Over £21m which should be spent on help for victims being wasted on paper pushing and form filling. This is the equivalent of losing intensive support for 25,000 victims of domestic violence and the installation of 15,000 home alarm kits for victims of burglary.

Patchy local services with some victims receiving little or no support when they need it most.

Risking the break up of Victim Support’s network of 7000 volunteers who provide support in the communities where they live.

We would like your help to persuade the Government to change its mind by signing up to our e-petition calling on the Government to reconsider its plans. Please sign it and share it with friends, family and colleagues. The more signatures we have, the more pressure we can put on the Government.

If you would like to know more you can read our full response to the Government’s plans at www.victimsupport.org.uk.

The first lesson relates to how courts view and use  alternatives. During training courses for new judges, it emerged that some  were enthusiastic about   community service, others sceptical, a third group simply unaware of what it entails in practice. This is despite the fact that community service placements are organised locally by committees chaired by judges themselves . Hearing the details of projects -  the  city wide cleanup campaign in Mombasa, the development of a fish farm in Kitui and a national tree planting  programme- brought home how sharply the contribution that community service makes   to public well being  stands in contrast with the wasteful impact of prison. How many judges in magistrates in the UK could point to successful community service placements in their local areas? I suspect that the three way split of enthusiastic, sceptical and unaware applies here and despite some strong efforts around the country   - open days, advertising campaigns , and plaques- the need for continuing   engagement  with sentencers is sometimes neglected. Whether the fragmentation of the probation service signalled by the government’s recent probation review, and in particular  the greater involvement of private companies,  makes this more or less likely remains to be seen.

The second insight relates to the kind of work offenders undertake on community service. Kenya have developed impressive “empowerment projects” in which offenders  are taught  a skill while they are doing unpaid work- growing plants, breeding rabbits, farming chickens for example. Those who complete their orders are given some seeds, a watering can, even a pair of rabbits to start them off with income raising activity. Some ex offenders are developing social enterprises in which to put their skills to work. What would be the equivalent here?    Yes education, training and mentoring forms part of the best alternative to custody programmes but getting jobless  offenders into work remains a challenge, all the more so with currently high rates of unemployment in many parts of the UK. It is possible that the payment by results framework will encourage some more radical initiatives to empower ex offenders but equally competitions for much of probation business could drive down quality as well as cost. Helping people to desist from crime often involves offering genuine opportunities for a change in how they live their lives and see themselves. That requires an investment of time, relationships and sometimes resources. But without these there is the likelihood of more and more costs to victims and the wider community.”

They will be represented by solicitors or barristers, who will do all the talking for them. The victim will have no part in this process, apart from a ‘victim impact’ report written by a probation officer that the magistrates or the judge will see, which will then be taken into account when sentencing.

If the victims offence is one of those which are T.I.C. they will not even get a mention in court. Yet that offence could be one the most traumatic events of the victims lives.

They are frequently left with fear and unresolved issues that can last for years. I took part in a phone-in on the Jeremy Vine show where the subject was burglary. Many victims called in, there were some heart rending stories, one man that phoned had been burgled over twenty years ago and his late mother’s jewellery was stolen. He and his wife have been trawling second-hand jewellery shops in the hope they might find their property. Clearly, this gentleman and others felt disenfranchised by the court process and are left bewildered and frustrated.

Like many other victims of crime he had no ‘closure’, I could feel his feelings of frustration as I told him in the most subtle and tactful way that I could that there was little or no chance of him ever recovering the property and that he would really benefit from moving on with his life and not letting the events of the past dominate the thoughts and feelings of today.

I feel that victims should play a much more active role in the criminal justice system. Not in the sentencing – that should always be left to the courts! But there is a role for them in the sentence and that is in the form of Restorative Justice, where the victim and the offender are brought together, the offenders will come face to face with their victims and they have to tell their victims not how they committed the offence, but why they did. This is voluntary on the part of the victim who will be counselled on what to expect and fully supported throughout the whole procedure.

When confronted with their victims most offenders have to take a sharp intake of breath. But more importantly the victim gets closure and it can be a life transforming event for some of them which will allow them to move on.

In a lot of cases of burglary the offender will try and dehumanise their victims, some have been known to turn the photos face down of the occupants of the house. In most of the cases I have dealt with the offender has been driven by addiction issues to alcohol and drugs. I’m not offering an excuse for their behaviour, far from it, but it might offer an explanation for it.

There is a saying “people dancing look ridiculous to those who can’t hear the music.” Some people haven’t grasped the full picture or have not ‘heard the music’ of Restorative Justice; they actually believe it means that if the offender apologises for their behaviour, they are then forgiven and no more is said or done!

This was the opinion of Amanda Platell, she got very hot under the collar in a television debate she had with me about Restorative Justice, she could not be further away from the truth ! Restorative Justice is PART of the sentence, and not a STAND ALONE sentence.

As a Probation Officer I’ve convened Restorative Conferences, both in prisons and in the community. They are not like the Jeremy Kyle Show, where the victims shout at the offender. It’s done in a calm way, where the victims express their feelings, and tell of the impact that the offence has had on their lives.

As for the offender they are inclined to then take responsibility for their offending, all indications point to the fact that those offenders who have taken part in this process are over 40% less likely to reoffend. There is an old saying – ‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating’- it’s clearly successful, let’s do more of it !

Community sentences must, however, be about more than digging, scraping and mopping up  – they should be appropriate and meaningful to the communities they serve and involve greater emphasis on changing behaviour through victim empathy programmes. I was impressed recently when a Referral Order Panel member told me how a young girl had spent her reparation writing a project based on her views of the London riots which involved producing a questionnaire which she then had to analyse. This was something she could contribute to her community as she interviewed neighbours and was of far greater benefit to her than cleaning graffiti.”

You can follow Marina on Twitter and read her blog on the Huffington Post website.