Many countries around the world use community service as an alternative to prison sentences and it has proved to be effective, with the emphasis on making the offender realise that their transgression needs to be ‘paid for’.

In Malta we do implement the concept of community service, but it is not used often enough.

While many other nations use community service as an alternative to jail time, perhaps we should look at it differently in our country. Many people and institutions have criticised court judgments as being too lenient – with probation (section 5) and conditional discharge (section 9) being dished out left right and centre. The problem is so acute that when in court, one often hears someone being “put on probation” by a magistrate, only to find that the person was actually given a punishment in line with section 9 – a conditional discharge.

And that is where part of the problem lies. Probation is one thing – you are monitored by a probation officer and are effectively given a slap on the wrist and are told ‘not to do it again’. A section 9 conditional discharge is different, the court lets you go, even though you have been found guilty, on condition that you do not commit another crime within a specific period.

It seems that these two have become interchangeable. In addition, it has happened many times before, a person may have been conditionally discharged, only to reappear in court for another offence. It could have been before the original offence, or after, but still, the accused would receive another conditional discharge.

The message is all wrong. What we are effectively saying here is “don’t do it again... or else,” only for the person to come back to court and for us to again say “don’t do it again... or else”.

We understand that not every case warrants someone being given a jail sentence, God forbid that was the case, but we cannot go on like this where criminals who are back in court week after week and month after month simply get a slap on the wrist.

If the Court of Magistrates made a concerted effort to implement the concept of community service, it might serve the purpose well. It gives a message, it says that one might not be sent to prison if they commit a petty crime (or make a mistake, as happens), but whatever the case, you must still make reparations for your actions.

This will teach offenders that even if it means sweeping the corridors of a local council office, or planting trees or painting a wall, they will have to make up for what they have done – whether it is petty theft, disorderly conduct, drug abuse or whatever.

In addition, it will appease the general public, who quite clearly feel that on some occasions, offenders do get off lightly (and cases of four conditional discharges one after the other are not uncommon).

And on a final note, while community work might be brushed off as work for work’s sake, this is not the case. There are plenty of jobs which might be assigned. Doing odd jobs for councils, painting school corridors, weeding gardens, doing jobs for the elderly... these are all possibilities and they are also viable possibilities which will result in benefits for various communities – and hopefully, the offender too.