ON THE ROLE OF INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS IN CORRECTIONS REFORM: THE VIEWS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROFESSIONALS

ABSTRACT

This report describes findings from over 150 interviews conducted in late 1990 with prosecutors, trial judges, probation officers, and other corrections officials from 20 states to investigate the readiness of state and local criminal justice systems to systematize and expand the use of judicially imposed intermediate sanctions. These interviews revealed widespread support for the expansion of these sanctions, which is still being driven by the continuing problem of prison crowding and the lure of possible cost savings from a reduced reliance on incarceration. Many criminal justice practitioners, including prosecutors, also stress the potential of intermediate sanctions for involving drug-addicted offenders in rehabilitative programs. While recent policy analyses have stressed that implementing a full program of intermediate sanctions would create a system of punishment that is based on notions of “just deserts” and proportional sentencing, only a handful of our interview respondents cited this rationale. Respondents identified numerous obstacles to systematizing and expanding the use of intermediate sanctions. Principal among these are perceptions of unyielding public resistance, opposition from probation officers, and substantial financial costs. Most criminal justice officials have given little thought to how intermediate sanctions can be moved beyond a patchwork of small-scale experiments and emergency measures to become an integral part of corrections. Few had ever considered the possbility of installing mandatory sentencing guidelines for such sanctions. Nearly all rejected this possibility based on their perceptions of or experience with mandatory prison sentencing; voluntary guidelines were preferred instead.