This encapsulates everything that is wrong with this 'society'.

Hotblack Desiato

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/aran-island-parochial-house-robbed-by-dublin-based-drug-user-1.2024678

A heroin user from Dublin used his free travel pass to make his way to Inis Mór here he robbed the parochial house while the priest was saying Sunday Mass.

...

“He left the island post haste after the burglary and used his travel pass to get a discounted ticket on an Aer Arann flight. He has free travel on all buses and trains and he could be described as a travelling criminal,” Sgt Gaughan said.

“Isn’t it a great country altogether; he has free travel and the rest of us have to pay for it,” Judge Fahy observed.

Sgt Gaughan said Murray had 97 previous convictions, including 48 for burglaries. The first conviction dated back to 1984 and the most recent was committed on November 19th last, when he received a seven-month sentence in Dublin for another burglary.

Good honest people are paying for this person's lifestyle with their labour through their taxes, and through the 'liberation' of their property more directly.

Why should we tolerate this?

jank

The free travel malarky for the old and unemployed is a joke. Get rid of it already.

Highflyer13

jank wrote: »

The free travel malarky for the old and unemployed is a joke. Get rid of it already.

Id agree with this. They should pay a discounted fare alright. Instead the rest of us have to pay fare increases every year. Also the amount of able bodied people I see weekly flashing free travel passes does not seem right.

kippy

The bigger question is why do we let people away with reoffending? Give the guy as much help as possible to change his ways while locked up for first offence......if it happens again lock him up longer and throw rrsources at him to change....third time lock up and throw away the key.......

Turtwig

Highflyer13 wrote: »

Id agree with this. They should pay a discounted fare alright. Instead the rest of us have to pay fare increases every year. Also the amount of able bodied people I see weekly flashing free travel passes does not seem right.

If a doctor can't tell if someone is able bodied just by looking at them, how can you?

Disabilities are often invisible.

The free travel is an excellent support for the really needy. The problem is the implementation of it. Being 66 or over is a needless reason to be eligible for one.

Prison service needs a massive cash injection, or else we seriously need to debate privatizing aspects of it.

Also can't overlook the elephant in the room: drugs. The individual was an addict.

NIMAN

It might be the elephant in the room, but it can't be defeated, so we will continue to read these types of stories.

The 'War on Drugs' is lost. Its unwinnable.

Phoebas

jank wrote: »

The free travel malarky for the old and unemployed is a joke. Get rid of it already.

The unemployed don't get a free travel pass. I'm not sure why this guy got one. Maybe he was on a disability allowance.

They should probably have restricted versions of the free travel pass to suit the purposes they are issued for, so if you want to help the elderly to get out and about, visit their family and friends and use their retirement to travel the country, fair enough - issue an unrestricted pass.
But if you want to enable someone with a specific 'disability' to get to and from their clinic, issue a point to point pass.

RichardAnd

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/aran-island-parochial-house-robbed-by-dublin-based-drug-user-1.2024678



Good honest people are paying for this person's lifestyle with their labour through their taxes, and through the 'liberation' of their property more directly.

Why should we tolerate this?

Perhaps it is tolerated because there is no "we"?

Hotblack Desiato

Phoebas wrote: »

But if you want to enable someone with a specific 'disability' to get to and from their clinic, issue a point to point pass.

Working people have to pay for their essential travel, I don't know why people in receipt of cash benefits (very generous compared to other EU countries) can't do the same.

In this case all the free travel pass is doing is subsdising his drug habit and extending the range of his thieving.

Free long-distance travel and subsidised air fares is a joke, a 50% fare should be charged on buses and trains and if he has a good reason to visit an island he can get the ferry and pay the full fare.

What really bugs me is the frequency of court reports with offenders with 100+ convictions. What is the point of a criminal justice system that permits this? If you didn't learn your lesson the first time your sentence should be doubled, same for each reoffence.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What really bugs me is the frequency of court reports with offenders with 100+ convictions. What is the point of a criminal justice system that permits this? If you didn't learn your lesson the first time your sentence should be doubled, same for each reoffence.

A moment's thought suggests that "the frequency of court reports with offenders with 100+ convictions" points to the ineffectiveness of criminal penalties as an instrument of reform. When the evidence suggests that a particular strategy doesn't work, implementing the strategy with greater vigour is hardly a rational response.

Hotblack Desiato

On the contrary, some people just need to be kept off the streets tbh.

Peregrinus

Lif in prison for petty theft? You don't think questions of justice and proportionality enter into this at all?

Plus, even if you think life in prison is warranted, does the cost-benefit question not cross your mind at all? If you're prepared to spend that amount of money to address the problem posed by just one petty thief, should you not at least consider whether there might be more cost-effective ways of spending that sum to address the same problem?

The Corinthian

NIMAN wrote: »

The 'War on Drugs' is lost. Its unwinnable.

Here, in Switzerland, they figured it out a good few years ago. Zurich had become a haven for needle-parks and the Hauptbahnhof was practically a no-go area. Drug related crime was a serious problem.

Of course, the Swiss are a practical people. To the point of being amoral. So when the canton decided to hold a referendum on basically giving out free heroin / methadone to any addicts who wanted it, they voted in favour. The needle parks vanished. Crime plummeted. And the addicts were quietly shunted away into social housing, given an extra 100 chf a month if they had a pet to keep them busy, and the problem was largely solved. The federation finally followed suit a few years ago and copied Zurich.

I hate to admit it, but it's an approach that ultimately worked. Thing is that we've already seen how market forces work in Ireland; the Taliban banned the cultivation of poppies when in power. Along came the US-led invasion and the farmers were back in business. Heroin prices plummeted and addicts could afford to get their fix by begging alone. As a result crime in the period following the invasion of Afghanistan dropped throughout the West.

Up to us if we want to keep chasing a principled solution that we cannot have, or an unprincipled one that works. Having seen the results of the latter, I can testify that principle is overrated.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

Lif in prison for petty theft?

Breaking into people's homes isn't petty theft, it causes a great deal of trauma to people, yet it's common to hear of burglars with 100+ convictions getting a slap of the wrist in court (and no doubt the number of convictions is a small fraction of the number of offences they've committed.)

Start treating this seriously and you provide a real discentive. At the moment, crime pays.

If you've decided to be a career criminal with no intention of reforming then why not receive increasingly lengthy sentences to protect the public?

Even repeat rapists often get lenient sentences in this country, there is a strong argument for keeping violent sex attackers locked up for life.

Torakx

Honestly just put them on an island somewhere and let them kill each othe if people want to act out their annoyance on social deviants, it is more merciful than imprisonment and obviously negative reinforcement has no real lasting or decernable effect on crime, especially when said crime is related to poverty or many other areas linked through poverty or lack of education etc, so no point just locking people up. That would be stupid and counter productive.

Whoever said to invest in more prisons and privatize them.. please.... Think about that..
Look at the states, do you really want us to become an island prison?
Why not make the whole island a prison complex now? Lets reach the endgame now, so the majority can see how well punishment works in a broken society.

superelliptic

jank wrote: »

The free travel malarky for the old and unemployed is a joke. Get rid of it already.

I disagree with this. You pay taxes for your whole working life and it is very useful to most retired / elderly people be able to get some sort of a perk out if it. Personally I cannot imagine a more beneficial perk than to be able to travel outside your area more frequently especially in your senior years when money is more likely to be an issue, particularly given the benefits to mental health and emotional wellbeing and the overall benefits that this has on society.

jobbridge4life

kippy wrote: »

The bigger question is why do we let people away with reoffending? Give the guy as much help as possible to change his ways while locked up for first offence......if it happens again lock him up longer and throw rrsources at him to change....third time lock up and throw away the key.......

You are pre-supposing that incarceration is a successful way of encouraging desistance. It isn't. In fact the opposite may be true. Imprisonment may be criminogenic.

In general I hate these Daily Mail-esque welfare scare mongering. Yes some people on welfare cheat and abuse the system. The huge majority do not.

kippy

jobbridge4life wrote: »

You are pre-supposing that incarceration is a successful way of encouraging desistance. It isn't. In fact the opposite may be true. Imprisonment may be criminogenic.

In general I hate these Daily Mail-esque welfare scare mongering. Yes some people on welfare cheat and abuse the system. The huge majority do not.

The guy gets two chances to sort himself out at cost to the state as well as the state providing an income for him. Why should he expect or get any additional free reogn after a third offence. I have no doubt the vast majority of welfare recepients and indeed everyone else is law abiding. My comment were in relation to convicted criminals who continue to re offend with serious crimes while getting supported by the state.

jobbridge4life

kippy wrote: »

The guy gets two chances to sort himself out at cost to the state as well as the state providing an income for him. Why should he expect or get any additional free reogn after a third offence. I have no doubt the vast majority of welfare recepients and indeed everyone else is law abiding. My comment were in relation to convicted criminals who continue to re offend with serious crimes while getting supported by the state.

I am not really arguing about this individual but rather your portrayal of prison as a solution to criminal activity or temptation. It isn't. Sending him to prison the first time may (thats a big may as I obviously don't know the details) have actually cemented his criminality.

kippy

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I am not really arguing about this individual but rather your portrayal of prison as a solution to criminal activity or temptation. It isn't. Sending him to prison the first time may (thats a big may as I obviously don't know the details) have actually cemented his criminality.

How many chances do you estimate this guy got before he went to prison the first time? Persistent serious criminals deserve jail time it keeps thouse of us that behave safer.

Peregrinus

kippy wrote: »

How many chances do you estimate this guy got before he went to prison the first time? Persistent serious criminals deserve jail time it keeps thouse of us that behave safer.

But there's abundant evidence that it doesn't. OK, it keeps people safe from this particular criminal while he is in custody, but it's a massively expensive way of achieving a very limited objective, and in the long term it's probably counterproductive.

If your object was actually to protect the public from crime, you would not be spending the money by locking up criminals. You could achieve that objective much more effectively by spending the same money, or possibly less, in other ways.

Torakx

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

On the contrary, some people just need to be kept off the streets tbh.

Completely agree. Look how much Irish water and its backers have taken and will take from this country. The bankers and thier puppet politicians. Big time criminals walking the streets. Taking peoples houses and destroying our country. They need to be taken off the streets asap.
But lets focus on the needy/uneducated and punish them for acting desperate during desperate times.
That is what is messed up about this society.
People turn on the poor and neglected while the real damage is being done by "respected" individuals and organisations.
What a backwards world this is.
It makes me wonder, is that drug addict as uneducated as the rest? Maybe he knows the deal...
Because the people propping up this system are more responsible for the issues we have than the people who are a symptom.

The Corinthian

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I am not really arguing about this individual but rather your portrayal of prison as a solution to criminal activity or temptation. It isn't. Sending him to prison the first time may (thats a big may as I obviously don't know the details) have actually cemented his criminality.

So if custodial sentences don't work, how would you suggest society deals with those who are habitually anti-social? Harsh language?

Unfortunately I'd agree that custodial sentences are not the solution, but regrettably, faced with people who will act against the common good repeatedly, the only thing left is to take them out of society, at least for a while, so that they cannot continue causing harm. As such, putting them in prison is not ideal, but it still is much better than doing nothing.

Peregrinus

The Corinthian wrote: »

So if custodial sentences don't work, how would you suggest society deals with those who are habitually anti-social? Harsh language?

Unfortunately I'd agree that custodial sentences are not the solution, but regrettably, faced with people who will act against the common good repeatedly, the only thing left is to take them out of society, at least for a while, so that they cannot continue causing harm. As such, putting them in prison is not ideal, but it still is much better than doing nothing.

Falso dichotomy, surely? The alternative to prison is not "nothing"; it's using the funds which might have been spent imprisoning someone on more creative, and quite possibly more effective, ways of tackling the problem of crime, the consequences of crime and the fear of crime.

The Corinthian

Peregrinus wrote: »

Falso dichotomy, surely? The alternative to prison is not "nothing"; it's using the funds which might have been spent imprisoning someone on more creative, and quite possibly more effective, ways of tackling the problem of crime, the consequences of crime and the fear of crime.

I did not say the alternative to prison is "nothing" per say, I asked what this alternative to prison might be - ideally something a little less fuzzy than something "more creative, and quite possibly more effective, ways of tackling the problem of crime".

batman_oh

Peregrinus wrote: »

Falso dichotomy, surely? The alternative to prison is not "nothing"; it's using the funds which might have been spent imprisoning someone on more creative, and quite possibly more effective, ways of tackling the problem of crime, the consequences of crime and the fear of crime.

Somebody has 100 offences and is a career piece of garbage. Create me a way of dealing with it!

Peregrinus

The Corinthian wrote: »

I did not say the alternative to prison is "nothing" per say, I asked what this alternative to prison might be - ideally something a little less fuzzy than something "more creative, and quite possibly more effective, ways of tackling the problem of crime".

What do you want, an essay? There are a variety of alternatives to custodial sentences already available to the courts - the Probation Act, community service orders, restorative justice, etc - and plenty of research done comparing the efficacy of these as compared with custodial sentences. But if we are talking about the best use of public money to protect the public from crimes, we're not just talking about penal policy; we can also consider strategies which don't depend on waiting until a crime has been committed and then detecting and punishing the offender, but which seek to reduce the number of crimes committed in the first place. Those could be policing strategies, they could be social strategies, they could be educational strategies.

I come back to the point which I keep repeating and which nobody is challenging; prison is a massively expensive way of acheiving very little protection. If you haven't asked yourself why the crimes are being committed in the first place, you should expect that locking up one criminal simply created a gap which another criminal will fill.

The Corinthian

Peregrinus wrote: »

What do you want, an essay? There are a variety of alternatives to custodial sentences already available to the courts - the Probation Act, community service orders, restorative justice, etc - and plenty of research done comparing the efficacy of these as compared with custodial sentences.

Problem is that, unless those figures you speak of say otherwise, they're not terribly efficient in many cases either. If someone repeatedly gets summoned to court and simply does not turn up, what makes you think they're going to turn up to do community service? Or pay restoration or a fine?

But if we are talking about the best use of public money to protect the public from crimes, we're not just talking about penal policy; we can also consider strategies which don't depend on waiting until a crime has been committed and then detecting and punishing the offender, but which seek to reduce the number of crimes committed in the first place. Those could be policing strategies, they could be social strategies, they could be educational strategies.

And back we go to the use of fuzzy language.

I come back to the point which I keep repeating and which nobody is challenging; prison is a massively expensive way of achieving very little protection.

I completely agree, which is why I asked as to the better alternative. If better no alternative (and "could be policing strategies, they could be social strategies" is an vague aspiration, not an alternative) is available, then you're left with taking the best available one, which is that of imposing custodial sentences.

Don't get me wrong; I do believe that custodial sentences are an inefficient approach, but unless there is a viable alternative they remain the best of a bad lot, in many instances.

If you haven't asked yourself why the crimes are being committed in the first place, you should expect that locking up one criminal simply created a gap which another criminal will fill.

Problem is there is no single reason or group of reasons why crimes are committed in the first place. Correlations exist, but even if we address those the problem won't go away and we will still need a means to deal with those. Or are you suggesting that a solution is possible that will lead us to a golden age where no one will ever break the law? If so, I'm all ears

Torakx

Hmm such a solution might be called anarchy I mean anarchism as a social model. I can't say governing model for that.

The root of our issues with crime is related to class separation and exploitation of the majority by a minority of families and corporations/allied groups, who have accumulated massive resources and continue to use a capatilist model to plunder and destroy societies around the planet. They are the ones whoneed to be dealt with, in order to aleviate the stress on society in general, and I would think this would indirectly cause a shift and coming together of people in general.

A very very small example of would be Irelands own tyrant, Denis O'Brien, owner of Irish water and our national media, gardai, politicians and other companies, taking advantage of a corrupted system, made corrupt to serve people like him.
The petty criminal is simply a symptom of the destruction these people lay down on the lower classes.
If you want to fix the problem lock away the real criminal. Those doing the most damage. Then when thats finished let the dust settle. I garuntee the petty criminals will be back to work(provided we have a democratic governing system, not the current oligarchy posing as democracy).

The Corinthian

Torakx wrote: »

The root of our issues with crime is related to class separation and exploitation of the majority by a minority of families and corporations/allied groups, who have accumulated massive resources and continue to use a capatilist model to plunder and destroy societies around the planet.

And God created the World in six days and on the seventh He rested...

Torakx

Faith is often the boast of a man who is too lazy to investigate.
Couldn't resist sorry!

Peregrinus

The Corinthian wrote: »

I completely agree, which is why I asked as to the better alternative. If better no alternative (and "could be policing strategies, they could be social strategies" is an vague aspiration, not an alternative) is available, then you're left with taking the best available one, which is that of imposing custodial sentences.

But you have done nothing to demonstrate that is is the best available one; you just seem to assume that it is. Yet as we both agree that prison is a massively expensive way of achieving very little, and that locking up one criminal may simply create a gap which another one will fill. Given that, it's not very likely that the strategy of more and longer imprisonment will in general turn out to be "the best available one". And in this particular case, where the underlying problem is heroin addiction, the notion that lengthy prisons sentences are the most cost-effective way of reducing heroin-addiction-driven crime seems to fly in the fact of common sense and common experience. Heroin addicts are not that responsive to concerns about prison sentences.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Problem is there is no single reason or group of reasons why crimes are committed in the first place. Correlations exist, but even if we address those the problem won't go away and we will still need a means to deal with those. Or are you suggesting that a solution is possible that will lead us to a golden age where no one will ever break the law? If so, I'm all ears

You're setting the standard a little high there, Corinthian. Non-custodial policy doesn't have to result in zero crime to be the best option; it just has to result in less crime than a similar expenditure on custodial policy is likely to give us. And since we know that increasing sentences does little to reduce crime rates, the odds are looking pretty good.

Note that I'm not saying that there is no need for, or place for, custodial sentences. I'm responding to the knee-jerk assumption manifested earlier in this thread that if we have unacceptably high crime rates the proper or best response is more and longer sentences of imprisonment. There are other possible responses to rising crime rates; most of them cost less than prison and offer a fair prospect of producing the same or a better reduction in crime rates, given that longer sentences produces virtually no reduction. It's far more likely that the vast resources consumed by the prison policy mean that we're not trying more effective policies than the other way around.

The Corinthian

Peregrinus wrote: »

But you have done nothing to demonstrate that is is the best available one; you just seem to assume that it is.

Are you asking me to prove that a better one does not exist? Sorry, but it is for you to prove that one does exist.

At the very least I've asked you to suggest a better approach and all you've managed to do is come back with some vague and fuzzy waffle. This leaves us in a situation whereby I certainly cannot think of an approach that would eliminate the need for custodial sentences and you've failed to propose one - certainly sounds like there's a shortage of alternatives.

Heroin addicts are not that responsive to concerns about prison sentences.

I never suggested they need be. If heroin addicts habitually re-offend and no other means is available to stop them doing so, then taking them out of society does not solve the problem of their anti-social tendencies, but it does solve the problem that they can commit anti-social acts within society, at least for a while.

You're setting the standard a little high there, Corinthian.

No, you are. You're the one who have rejected custodial sentences in a blanket fashion. You set the standard.

All I've argued is that when all else fails, custodial sentences are the best of a bad lot. All that remains. I've never suggested there are not better options in many cases, only that there are not better options in all cases.

If you feel I've said otherwise, please feel free to point out where.

Peregrinus

Actually, Corinthian, I don't think either of us have done much to prove our respective contentions.

You keep saying that "custodial sentences are the best of a bad lot", but you don't have any evidence for that. You can say that at least sending this bloke to prison stops him from (most) offending for as long as he's in prison. On the other hand, it does nothing to prevent any other bloke from committing the crimes that, if not imprisoned, he would have committed, and if the factors that led him into crime have not altered (and the prison policy does nothing to alter them) then our expectation should be that, on the whole, some other bloke probably will commit those crimes. So what you have identified is a very limited benefit, and you have nothing to suggest that it represents a better outcome than anything you could hope to achieve if you had devoted the same resources to some different strategy. The outcome you identify may be the best outcome that any strategy could achieve, but you have no basis for asserting or assuming that it is. it could be the worst. Or somewhere in the middle.

Conversely, I've got nothing to show that devoting the same resources to another strategy would produce a better outcome. I think we have grounds for a fair degree of optimism that it would - viz, the cost of prison is so high, and the benefit in terms of crime reduction so limited, that it's a real counsel of despair to suggest that no alternative strategy that we might devise could possibly produce a better outcome - but actual evidence? Nope.

I'd agree with you, incidentally, that there are not better options for all cases. Sometimes a custodial sentence will be the best option. I really came into the thread, though, in response to the case in the OP, and Hotblack's suggestion that since custody wasn't preventing crimes, the proper response was longer and longer custodial sentences. I would have thought that the case in the OP - crimes committed habitually by heroin addicts - is almost the textbook example of a crime problem which is demonstrably not effectively tackled with custodial sentences, and that spending more and more money on a very expensive policy not expected to work and demonstrably not working in practice was not a proper, or even a rational, response. Unless you are going to imprison all heroin addicts before they have committed any crimes (even if that were possible or morally acceptable) custodial policy is never going to prevent heroin addicts from committing crimes. Money spent tackling the causes and consequences of heroin addiction is almost certainly going to yield better returns, in terms of crime reduction, than longer and longer sentences for addicts who have already committed crimes.

Or, at least, I have a strong sense that this is so. But no actual evidence!

Torakx

Also what happens after the first bloke or lady! gets out of prison?
You have 2 criminals instead of one. And the cycle continues, which is really great for privatized prisons, since they get more customers and it exponentially grows as people with criminal records have nowhere to go but back to their previous occupation(crime) which they could concievably perfect while locked away.
Which is why I always go back to the root cause, not the symptoms.
The root cause is a society under attack from the rich and powerful who are attempting to take more and more.
To do so they need this capitalist system to flourish and more prisons to popup.
The money system could be another major factor in all this, since you cannot pay back interest on money created(you need to create more to do so and at interest!) inflation will rise or someone has to burn their money to curb said inflation and allow the fraud to continue.

Does it not sound efficient and practical to attack the root of the problem as a society, instead of just bandaging the issues temporarily while everythign slowly crumbles around us?
I don't plan on having children myself(although never say never), but even I am worried for future generations.

The Corinthian

Peregrinus wrote: »

You keep saying that "custodial sentences are the best of a bad lot", but you don't have any evidence for that.

With all due respect, I do think the onus is on you to show evidence that better options exist, rather than I having to prove they don't.

Torakx wrote: »

Does it not sound efficient and practical to attack the root of the problem as a society, instead of just bandaging the issues temporarily while everythign slowly crumbles around us?

Which according to your earlier sermon is capitalism? I think it a safe bet that most of us may want to put that conclusion on hold for the time being.

I don't plan on having children myself(although never say never), but even I am worried for future generations.

Hmm... no, I think I can do without another infraction this week...

jimbly

I have a travel pass, I would quite happily pay an annual fee to have it. No problem.
What has prompted all this outrage and quite likely so, is that someone is screwing and abusing the system and gets away with it.
Everyone in governement is too scared to do anything about these abuses in case the upset some minroty group or other.
Take his travel pass of him and throw it in the bin.

Peregrinus

The Corinthian wrote: »

With all due respect, I do think the onus is on you to show evidence that better options exist, rather than I having to prove they don't.

With even more grovelling respect, Cor, if you assert -as you have repeatedly done - that imprisonment is the best of the not very good options available, I think the onus is on you to show that it is the best.

Your claim is actually more extravagant than mine. You are saying that, of all the options available, this one is the best. I am saying that, of all the options available, at least one of the others is better than this. In the absence of any evidence at all, the smart money will be on me; the odds favour me. In the absence of evidence, we are identifying the best policy att random, or because it appeals to our preconceptions. But, using this method, you have to hit the bull's-eye to win, and identify the best policy; I win if I hit the dartboard anywhere at all, so to speak.

I'd go a bit further than that; I have at least offered reasons for thinking that, in this particular case, the imprisonment option is unlikely to achieve much, if anything, in crime prevention terms, and you haven't really quibbled with anything I have said about that; in fact you have a agreed with it. So your position is that a policy which will admittedly achieve little or nothing is, nevertheless, the best policy. Even if you have no evidence to support this belief, you could at least offer an account of why you hold it.

Torakx

Imprisonment with options to work it off through community service, might be a middle ground, a way to transition to a more productive and positive social engagement with society, for re-integration and rehabilitation.

kippy

Torakx wrote: »

Imprisonment with options to work it off through community service, might be a middle ground, a way to transition to a more productive and positive social engagement with society, for re-integration and rehabilitation.

I don't actually know what the fuss is about here.

There is plenty "non" penal options granted to criminals depending on the crime and indeed plenty rehab programmes but inside and outside prison.

If however a person doesn't interact or take part in whatever supports and services the state tries to help them with on a consistent basis, and they continue to re-offend there is no alternative for society but to lock them up for longer periods to keep themselves and the remainder of society safe.
The guy above is a persistent re-offender despite being granted leniency and supports by the state.