Alternatives to imprisonment in Kenya

Conclusion In spite of the wide variety of sentencing options available in Kenya, the courts overwhelmingly choose to sanction by imprisonment. Even default on the payment of a fine can lead to a prison term where extramural penal employment would at the very least be more economical and more beneficial to the community. In my view, the main purpose of penal policy is to provide an opportunity for the offender to reintegrate himself or herself into society and to rectify the damage both to the victim and to society caused by the crime. Imprisonment frustrates these objectives and should be reserved for habitual serious offenders and for grave offenses that do not readily lend themselves to alternative sanctions. Even in such cases, however, compensation can be ordered in addition to a prison term.Settlement, restitution, and similar approaches should become routine for all minor offenses. Putting primary reliance on alternative sanctions should produce considerable savings in costs and in manpower, alleviating some of the pressure now experienced by an overburdened criminal justice system. To derive the greatest benefit from alternative sanctions, we need also to review and integrate indigenous traditions of community-based dispute resolution into the statutory structure.This is a revised version of a paper presented at a sentencing workshop organized by the Society for the Reform of Criminal Law, the Legal Resources Foundation, and the Law Development Commission, Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe, September 1–5, 1993.I am grateful to Professor Daniel Van Ness, Legal Advisor on Criminal Justice to the Government of Malta; and to Madeleine Sann, Director of Publication,Criminal Law Forum, for their suggestions.M.S., Vikram University (Ujjain, India) 1968; LL.B., Vikram University 1975; LL.M., University of London 1976.