Intermediate Sanctions Research Paper

Ever since the first prison opened in the United States in 1790, incarceration has been the center of the nations criminal justice system. Over this 200 year period many creative alternatives to incarceration have been tried, and many at a much lower cost than imprisonment. It wasn’t until the late 1980’s when our criminal justice systems across the country began experiencing a problem with overcrowding of facilities. This problem forced lawmakers to develop new options for sentencing criminal offenders.

Consider an example, if an offender is originally classified at higher levels of security, the process of reintegration should be reflected in successive reductions in security until release of this offender into the community. Likewise, reclassification and prompt transfer of an offender to the “least restrictive” level of imprisonment improves the likelihood of that offender being considered favourably for discretionary release. Based on the research it was concluded that that there is a strong association between security level placement and discretionary release, even when controlling for

Punishment has evolved from the days of waiting to be hung to the sophisticated prison systems of today. However prisons in the United States are crowded and costly and they are not always appropriate for all offenders, especially those that have committed minor offenses. In the last couple of decades new methods of punishment has been developed for the minor offender. These fall under the category of intermediate community sanction and consist of electronic monitoring and home confinement. These punishments have proven very useful in dealing with minor offenders, pretrial confinement and others in need of supervision. They seem to be effective and help to transfer some of the cost of prison back to the offender.

In prisons today, rehabilitation, deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution are all elements that provide a justice to society. Prisons effectively do their part in seeing that one if not more of these elements are met and successfully done. If it were not for these elements, than what would a prison be good for? It is highly debated upon whether or not these elements are done properly. It is a fact that these are and a fact that throughout the remainder of time these will be a successful part of prison life.

Due to the increase of correctional populations that continue to exceed its’ capacity, correctional alternatives were created. Correctional alternatives were to alleviate both prison crowding and the threat to public safety posed by serious offenders (Flores, Holsinger, Latessa, Lowenkamp, & Makarios, 2010). Rehabilitation in the 1970s was a variable correctional goal however by the 1980s intermediate sanctions developed . Intermediate sanctions consist of house arrest, electronic monitoring, boot camps, day reporting centers, intensive supervision probation or parole, community service, fines, and curfews (Tonry, 1990). These sanctions offer community based punishments that focus on deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution (Tonry, 1990).

The concept of mandatory minimum sentencing has been plaguing the justice system of the United States of America for too many years and therefore must be abolished. If mandatory minimum sentencing were to be done away with, then the criminal justice system could finally start to bring desperately needed change to itself and start to get back to where it needs to be; a system that takes people with a problem and returns a reformed individual capable of positively contributing to society. By getting rid of mandatory minimum sentencing, the prison populations could be reduced, allowing for more attention to be given to the reformation of each individual giving them a better chance at success. The research shows that getting rid of mandatory minimum sentencing will be more cost effective, keep prison populations lower, limit unjust sentencing, and make sure that the punishment that an individual receives is proportional to the crime that they have been convicted of.

Intermediate sanctions and community corrections are increasingly used to fill the gap between the classic sanctions of imprisonment and probation. The applications of these intermediate measures, including particularly community service, have proved problematic. Fortunately, measures can be taken to greatly improve intermediate sanctions and community service, in particular, can be improved through communication.

1. Intermediate Sanctions are "The use of split sentencing, shock probation or parole, shock incarceration, community service, intensive supervision, or home confinement in lieu of other, more traditional sanctions such as imprisonment and fines" (Schmalleger 397). They are also sometimes termed alternative sentencing strategies. According to Michael J. Russell, who is a former director of the National Institute of Justice, "Intermediate punishments are intended to provide prosecutors, judges, and corrections officials with sentencing options that permit them to apply appropriate punishments to convicted offenders while not being constrained by the traditional choice between prison and probation..." (Schmalleger 397). While intermediate sanctions

There are many different philosophies that are in use in the court systems when determining what sort of punishment will be imposed on someone who is found guilty of committing a crime. These philosophies are in use in both the adult courts and juvenile courts. The juvenile court system is similar to the adult courts, but there are many differences between the two. Both court systems try and keep crime from happening and both courts sentence those found guilty to some sort of punishment through the punishment philosophy that the court determines is a suitable approach for preventing future crime.

The Department of Corrections has continuously changed their goals and objectives throughout the history of corrections. The continuous changes to policies have many contributing factors beginning with the Attorney General, Governors, and appointed directors of the incarceration establishments. With changing laws, new problems arising and changing political stand points based on campaign agendas prisons themselves have been forced to adapt. When asked what the objectives of punishment are here in the U.S., my first thought would be that the goal of punishment would be to enforce society’s laws and

(Zhang, Y., Zhang, L., Vaughn, M. (2009). Determinate prison sentences or mandatory-minimum sentencing seems like it would discourage criminals from committing crimes because one would think that with harsher sentences would be likely to deter criminals from breaking the law. In the 1970s, indeterminate sentencing was used frequently, in most states judges and parole boards used wide discretion in sentencing offenders. (Zhang, Y., Zhang, L., Vaughn, M. (2009). As it stands, the number of prisoners in the US in 2017 is ten times as much when compared to pre -1971, while the overall population rates have increased only by a third. Half of these prisoners (51%) are jailed for non-violent offenses (World Prison Brief, 2015). The existing number of prisons is not enough to hold and adequately maintain its numerous populations. Many of them are

Over the years, many theorists have been considering alternative type sanctions for offenders, because of the ever growing issue of prison overcrowding of our jails at state, local and federal level. The use of alternative type sanctions seem to be growing, and is getting a second look from many prisons, and jails as an option for some offender. Also, “in addition to relieving jail and prison overcrowding, the level of risk many offenders represent is too much for probation, but

In this essay I shall talk about the main reasons intermediate sanctions exist, and describe in further detail what is to say when we refer to community corrections.

Today punishment is the most dominant correctional goal of both the state and federal government in response to criminality. The purpose of punishment is to protect society, rehabilitate criminal offenders, and reduce recidivism. In both the state and federal correctional institutions, their objectives are to use punishment as form deterrence while

In addition it is usually the fear of being caught that is more of a deterrent and that while crime detection rates are low, the threat of an unpleasant penalty, if caught, seems to be remote. The value of general deterrence is even more doubtful as potential offenders are rarely deterred by severe penalties passed on others. The main aim of rehabilitation is to reform the offender and rehabilitate him into society. It is a forward-looking aim, with the hopes that the offender’s behaviour will be altered by the penalty imposed, so that he or she will not re-offend in the future (it aims to reduce crime this way)