A community court pilot in the US has delivered good results. As Parliament considers scrapping short sentences within the Criminal Justice Bill, former Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson argues for a more all-encompassing approach to deal with reoffending.

In Government you often have to make difficult decisions.

When I brought forward changes to the High Court to better support victims and witnesses there were serious questions posed and some objections. The process of trying to change any system is never easy and inevitably there will always be groups of people who will object to change.

The SNP's Criminal Justice Bill, which is making its way through the Scottish Parliament at the moment, contains a number of measures, but without doubt, the most controversial is the virtual scrapping of six month custodial sentences. The part of the Bill which is designed to ensure that any sentencer who wishes to impose a jail term of six months or less will have to give reasons for the decision is being heavily criticised on many different fronts.

Sentencers have deep concerns about the Bill and its effect on their independence. They rightly want scope to ensure that the sentence imposed both protects the public and deals with the offender. The idea that the only offenders who receive custodial sentences of six months and under are first time offenders is not borne out in practice.

Court practitioners know that it is often repeat and persistent offenders who receive these sentences, in some instances after community options have been tried.

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice has attempted to characterise these individuals as the flotsam and jetsam of criminality.  But offenders who have received short prison sentences include those convicted of knife crime, some quite serious assaults, housebreaking and some sex offenders.

The weight of opinion that this is the wrong policy is growing. Recently, the new Chairman of the Scottish Police Federation, Les Gray, expressed his concerns about this part of the Bill.

There are additional concerns from women's groups about this policy. Just before Christmas it was revealed that 93 per cent of abusers who get sent to prison for domestic abuse receive jail terms of six months or less.

A submission to the Justice Committee from Scottish Women's Aid included representations from member groups and the women they support decrying the move.

One submission stated: "Domestic abusers are some of the most dangerous and violent offenders in society. Any family who have experienced abuse know that these proposals will not work and most likely make matters worse."

The Scottish Prison Service has admitted that the huge extension of community sentences that will be the knock-on effect of this Bill will not save them any significant sums of money.  Local Authorities who will be expected to deliver the sentences have real doubts that the policy can be delivered by them without a huge amount of new money being found.

There is a consensus across the Scottish Parliament that there needs to be more community sentencing, but Kenny MacAskill's approach is not supported. The Justice Committee told him to think again; women's groups say he's wrong; sentencers have severe doubts; Councils don't have the resources; the Prison Service won't save any money and the public (from what constituents have said to me) are deeply opposed.

There is a consensus that the right way forward is to establish a Community Court pilot in Glasgow and introduce the type of system that we have seen work successfully in the United States. The Scottish Parliament voted for this approach, and it would get public support if it was introduced.

Changing any system will be fraught with potential pitfalls. In my experience, it is wise to listen to the victims of crime, the sentencers, and those who work in the Criminal Justice system, and try to build consensus for change. An approach which seeks simply to reduce prison numbers without focusing on reducing re-offending misses the point completely.  It's time for the Cabinet Secretary to accept that this part of Bill does not command support, and drop the proposal.