Exploring Intermediate Sanctions: A Comparative Analysis and Case-Based Application Introduction Intermediate sanctions

Exploring Intermediate Sanctions: A Comparative Analysis and Case-Based Application

Introduction

Intermediate sanctions have become another essential option to incarceration, as the punitive and rehabilitative reactions to crime, forcing a limited demand on the correctional facility. These punishments vary including work release, house arrests, boot camps and are aimed at balancing between the security to the community, the offender’s responsibility and rehabilitation. It is not only the fact that in this essay the process of a comparative analysis of work release programs and restitution centers takes place, the effectiveness of boot camps is analyzed, critic’s arguments against house arrest are stated, and the development of restorative justice can also be traced. It ultimately uses this knowledge in an actual problem in the world and provides a legal suggestion that fits the situation and or the past history of the offender.

Comparing and Contrasting Work Release Programs and Restitution Centers

Work release programs and restitution centers are some of the intermediary sanctions, which seek to integrate the offenders in the society but mindful of their responsibility. Nonetheless, they do not agree in terms of focus, functioning structures and degree of supervision.

Work release is a program in which the prisoners retain their jobs in the community and stay in a safe place at nights. The programs are supposed to foster personal responsibility, gain financial autonomy and ease the reintegration to the society (Clear et al., 2018). The offenders are normally allowed to go out of the facility to work (with a specified time) on daily basis and then travel back into it. This is the most common sanction which is usually applied at the end of a custodial sentence as a way of preparing the offenders to be released fully.

On the other hand, restitution centers are specially tailored to offenders in need of financial obligations to either the victims or the state. Prisoners living in restitution centers tend to work in society, just like any other person, although their incomes are closely controlled and spent to pay restitution, fines, and costs. As far as employment is concerned, both models need this, however, in the case of restitution centers more attention is paid to financial responsibility of the criminal.

Effectiveness of Boot Camps

Boot camp or shock incarceration programs are brief, Army-style incarceration programs that guide on discipline, athletics, and rigid scheduling. The programs, which came in the 1980s, saw a bunch of options to improve by conditioning, though roughly, the youth or first-time offender.

Studies of the effectiveness of boot camps have ambivalent findings. It was indicated in some early studies that boot camps influenced beneficial effects on short-term behaviors and made the participants discipline. Nevertheless, recent meta-analyses also show that boot camps are not significantly more effective than a more conventional approach in reducing recidivism (MacKenzie, 2006). Boot camps are relatively short-term and can result in temporary obedience, but systematic behavior change can do little since neither cognitive-behavioral therapy nor substance abuse treatment usually exist.

A cost-effectiveness is one of the strengths of the boot camps. They are normally less threatening in prison overcrowding and are usually less in length when compared to prison. In addition, they can be used to fit specific offender types such as young and nonviolent offenders since they provide a firm slap on the wrist without entailing prolonged jailing.

The militaristic approach has however been found to be wanting in terms of having an individualized treatment requirements supported by the fact it mostly fails to reach to the cause of criminal activity. Lacking follow up and aftercare programs often causes relapses into the former environment and even relaxation into the old habits after the release of the participants.

Criticisms of House Arrest

Another common intermediate sanction, which confines a prisoner to home and is commonly accompanied by electronic surveillance, is house arrest. Although cheap and not disruptive in regards to citizen security, experience points towards the fact that there is a lack of disapproval when it comes to house arrest.

A critical issue of application and effectiveness is one of the main complaints. Wealthy offenders will tend to abide by rules of home confinement and get exposed to the rehabilitating environments. On the contrary, individuals of risky or non-home stable areas can fail to feel the desired act deterrence or correction since they are the suspect groups (Tonry & Lynch, 1996).

The other criticism relates to the possibility of noncompliance. Violations are and can take place even with the technological advance of GPS and electronic monitoring. Home confinement is based on the good will of the offender and this cannot be fully expressed particularly among the high-risk offenders.

Moreover, the opponents state that house arrest may disintegrate the boundary between punishment and privilege. Home confinement can be felt by some offenders especially white cola criminal thought to be easy and not punishing in the rightful sense. The credibility of criminal punishment strongly depends on the perception of the population, and house arrest will not have the perception of a deterring alternative of imprisonment.

Finally, being under house arrest can also be restricting the access to the required services like help with counseling, finding a job and going to school, unless it is specifically allowed and controlled. In absence of a structured engagement, the sanction can even turn out passive rather than rehabilitative.

Development of Restorative Justice

Restorative justice (RJ) is a pragmatic and ideological change in how communities respond to criminality. When compared to punishment, RJ instead focuses on repairing the damages inflicted upon by the crime. Restorative justice goes far back in the traditional practices and before the indigenous people and communities emphasized on reconciliation, apology and restitution as the focus of the justice process.

RJ emerged as a feasible alternative in modern criminal justice systems in 1970s and 1980s especially in Canada and New Zealand due to the inability to reform offenders as well as adhere to the needs of the victims under the punitive model. The rise of the movement was catalyzed by the apparent escalating incidences of imprisonment, a surging rate of recidivism.

The central tenets of RJ are harm repairing, inclusion of all stakeholders (victims, offenders, community) and integration of offenders into the society. Victim-offender mediation, community conferencing and sentencing circles are programs that implement these ideals. According to the studies, RJ practices have the potential to minimize recidivism and raise the satisfaction of victims, as well as foster offender responsibility (Latimer, Dowden, & Muise, 2005).

Over time, RJ has been able to cover not only minor offence but also more intense criminal including violent crime where all parties can agree on the same. The strategy is particularly invaluable due to its emphasis on sympathy, action, and community restoration, and hence an assets addition to the traditional lawful solutions.

Case Application: Intermediate Sanctions for John

As a judge in the case involving John, I am supposed to look at the intermediate sanction or a combination of sanctions which is more than probation though it does not require one to be incarcerated. The history of John can be characterized by the trend of financially driven crimes and the inability to adhere to the probation requirements. He is however working now and has a family to feed and has no indication of any mental disorder or mental incapacity.

Under such considerations, I would suggest John be put in a restitution center and monitored electronically. These two methods will help resolve his financial delinquency as well as his threat of noncompliance.

The restitution center will give formality to supervision and guarantee that the income of John is aimed at the compensation of victims. The necessity of close supervisions and responsibility are evidenced by exploiting the past deeds where he never remitted compensation, but instead fled. The center would also enable him to continue working thereby reducing unrest among his dependents and promotion of responsibility.

I would also introduce electronic monitoring to ensure there is no violation in the future. This extended control will make him follow the curfews and limit free movements, thus, minimizing the chances of future criminality.

Also, I would require financial counseling and cognitive-behavioral treatment to correct the internal problems that cause his commission of the fraud. Budgeting and ethics educational workshop might reinforce law-abiding behavior and therapy could equip him with skills that will enable him to cope with stress and temptation.

This recommendation opts out of jailing, stability in the family setting, restitution and compliance. It is not a one-sided reaction geared towards meeting the demands of John and upholding the safety of the people.

Conclusion

Intermediate sanctions are very useful in contemporary criminal justice systems that combine accountability and rehabilitation. Whereas both the work release and restitution centers focus on community reintegration, their differences occur in the form of focus and supervision. Boot camps are good in the initial stages, but they are not long lasting because they do not lead to change. Although house arrest is an inexpensive intervention, it is less effective as a result of disparity in implementation efficiency and adherence hurdles. Restorative justice has now developed to become a product that encourages healing and accountability of the offender. An example of such considerate judicial solution is the use of a combination of sanction such as restitution center and electronic monitoring together with counseling in the case of John, as they serve both to safeguard the community and promote rehabilitation.

References

Clear, T. R., Reisig, M. D., & Cole, G. F. (2018). American corrections (12th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2005). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-analysis. The Prison Journal, 85(2), 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885505276969

MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). What works in corrections: Reducing the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. Cambridge University Press.

Tonry, M., & Lynch, M. (1996). Intermediate sanctions. Crime and Justice, 20, 99–144. https://doi.org/10.1086/449243