Net Widening

“Net widening” or “widening the net” is the name given to the process of administrative or practical changes that result in a greater number of individuals being controlled by the criminal justice system. The net of social control is widened to manage the behavior of a greater number of individuals. Historically, the practice of widening the net was an issue only for juvenile justice authorities. Social and legal change often criminalized previously acceptable juvenile behavior (e.g., curfews, truancy, loitering), allowing the system to control a greater number of juveniles, widening the net of social control. Today, the practice has spread beyond the confines of juvenile justice, and many critics have charged the system with widening the net in many areas of legal and correctional practice.

In the 1980s, many politicians and justice system reformers sought to minimize the flexibility of the criminal justice system and to enhance deterrence through the use of longer and more certain sentences. The first step in achieving this goal was to remove sentencing discretion from judges and, instead, mandate sentences at the legislative level. No longer were judges allowed to sentence offenders as they deemed appropriate. Instead, they were required to sentence within a set of strict guidelines. Sentencing reformers believed that by increasing the certainty of punishment they could increase deterrence. This process, however, overlooked the fact that lesser sentences were sometimes warranted. In practice, judges often chose lesser sentences due to the specific facts of a case, the elements present in a crime, or offender attributes. As a result of this new sentencing structure, however, some offenders who judges believed deserved lesser punishments were sentenced in the same way as their more deserving peers. The net was widened to include some who needed little control, and who, before determinate sentencing, would have received little.

Changes in sentence structure and the consequent limiting of judicial discretion were not the only cause of net widening. In the 1980s, probation departments were scrutinized because of the minimal supervision they often provided, and the low-level offender they typically supervised. At the same time, as a result of their burgeoning populations, conditions in jails and prisons were approaching a critical point. In an effort to alleviate the overcrowding problem and to infuse new life into their departments, many probation offices created new programs aimed at getting offenders out of jail and on the street on a more intensive form of probation. Intensive Supervised Probation (ISP) was intended to decrease jail populations, and provide a renewed interest in the job of probation. The expectation was that these programs would be used in place of long jail sentences, or following short jail sentences. For example, a judge might have sentenced an offender to one year in county jail, but after serving six months the eligible offender would be offered the option of ISP for up to one year. This process, known as a “split sentence,” was intended to diminish the punishment received as well as the costs associated with punishing certain offenders.

While ISP programs were sometimes used in the manner their designers intended, some jurisdictions used them to enhance the punishment process, placing on ISP those who in the past would have received only straight probation. In these cases, the punishment was increased [Page 1088]by the addition of sanctions, rather than decreased to reduce the number of persons in the system. This process also increased the amount of time certain individuals served under the control of the justice system, further contributing to the widening of the net.

...