01723     2200241   4500001000700000011001400007100004100021101000800062102000700070200014800077330088500225461007201110606002301182606002501205606002401230606003301254606001401287606001501301675001001316700013001326801001201456852001301468409059  a2059-1098  a20241204d        kkky0pory50      ba  aeng  aGB  aReducing prison Ssntencing through pre-sentence reports?ewhy the quasi-market logic of ‘selling alternatives to custody’ failsfCyrus Tata  aA central aim of successive generations of penal reformers and governments has been to reduce the use of imprisonment in relatively less serious cases. In their various guises, pre-sentence reports (PSRs) have been a key vehicle to promote non-custodial ‘alternatives’ to the judicial sentencer. Yet, after decades of pursuing this strategy, a significant reduction in prison sentencing remains elusive. This article suggests that the failure of this policy strategy is, at least in part, rooted in its quasi-market logic. It tends to construct the judicial sentencer as a metaphorical consumer in a penal marketplace, to whom the report writer must convincingly ‘sell alternatives’ to custody. Applying and developing theories of consumption as a cultural practice, it is proposed that, by its very nature, a consumerist model is bound to fail to deliver penal reduction.  cHowardd2018pp.472-494tJournal of Crime & JusticevVol. 57, nº 4  aPENAS ALTERNATIVAS  aMEDIDAS ALTERNATIVAS  aPRISÃO PREVENTIVA  aRELATÓRIO PRÉ-SENTENCIAL  aPROBATION  aSENTENÇA  a343.8  aTatabCyrus c Senior Lecturer in Law, Centre for Sentencing Research, Law School, Strathclyde University, Glasgow, Scotland,  aPTgRPC  j343.8TAT