RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1&-56 JRY

'.' ?

If you have issues viewing or accessing this file .

U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the

person or organization originating It. Points of view or opinions stated

in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice.

Permission to reproduce this ...!tiIt.....". material has been

granted by

Public Domain National Institute of Corrections

to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRG). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permission of the . . . . . owner.

INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS by

Michael Tonry and

Richard Will

,.

Permission to re:::~oduce this material

has ceen granted Sy MI 'd.~L1P..t)fY

to the i'.!at:0r13i ;r,st;r;.;f,= of Corrections Infnn'1'l~;-:::" Ca?~ter. Further reproduction muy requi,c permi5sion of CoPyright holder.

This manuscript is not to be reproduced, quoted, cited. or distributed without the writers~ prio~ ~erm~~sio~

?

PIOPIITY o.

Nle Information Center

RECEIVED JUN 2 2 1990

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction

1

I. The Roles of Intermediate Sanctions

5

II. Why Intermediate Sanctions?

10

A. Prison and Jail Crowding

10

B. Cost Savings

11

C. Professionalization of Correctional Personnel

12

D. Structuring Sentencing

13

E. Normative Developments

15

Chapter 2: Evaluation of Intermediate Sanctions: Problems

and Pitfalls

27

I. Measuring the Effectiveness of Intermediate Sanctions

30

A. Purposes of Punishment

30

B. Diversion and' Net Widening

33

C. Recidivism

35

D. Cost Savings

38

II. Evaluating Intermediate Sanctions

41

Chapter 3: Intensive Supervision Probation

49

I. Purpose and Practice

50

A. Control

52

B. Rehabilitation

53

II. Programs

54

A. Georgia

55

B. New Jersey

64

C. Massachusetts

70

III. Conclusions

75

Chapter 4: House Arrest

85

I. A Sampling of House Arrest Program Diversity

89

A. Florida's Community Control House Arrest Program

89

B. Oklahoma's "'Back Door" House Arras t

96

C. Home Incarceration in Kenton County, Kentucky

98

D. In-House Arrest Wor.k Release in Palm Beach County,

Florida

102

II. To Confine or Not to Confine Outside of Inst.itutions

105

? ? ?

? ? ?

Table of Contents (Cont'd)

Chapter 5: Electronic Monitoring

111

I. Technology

115

II. Who Gets Monitored?

120

III. Costs

123

IV. Legal Issues

126

A. Searches and Seizures

127

B. Self-incriminating Testimony

128

C. Cruel and Unusual Punishment

128

D. Equal Protection

129

V. Conclusion

129

Chapter 6: Community Service Orders

136

I. Community Service in New York City: The Vera Institute

Experiment

138

II. Variations Among Community Service Programs

142

A. Types of Offenders Served

143

B. Kinds of Unpaid Labor Performed on CSOs

145

C. CSO Sentence Length

145

D. Failure Rates and Program Successes

148

E. Program Costs and Bellefits

150

F. Conclusions

151

III. Punishment Philosophy and the CSO

151

Chapter 7: Financial Sanctions

157

I. Fines

158

A. Research on Fines

162

B. The Day Fine

".

167

II. Other Financial Orders: Fees and Restitution

170

A. Restitution

171

B. Fees for Services

172

Chapter 8:. Intermediate Sanctions in Perspec'tive

180

Chapter 1: Introduction

Until recently in many American jurisdictions, especially in urban areas, judges imposing sentences for any but the most trivial of crimes have had to choose between "doing something," imprisonment, and "doing nothing," probation.

Please don't misunderstand us. We don't mean to disparage probation officers, probation departments, or judges who sentence offenders to probation. The view of probation as "doing nothing" is overstated and oversimplified. There are thousands of conscientious probation officers, too often overworked and underpaid, and there are many well-run probation programs in which probation supervision is meaningful and probation conditions are enforced. However, there are also many probation offices in which case loads are enormous and budgets are inadequate and in which supervision is not meaningful and conditions are not enforced.

Rightly or wrongly, the general public and many public officials often consider a sentence to probation to be a slap on the wrist. Kevin Burke, the District Attorney in Essex County,' Massachusetts, for example, expresses this view when he observes that probation has become "just something you slap on people when you don't know what else to do

--:

with them. We waste a lot of resources on probation, which means absolutely nothing in most places" (Prosecuting Attorneys' Research Council 1988, p. 3).

Prison and jail crowding has focused policymakers' attention on the need to develop punishments that fall between probation and incarceration. These include intensive supervision probation, financial

1

? ? ?

? ? ?

penalties. house arrest, intermittent confinement, "shock" probation and incarceration, community service, electronic monitoring, and use of treatment conditions. These puni~hments, commonly known as "intermediate punishments" or "mid-level punishments" or "intermediate sanctions," are beginning to fill the gap that is widely perceived to exist between probation and prison.

Much of the current interest in intermediate sanctions arises from political and economic pressures .to devise credible punishments that can be imposed on convicted offenders for whose imprisonment the state would rather not pay. Policymakers are caught between the perceptions that the public wants criminals to be punished for their crimes but, contrariwise, does not want to pay for construction and operation of greatly increased prison capacity .

This monograph provides an overview of newly developed or expanded "intermediate sanctions" programs, describes some of the best known and most emulated programs, and presents and critically comments on the findings of evaluations of new programs. We have tried to pull together the published evaluation literature, together with such unpublished reports and agency self-evaluations as we were able to identify and obtain, and to assess critically what can be gleaned from those sources of knowledge. No doubt there exist worthy well-managed new programs of which we are unaware, either because they have not been evaluated or because the evaluations have not been published or otherwise been widely distributed.

Besides this introduction, this monograph consists of seven chapters. Chapter 2 discusses practical and conceptual problems that confront efforts to evaluate the effects of new intermediate sanctions.

2

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download