Intermediate sanctions are criminal sentences that fall between standard probation and incarceration. Intermediate sanctions can include house arrest, intensive probation (i.e., probation with more conditions beyond the basic conditions of standard probation), boot camps, electronic monitoring, and drug treatment programs. Intermediate sanctions serve a dual purpose in the criminal justice system. First, granting intermediate sanctions over incarceration helps reduce overcrowding and eases the burden on our nation's prison system. Second, it helps to reduce recitivism by targeting the behaviors of the defendants that led to the crime to begin with. For example, if a drug user is afforded the opportunity to attend drug treatment rather than prison and is successful, it is less likely that s/he will commit future crimes like possessing narcotics, and even selling narcotics or participating in various theft offenses to support his or her drug habit. Intermediate sanctions can be an effective tool if used appropriately. Individuals who are actually interested in making positive changes in their lives can benefit from the additional support; in turn, society benefits from having potential threats to the health and safety of others transformed into productive citizens. Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult for judges to weed out the defendants who want to change and the defendants who are merely looking for a "get out of jail free" card. It seems, however, that the risk is worth the potential for reward, especially if judges reserve these intermediate sanctions for non-violent offenders who are less likely to injure others while out on release. After all, if they reoffend, defendants given the benefit of intermediate sanctions will most likely be facing a hefty jail sentence if they violate their probations, giving them an incentive to stay on the right path and giving the justice system recourse if they fail.
David Elenbaas has written: 'An overview of sentencing alternatives in Montana' -- subject(s): Prison sentences 'Profiles of felony offenders in Montana' -- subject(s): Prisoners, Criminal statistics, Statistics 'Alternative sanctions' -- subject(s): Administrative Sanctions, Prison sentences
Indeterminate Indeterminate sentencing relies heavily on judges' discretion to choose among types of sanctions and to set upper and lower limits on the length of prison stays.
Michael N. Castle has written: 'Alternative sentencing' -- subject(s): Sentences (Criminal procedure)
Courtney Semisch has written: 'Alternative sentencing in the federal criminal justice system / [Courtney Semisch]' -- subject- s -: Sentences - Criminal procedure -, Alternatives to imprisonment, Statistics
Andrew R. Klein has written: 'Alternative sentencing, intermediate sanctions, and probation' -- subject(s): Sentences (Criminal procedure), Alternatives to imprisonment 'Alternative sentencing' -- subject(s): Sentences (Criminal procedure)
The sentencing principle that objectively considers an offender's criminal history in the sentencing decision is the principle of proportionality. This principle seeks to ensure that the punishment is appropriate to the seriousness of the offense and the offender's prior criminal record.
Intermediate sanctions offer a range of benefits, including reducing prison overcrowding, providing alternatives to incarceration for non-violent offenders, and allowing for rehabilitation while still holding individuals accountable. However, they can also have drawbacks, such as inconsistent application across jurisdictions, potential stigma associated with certain sanctions, and the risk of insufficient supervision leading to recidivism. Balancing these pros and cons is crucial for effective criminal justice reform.
proportionality
Sentencing.
probation
The judge's sentencing of the criminal was harsher than expected, resulting in a lengthy prison term.
Intermediate sanctions offer a middle ground between traditional incarceration and less severe penalties, appealing to individuals with varying perspectives on criminal justice. They allow for accountability while reducing prison overcrowding and the associated economic burden. Furthermore, these sanctions can be tailored to fit the severity of the offense and the individual’s circumstances, promoting rehabilitation and reducing recidivism. This flexibility makes them a practical option that can satisfy both proponents of strict punishment and advocates for reform.