Austin Lovegrove offers a critique of the model suggested for scaling non-custodial penalties under a desert model. His critique raises two questions, concerning (1) the role of the principle of proportionality in scaling such penalties, and (2) the extent of substitutability of sanctions that should be permissible. The proposed model gives desert (the principle of proportionality) the pre-eminent role in deciding the comparative severity of non-custodial penalties. The severity of the penalty should be scaled according to the seriousness of the offense. According to Lovegrove, substitutions among penalties with significantly different penal severity ratings were ruled out. The paper points out that a desert-oriented scaling scheme might permit varying degrees of substitutions among comparably severe penalties. First, a “no substitution” model was suggested as a possibility and rejected as unduly restrictive. Second, an “intermediate solution” would prescribe a presumed sentence type. Third, a “full-substitution” would impose the appropriate sanction-unit sentence through a variety of sentencing options and combine different types of penalties together to achieve the prescribed sanction-unit total. Lovegrove preferred the “full substitution” model and offered two main reasons for his preferred solution: (1) the use of “part-in/part-out” (prison/non-custodial) sentences, having both custodial and non-custodial phases, permitted less extensive reliance on imprisonment, and (2) substitutions would enhance the crime prevention effect of the sanction. References