Throwing criminals in prison is an ancient and widespread method of punishment, but is it a wise one? It does seem reasonable to keep wrongdoers in a place where they find fewer opportunities to hurt innocent people. The system has long been considered fair and sound by those who want to see the guilty punished and society protected. But the value of this form of justice is now being questioned by the very men who have to apply it – the judges. Does it really help the society, or the victim, or the victim's family, to put in prison a man who, while drunk at the wheel of his car, has injured or killed another person? It would be more helpful to make the man pay for his victim's medical bills and compensate him/her for the bad experience, the loss of working time, and any other problems arising from the accident. If the victim is dead, in most cases the victim's family would need some financial assistance. And a young thief who spends time in prison may receive there a thorough education in crime from his fellow prisoners. Willingly or not, he has to associate himself with tough criminals who will drag him into more serious crimes. Such considerations have caused a number of judges to try some new forms of punishment for light criminals, which are unpleasant enough to discourage the offenders ( 违法者 ) from repeating their offenses, but safe for them because they are not exposed to dangerous company. They pay for their crime by helping their victims, financially or otherwise, or doing unpaid labor for their community; or perhaps, they take a job and repay their victim out of their salary. This sort of punishment is applied only to nonviolent criminals who are not likely to be dangerous to the public, such as forgers ( 伪造者 ), thieves, and drivers who have caused traffic accidents. The sentenced criminal has the right to refuse the new type of punishment if he prefers a prison term.