NCJ Number
79462
Journal
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 72 Issue: 3 Dated: (Fall 1981) Pages: 1109-1123
Date Published
1981
Length
15 pages
Annotation
This article examines assumptions about hybrid sentencing alternatives -- derivatives of probation and incarceration that provide the judge with the authority to sentence the offender to a brief period of incarceration followed by probation.
Abstract
Two main types of hybrids exist: those decided at the sentencing stage and those decided after the offender has begun to serve the sentence. Hybrid sentences are always associated with 'shocking' or 'jolting' the offender into realizing the negative aspects of incarceration in order to deter the offender from committing further crimes. Despite strong criticism of hybrid dispositions in sentencing, the hybrid option is available in all jurisdictions and in all types of sentencing structures. This examination of the Federal hybrid disposition indicates that the assumptions regarding selection and outcomes of split sentence offenders were consistent with prior research in two of three areas investigated. Like the other hybrid alternatives, the Federal split sentence was meant to shock the offender without prior incarceration experience. If being a novice is crucial to being impressed negatively by incarceration, only two-thirds of the split sentence offenders are suitable. The second part of the assumption is that first-timers will be more likely to be shocked, and thus, will have lower recidivism rates than those with incarceration experience. The data confirm this perception. Finally, a 'taste of jail' is thought to contribute an extra measure of deterrence over regular probation. However, this was not apparent in the data on Federal split sentence offenders and probationers. Four tables and 31 footnotes are included. (Author summary modified)