Intermediate Sanctions

Intermediate sanctions refer to punishments that fall between prison and probation. Given the disproportionate representation of people of color in prison today, the use of intermediate sanctions offers the possibility of reducing that disparity. This entry examines the range of punishments that comprise intermediate sanctions. Furthermore, an evaluation of the effectiveness of this strategy as well as directions for future research in this area are explored.

A defendant who receives a sentence involving an intermediate sanction faces a tougher and more stringent sentence than a defendant placed on probation, but that defendant avoids a harsher prison sentence. In prison, rehabilitation is virtually nonexistent, whereas a traditional probation sentence has been reprimanded as being too lenient and unstructured. Sociologist Jeffrey Ulmer found intermediate sanction sentences, which emerged during the late 1980s, involved more structure, surveillance, and treatment than did traditional probation sentences. Ulmer further observed that intermediate sanctions had become increasingly popular as they retain the “tough on crime” approach; meanwhile, this approach preserved an overcrowded and deteriorating prison system. The use of intermediate sanctions becomes particularly important when exploring the relationship between race and crime because non-Whites are disproportionately represented in America's jails and prisons.

Intermediate sanctions—also known as community corrections, alternative sanctions, and alternative punishments—can appear in a variety of forms. Some of the most popular intermediate sanctions are electronic monitoring, which can include house arrest; supervised work programs in the community; intensive probation supervision; and drug courts or substance abuse treatment. Regardless of the intermediate sanction given, the defendant remains in his or her community while adhering to the court-ordered treatment, sentence, or both. Intermediate sanctions can require intense amounts of counseling, workshops, rehabilitation programs, and time.

In addition to the cost savings of using intermediate sanctions as opposed to prison, the use of these sanctions helps reduce the stigmatization associated with incarceration. Further, it enables the defendant to maintain ties with his or her community while emphasizing rehabilitation. For example, an offender sent to drug court has an opportunity to deal with the issues that lead to continued drug use and receive various counseling and structured treatment. Drug court and substance abuse treatment centers require offenders to adhere to a strict and comprehensive plan. Numerous weekly meetings, random drug tests, and counseling sessions are just a few of the requirements to complete the program. Electronic monitoring leads to increased surveillance and can be very beneficial with people convicted of sexual offenses. Boot camps, also referred to as shock incarceration, can last many months and require defendants to follow a rigid schedule. In all of the intermediate sanctions, if the conditions assigned are not met, a prison or jail sentence usually follows.

Intermediate sanctions enable the criminal justice system to separate the serious and more dangerous criminals from the less-serious and nonviolent criminals. For the most part, the defendants who receive an intermediate sanction sentence are lower-level drug offenders, nonviolent offenders, less-serious offenders, or offenders with no prior record who committed a minor criminal offense.

The theoretical rationale for intermediate sanctions is derived from labeling, social control, and differential association theories. John Braithwaite's notion of reintegrative shaming provides a powerful foundation for the use of these sanctions. This perspective suggests a need to reduce the use of incarceration and to increasingly rely on community service. Reintegrative shaming takes into account the need to punish criminals, but it also considers the need to reduce stigma and open lines of communication within the community. If social bonds, opportunities, and socialization processes are restored, the offender is less likely to engage in criminal activity, thereby reducing the problem of recidivism. In contrast, traditional prison sentences, and the stigmatization associated with incarceration, can lead to increased criminality as well as psychological issues. Intermediate sanctions can also have a pronounced general deterrent effect, as people in the community witness the shaming and eventual reintegration of these offenders.

...