  Sir - Non-custodial alternatives to prison fail to prevent crime or address the widespread fear of crime. Your leading article (Mar 26) makes the point well. One of the main reasons for this problem, which is worsening monthly, is the fact that those in charge of the legal system do not understand how criminals really think. Having spent nearly 40 years listening to them in cells and interview rooms, I know that the only punishment they fear is prison. It is precisely that fear that lies behind two of the most common pretexts used by criminals to avoid custody: "You learn how to commit crime in prison", and "I did it to feed my drugs habit".
Many criminals privately admit that they have no such habit; but it is a good way of getting a probation officer to recommend a non-custodial sentence. All too often, the strategy works. Too many courts fail to realise how smart some criminals are. However, it is not only ignorance of the criminal mind that results in the failure to protect innocent citizens from crime.
It is the lack of courage by the agencies responsible: the Government, the police, the probation service and the judiciary. The Government refuses to fund a worthwhile prison-building project. The police do not have sufficient numbers to patrol our streets effectively - but two officers can be spared on a quiet road to photograph cars. Too many chief constables prefer to use their resources to trap speeding motorists rather than to combat real crime.
Meanwhile, the probation service still views its main task as protecting criminals rather than victims. The judiciary cannot bring itself to accept increasing public concern and criticism of weak sentencing. The Court of Appeal, in particular, includes many judges who know little about criminals or victims - and this is being noticed by the press and the general public. Your editorial was quite right: nothing cuts crime more than imprisonment. From: Keith Matthewman QC, Circuit Judge, 1983-2001, Nottingham 
