteers.

As you describe it, it's actually what should be done and what Walter is talking about. But you made my point, twice: it's spotty (i.e. not everywhere, probably depending on the political color of the area) and...

> The point is that it is not generally made public until the test of the program has completed (5-10 years) and then only if it is successful.

...that these programs are run under a constant danger of being revoked out of the blue just if there's any food for a news article feeding the "I toldja it won't work - incarcerate them is what I was saying from the beginning!" crowd. There's no general consensus, which from Walter's messages I figure exists in his neck of the... flatlands, that these things don't always work, and that some failure rate is not a good reason to ditch the whole thing.

BTW, if these enrolled into these programs aren't imprisoned, then they don't count into the one percent? Then there's something horribly wrong with the legal system here, if it's easy for so many people to break it.