Case for Intermediate Punishments

• NCJ Number: 130902
• Journal: Federal Prisons Journal Volume: 2 Issue: 2 Dated: (Spring 1991) Pages: 10-14
• Author(s): N Morris
• Date Published: 1991
• Length: 5 pages
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/; NCJRS Photocopy Services
• Publication Type: Presentation
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Presentation at the conference on Intermediate Punishments as Sentencing Options convened by the National Institute of Justice and the National Institute of Corrections in Arlington, Va., September 4-7, 1990.

Annotation

Intermediate sanctions cannot be supported based on a utilitarian argument, but they can be supported with an argument for justice in sentencing.

Abstract

The utilitarian argument for intermediate sanctions holds that they lessen prison and probation overcrowding, are cheaper than imprisonment and jailing, and are equally or more effective in preventing crime than incarceration. This argument fails on all three points, however. Intermediate sanctions do not reduce prison and jail populations due to "net widening" (the inclusion under intermediate sanctions of offenders who previously received regular probation) and to higher revocation rates for those under intensive supervision. Although intermediate sanctions may reduce corrections costs in the long run, costs will probably be higher than incarceration costs during the start-up years. Research on intermediate sanctions has yet to establish that they are more crime-reductive than sentences that would otherwise be imposed. Intermediate sanctions can be supported, however, under a justice philosophy of sentencing, which aims to tailor sentences to the severity of the offense. The expansion of sentencing options through intermediate sanctions permits a more precise matching of sentence harshness to offense severity.