In all sentencing the first point is that prison costs £1,000 a week. Most criminals are not 'worth' that, and the money could be better spent.
Putting someone in a cage them letting them out is not going to reduce their inclination to re-offend . (Especially where violence and or s offences are involved) It would seem best to spend that huge amount of money in new ways to prevent offending.
We could continue to pretend nothing has changed in the last hundred years, and preend no new drugs and no new technology exist.
Or, we could use technology, and use drug based behaviour- control, and opportunity -control, and freedom of movement- control.
To emphasise that the remedies are in the best interests of the offender/patient, as well as those of the public, the court- ordered confinement could be for as long as it takes to establish the best drugs and technology regime. This could be done in an assessment period under compulsory restraint, and compulsory treatment, which could be in something called a hospital, but in fact entirely secure.
The patient/offender may need to have his impulse to drink curbed, under an IMPLANT mix of drugs. After release from what would be called initial treatment, and would be subject to court ordered compliance, (unless the court agrees it can be varied,) he could also wear a monitor to show he had not tried alcohol. And all information on his blood levels and his location would be remotely captured, so no social workers or nurses or probation staff would have to chase round after him.
Delivering nessary medication by implant would ensure nobody forgets to take medication, nor gets an opportunity to stop it. Women have for decades been guinea pigs for long term implants (for contraceptive drugs,) so the men will be perfectly safe.
The violence and the s impulses may not be lowered without a mix of drugs which could cause side effects disliked by the patient/ offender. A lack of much interest in anything at all, for example, might be a result from the curbing of any unwanted and dangerous appetites. (Weight loss jabs have sometimes reduced other appetites, so a similar result could no doubt be contrived by court- authorised medical teams)
Access to internet could be restricted under house arrest. Cameras and threshold triggers could ensure no visitors entered, unless court approved. And, could ensure the prisoner/patient does not leave the home.
It would seem the public could be safe, for LIFE, from men who are doubly controlled, by confinement and by court autorised restrictions and by implanted drugs. Courts could hear appeals to vary any terms, but there would be a good argument that a man's own best interests are never met, by permitting him to access opportunities to harm himself and others, by offending.