The Use of Intermediate Sanctions Alternatives

Intermediate sanctions like intensive probation are fast becoming fully integrated into the criminal justice system. McGarry’s (n.d.) monograph “Improving the Use of Intermediate Sanctions” summarizes the findings of recent research by the National Institute of Corrections and the State Justice Institute. The research covered 25 participating jurisdictions, including input from local and state governments as well as law enforcement, correctional workers, and the courts. Methods of acquiring data included surveys and interviews on the future of intermediate sanctions: how to best implement and integrate them to fulfill multiple and diverse criminal justice goals. The McGarry (n.d.) monograph and the research supporting it point to several core concepts. Because it offers a balanced view and suggests a pragmatic and realistic approach, overall the McGarry (n.d.) document offers a promising and accurate vision of the future of intermediate sanctions.
The most important reasons cited for using intermediate sanctions include cost savings, reducing prison overcrowding, increasing judicial fairness, reduced rates of recidivism, reduced rates of crime overall, the improved management of high-risk offenders in the community (Caputo, 2004). Although different stakeholders have different goals when implementing intermediate sanctions, “the frustration about current options is widely shared,” (McGarry, n.d., p. 3). The current method of sentencing via incarceration is unsustainable, unnecessary, and possibly unjust in light of the potential for intermediate sanctions.
One of the ways the McGarry (n.d.) document succeeds is by stating outright that systemic issues are more important than the type, design, or number of specific intermediate sanctions programs. In other words, all intermediate sanctions initiatives need structural supports. The most common reasons for the failure of intermediate sanctions include lack of communication between agencies or stakeholders, lack of coordination of services and resources, lack of proper dissemination of knowledge about the existence of intermediate sanctions programs, and a lack of agreement about when to use intermediate sanctions and on which populations. The absence of an overall vision is also cited as a primary concern (McGarry, n.d.). These are all concerns that are echoed in the literature. For example, Byrne (1990) notes that intermediate sanctions sometimes fail because the proponents of the programs are trying to be “all things to all people,” thereby failing everyone (p. 6). Therefore, the McCarry (n.d.) monograph is accurate, its information substantiated by empirical research.
Intermediate sanctions are so-called because they fall somewhere between the severity of incarceration and the leniency of standard probation (Tonry & Lynch, 1996). Within the broad spectrum of potential alternatives to either incarceration or probation are a whole range of sanctions, some of which are creative like boot camp or community service options, and others relatively mundane like house arrest or day reporting centers. Depending on the circumstances of the crime, the characteristics of the offender, the prevailing legal or political climate, and any number of extraneous variables, different intermediate sanctions might be indicated. Although the McGarry (n.d.) monograph focuses more on broader issues, a section does offer a definition of terms and a list of possible intermediate sanctions options. Those include means-based fines, victim restitution, special needs corrections such as for mentally ill offenders, residential or out-patient drug treatment options, work release programs, and halfway houses. The author suggests that jurisdictions need to offer as many intermediate sanctions as possible and create a policy-driven scheme.
The policy provides the overall framework not just of values but also of practical concerns like costs or demographics. As McGarry (n.d.) puts it, “The sanctioning options can be whatever the policymakers of a jurisdiction decide that they need and can afford in order to meet their goals for their offender population,” (p. 7). The author proceeds to offer a series of steps that can help jurisdictions develop sound policy appropriate for their unique needs. The first step in the process is establishing communications, meeting with all stakeholders. Stakeholders including elected officials participate in an ongoing dialogue about interests, needs, and goals. However, McGarry (n.d.) neglects to note the importance of evidence-based intermediate sanctions practices. If elected officials and other uninformed but politically driven stakeholders are permitted to dominate discussions on intermediate sanctions, those sanctions are unlikely to achieve their intended results. Communication needs to be divorced from political whim and ideology, even if ideology is eventually included in discussions. To potentially minimize and mitigate problems related to ideologically driven discourse on intermediate sanctions, the author suggests second that the bench—stakeholder judges—be the ones that guide decisions.
The third step is related to accountability and awareness, particularly self-awareness. McGarry (n.d.) points out that many stakeholders lack a basic working knowledge of how the system works in their jurisdiction. It is one thing to know sentencing guidelines, but yet another to understand case processing. The best decisions related to intermediate sanctions policies can be made with the knowledge of how the sentencing process works, how cases are processed, how numbers of cases may vary, and what rules govern sentencing decisions. Related to this third step is the fourth step of taking responsibility. Responsibility is far more important with intermediate sanctions than with incarceration. With incarceration, cases are often ignored or dismissed. Yet with intermediate sanctions, the outcome of the sentence has a potentially strong bearing on the community. Many, if not most, intermediate sanctions involve some kind of community-based presence. This is why the author also mentions the need for institutional support within the community, and pairing with key organizations for strategic partnerships. On this latter issue, McGarry (n.d.) should have spent more time but in general the monograph succeeds in capturing what the future of intermediate sanctions might look like.
Also referred to as “nonincarcerative” sanctions or community-based sanctions, intermediate sanctions are certainly the future of the criminal justice system for several reasons (Tonry, 1995, p. 392). One of those reasons is cost savings. Therefore, alternatives to incarceration must be proven to be more cost-effective than prison. To make policies of intermediate sanctions more attractive to stakeholders as well as to voters, a cost-benefits analysis should be offered. The analysis should also reveal which intermediate sanctions would be warranted in which situations, in which communities. With numbers, the intermediate sanctions policymakers can even hope to attract funding from nonprofits or the private sector. It is also important to form partnerships with the nonprofit and private sector for financial as well as practical benefits. Resource pooling is a key benefit, as is the coordination of outreach services. Partnerships can provide the means by which to implement desired intermediate sanctions. For example, a nonprofit organization running boot camps would be providing services to the criminal justice system. In many cases, intermediate sanctions can be combined with one another. The author of the monograph does not detail the ways intermediate sanctions can or should be implemented, but this was not the objective of the report. The purpose of the monograph was to encourage communication and coordination among criminal justice stakeholders to better inform public policy.
Because the McGarry (n.d.) monograph is brief, it lacks the substantive detail that might make it into a definitive guide. However, the document does reflect best practices and emerging research. Intermediate sanctions are being used “more now than ever before,” (Caputo, 2004, p. 4). Outcomes in terms of crime reduction are not yet definitive enough, but the future should reveal how to use intermediate sanctions not just to save money but also to reduce recidivism and curb rates of crime. Also, intermediate sanctions present possibilities for reforming the criminal justice system overall. Relying less on incarceration is the key to improving the criminal justice system. Shifting to reform-based and rehabilitation models may help in some cases, even when intermediate sanctions require a heavier hand or greater supervision than softer sentencing like probation.
The future of intermediate sanctions does depend on effective policy, as McGarry (n.d.) suggests. This monograph presents a balanced view that shows how judges and policy makers can use intermediate sanctions more judiciously. For these sanctions to be effective, judges need to know that they exist, requiring outreach, coordination, and education. Judges play a greater role in the process of intermediate sanctions, calling for individualized attention to cases and a creative approach to sentencing. Some judges who remain unfamiliar with or skeptical about intermediate sanctions might need further education and encouragement from their peers, including their peers in academia. One of the greatest potential impediments to implementing intermediate sanctions is the perpetuation of the punitive model of criminal justice, coupled with tough on crime initiatives. Yet as the war on drugs nears a close, intermediate and alternative sanctions will start replacing incarceration as the sanction of choice until prohibition has been lifted entirely. The future of intermediate sanctions may be to help promote community safety and integrity, reducing the widespread injustices that occur due to overuse of incarceration as a knee-jerk reaction to crime.



References

Byrne, J.M. (1990). The future of intensive probation supervision and the new intermediate sanctions. Crime and Delinquency 36(1): 6-41.
Caputo, G.A. (2004). Intermediate Sanctions in Corrections. Number 4 in the North Texas Crime and Criminal Justice Series. Denton: University of North Texas Press.
McGarry, P. (n.d.). Improving the use of intermediate sanctions. Center for Effective Public Policy. Retrieved online: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/010427.pdf
Tonry, M. (1995). Intermediate sanctions in sentencing reform. The University of Chicago Law School Roundtable: Vol. 2: Iss. 2, Article 3. Available at: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/roundtable/vol2/iss2/3
Tonry, M. & Lynch, M. (1996). Intermediate sanctions. Crime and Justice 99, available at http://scholarship.law.umn.edu/ faculty_articles/484