Intermediate Sanctions Ch 14 Overview 3 Purposes Prior to 1980 s there were few sentencing options o Range of severity of crimes too large Alternative sanctions were created o House arrest electronic monitoring ISP boot camps day reporting centers fines etc Goal increase the cost of crime more than ordinary probation Provide graduated punishments Intermediate sanctions provide punishments that may be more appropriate than prison or probation for some offenses and they maintain a higher level of offender restraint and accountability than does standard probation or parole supervision graduated sanctions May provide enhanced levels of treatment or service for problems that are common among criminal offenders drug abuse low education levels May reduce prison and jail populations and associated costs Graduated sanctions severity of the offense can be matched to the severity of the punishment About 30 000 a year to incarcerate one offender Increased Surveillance and Control No significant differences Increase probability of detection o Problems o No consistency in design and implementation how they surveyed and monitored offenders no consistency in number of caseloads no consistency in terms of how they incorporated any rehabilitative programs o For which types of offender Public safety benefit o Deterrence value of supervision o Value of technical violations to prevent crime Positive results with rehab programs within intermediate sanctions when they could apply appropriate treatment Study recidivism rates of those who were given sanctions Is putting someone on intensive supervision going to increase the surveillance and control of this person opposed to someone on regular parole probation Found no differences Most judges show no differences in whether offender got probation or alternative sanction Intensive Supervision Programs 1954 1964 Probation and Parole Dept of CA o Special intensive parole unit experiment to deal with high risk offenders or those in need of special rehab services 3 ways ISP can be used Designed to provide increased control of offenders in the community ISP programs can be classified as o Institutional diversion o Probation enhancement ISP Front end ISP Efforts aimed at alleviating prison overcrowding my diverting low risk offenders to ISP programs in the community as a substitute for prison Implemented for offenders whose needs and problems are seen as being inadequately addressed with routine probation Offenders placed in these programs usually have either failed standard routine supervision or committed offenses too serious for supervision on routine caseloads o Early release ISP Back end ISP Provide a mechanism for releasing offenders already in prison as a means to conserve prison resources and save money Problems o o Implementation Impact on recidivism Petersilia and Turner 1993 o Used an experimental design to evaluate 14 ISP programs in 9 states o Although there was no evidence that the increased surveillance in the community deterred offenders from committing crimes it did appear that this additional control increased the probability that technical violations would be detected ISP became popular in the late 1980s By 1990s ISP found in jurisdictions in all 50 states Accommodating large numbers of offenders better cost 37 in ISP have been rearrested compared to 33 of the control group the ones not in ISP Technical violations return to prison those in ISP Home confinement designed to regulate and restrict the freedom of the offender in the community o Electronic Monitoring is a tool used to monitor the compliance with the requirements of the sentence 1993 EM was being used in all 50 states Traditionally used for low risk offenders o Recently it is being used for parolees or more serious offenders EM does NOT reduce recidivism compared to regular probation Home confinement and house arrest used interchangeably Electric Monitoring Home Confinement Summary Idea of Harvard researcher in 1964 EM Started in the 80 s and spread by the 90 s Target low risk offenders DWI s frequently sentenced to home confinement Recently been used for higher risk offenders EM not causing more recidivism is fine even though not lowering bc it s a lot cheaper to have them on EM than regular probation recidivism rates are the same in those on ISP and those not Increasing surveillance and control does NOT reduce criminal activities Probability of detection increased Research has focused on the surveillance aspect of these intermediate sanctions Look to treatment services o o Increased surveillance may increase probability of violations which results in more technical violations more people in prison Research on control and surveillance aspect and recidivism Not research on keeping people in the community need to research if rehabilitative programs are showing reduction in recidivism Parole Rise of the determinate sentencing model Federally mandated prison population minimums Methods of Prison Release Discretionary release release decided by some sort of paroling authority Mandatory release determined by operation of low where prison sentences come to end and authorities have no choice but to release prisoner Mixed system rely on parole boards to release some offenders violent offenders and rely on fixed prison terms to release other types of prisoners Decision to supervise after release Conditional former prisoners placed on supervision in community for predetermined period of time and adhere to certain conditions of release drug testing no weapons etc example of this is parole go back to prison if don t adhere Unconditional ex offenders have no parole and no restrictions other than invisible collateral punishments Roughly 18 nationwide o Numbers have increased five fold increase in twenty year period but it is still pretty small Growth of Parole Population 1985 1994 number of parolees under supervision grew by 130 1981 136 per 100 000 rate has also been increasing By 2000 347 per 100 000 Disproportionate concentration states skew the national average some states are decreasing parolees but others are increasing CA 42 of all parolees CA TX NY IL PA Greater of released prisoners on parole than any other time in our history Currently 80 of those released prisoners on parole Reduced reliance on parole boards discretionary Increased reliance on parole supervision o Bottom Line for a large number of exiting prisoners we have lost the link between pre release preparation and post release