NCJ Number
141492
Journal
Large Jail Network Bulletin Volume: 2 Issue: 5 Dated: (September 1991) Pages: 5-6
Date Published
1991
Length
2 pages
Annotation
This article states and explains principles for the use of intermediate sanctions in Harris County, Texas.
Abstract
Because of a 1985 Federal court consent decree, the State of Texas was capped at 95 percent of its prison capacity. To aid in achieving this goal, House Bill 2335 was enacted to authorize the distribution of State funds to compensate counties that participate in various alternative sentencing and intermediate sanctioning programs. Seven principles have evolved in the use of intermediate sanctions in Harris County. One principle is that the criminal justice system must be coordinated through the joint commitment of all parties involved in sentencing and sentencing implementation. A second principle is that the development of alternative sentencing and intermediate sanction programs can only be effective if adequate screening and inmate/client assessment are included, so that offenders are placed in appropriate programs. The third principle is that a continuum of programs represents the best model for Harris County, and the fourth principle states that intermediate sanctions and alternative sentencing require coordination among the various agencies. The remaining three principles are that each agency is better suited to perform some operational functions than others; alternative sentencing and intermediate sanctions are not necessarily more cost- effective than warehousing prisoners; and community corrections alternative sentencing and intermediate sanctions must be given an opportunity to work, because the traditional system has degenerated into chaos.