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...

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…