Intermediate Sanctions
Keywords:
intermediate sanctions, commnunity corrections, probationAbstract
This paper provides a brief description of intermediate sanctions. Those sanctions were developed to span the gap between traditional probation and incarceration and to reach three major goals: cost saving, decrease in prison overcrowding and reduction of recidivism rates. Evaluation on the effects of intermediate sanctions showed that those expectations were too optimistic. The paper concludes by discussing the theoretical and practical implications of the use and future development of intermediate sanctions.
References
Ardley, J. (2005). The theory, development and application of electronic monitoring in Britain. Internet Journal of Criminology.
Black, M., & Smith, R. G. (2003). Electronic monitoring in the criminal justice system. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, (254). Australian Institute of Criminology.
Bonta, J., Wallace-Capretta, S., Rooney, J., & McAnoy, K. (2002). An outcome evaluation of a restorative justice alternative to incarceration. Contemporary Justice Review, 5(4), 319–338.
Caputo, G. A. (2004). Intermediate sanctions in corrections. University of North Texas Press.
Carney, F. J. (1998). Developing sentencing guidelines in Massachusetts: A work in progress. Law & Policy, 20(3), 247–273.
Confederation of European Probation. (n.d.). Electronic monitoring in Europe.
Cromwell, P. F., Alarid, L. F., & del Carmen, R. V. (2005). Community-based corrections (6. izd.). Thomson Wadsworth.
Dickey, W. J. (1994). Evaluating boot camp prisons (Public Policy Report). Campaign for an Effective Crime Policy.
Harris, M. K. (1986). The goals of community sanctions. Department of Criminal Justice, Temple University.
John Howard Society of Alberta. (2001). Halfway houses.
Morris, N., & Tonry, M. (1990). Between prison and probation: Intermediate punishments in a rational sentencing system. Oxford University Press.
Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. Oxford University Press.
Richardson, F. (1999). The electronic tagging of offenders: Trials in England. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(2), 158–172.
Smith, P., Goggin, C., & Gendreau, P. (2002). The effects of prison sentences and intermediate sanctions on recidivism: General effects and individual differences. Public Works and Government Services Canada.
Tonry, M. (1997). Intermediate sanctions in sentencing guidelines. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance. (1996). How to use structured fines (day fines) as an intermediate sanction.
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. (1999). Keeping track of electronic monitoring. The National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center.
Ulmer, J. T. (2001). Intermediate sanctions: A comparative analysis of the probability and severity of recidivism. Sociological Inquiry, 71(2), 164–193.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright over their published works and grant the publisher a non-exclusive right to publish the article, to be identified as its first publisher in cases of reuse, and to distribute it in all forms and media. The articles will be distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution International (CC BY 4.0) license, unless otherwise stated.
