The typical primary goal of recent intensive probation supervision (IPS) programs is to serve as an alternative to incarceration (ATI) in response to prison crowding. Yet the history of such alternative efforts reveals that they generally underachieve in terms of that goal. This study suggests that this finding applies to IPS initiatives as well. Drawing on focused interviews with court officials in Illinois, it offers an organizational explanation for the shortfall. ATI initiatives have not adequately attended to the decision-making dynamics and organizational contexts that produce criminal sentences. In particular, they have not taken account of either the resilience of courtroom work groups in resisting external influences on their choices or their resourcefulness in incorporating new sentencing options into the local culture of plea negotiation and sentencing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Austin, James
and Barry Krisberg. 1982. “The Unmet Promise of Alternatives to Incarceration.”Crime and Delinquency28:374-409.
2.
Blumberg, Abraham S.
1979. Criminal Justice: Issues & Ironies, Second Edition. New York: New Viewpoints.
3.
Breed, Allen
. 1987. The State of Corrections Today: A Triumph of Pluralistic Ignorance. New York: Edna McConnell Clark Foundation.
4.
Byrne, James
. 1986. “The Control Controversy: A Preliminary Examination of Intensive Probation Supervision Programs in the United States.”Federal Probation50:4-16.
5.
Casper, Jonathan D.
1972. American Criminal Justice: The Defendant's Perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
6.
Clear, Todd R.
, Suzanne Flynn, and Carol Shapiro. 1987. “Intensive Supervision in Probation: A Comparison of Three Projects.” Pp. 31-50 in Intermediate Punishments: Intensive Supervision, Home Confinement, and Electronic Surveillance, edited by Belinda R. McCarthy. Monsey, NY: Willow Tree Press.
7.
Cressey, Donald R.
1982. “Foreword.” Pp. xi-xxiii in Reaffirming Rehabilitation, by Francis T. Cullen and Karen E. Gilbert. Cincinatti: Anderson.
8.
Eisenstein, James
, Roy B. Flemming, and Peter F. Nardulli. 1988. The Contours of Justice: Communities and Their Courts. Boston: Little, Brown.
9.
Eisenstein, James
, Roy B. Flemming, Peter F. Nardulli. and Herbert Jacob. 1977. Felony Justice: An Organizational Analysis of Criminal Courts. Boston: Little, Brown.
10.
Emerson, Robert
. 1981. “On Last Resorts.”American Journal of Sociology87:1-22.
11.
Erwin, Billie S.
1984. Evaluation of Intensive Probation Supervision in Georgia. Atlanta: Georgia Department of Offender Rehabilitation.
12.
Erwin, Billie S.
and Lawrence Bennett. 1987. “New Dimensions in Probation: Georgia's Experience with Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS).”Research in Brief. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
13.
Feeley, Malcolm
. 1979. The Process Is the Punishment: Handling Cases in a Lower Criminal Court. New York: Russell Sage.
14.
Feeley, Malcolm
. 1983. Court Reform on Trial: Why Simple Solutions Fail. New York: Basic Books.
15.
Flemming, Roy B.1986. “The Client Game: Defense Attorney Perspectives of Their Relations with Criminal Clients.”American Bar Foundation Research Journal: 253-277.
16.
Glaser, Barney G.
and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine.
17.
Goffman, Erving
. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life:New York: Doubleday.
18.
Gottfredson, Stephen D.
and Sean McConville. 1987. America's Correctional Crisis: Prison Populations and Public Policy. New York: Greenwood.
Heumann, Milton
. 1978. Plea Bargaining: The Experiences of Prosecutors, Judges, and Defense Attorneys. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21.
Klein, Malcolm
. 1979. “Deinstitutionalization and Diversion of Juvenile Offenders: A Litany of Impediments.” Pp. 145-201 in Crime and Justice, Vol. 1, edited by Norval Morris and Michael Tonry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22.
Lemert, Edwin M.
and Forrest Dill. 1978. Offenders in the Community: The Probation Subsidy in California. Lexington, MA: Ballinger.
23.
Lerman, Paul
. 1975. Community Treatment and Social Control. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24.
Lipsky, Michael
. 1980. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage.
25.
Lurigio, Arthur
. 1987. “The Perceptions and Attitudes of Judges and Attorneys Toward Intensive Probation Supervision.”Federal Probation51:16-29.
26.
Maynard, Douglas
. 1984. Inside Plea Bargaining: The Language of Negotiation. New York: Plenum.
27.
McDonald, Douglas
. 1986. Punishment without Walls: Community Service Sentences in New York City. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
28.
McIntyre, Lisa J.
1987. The Public Defender: The Practice of Law in the Shadows of Repute. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29.
Pearson, Frank S.1984. “New Jersey's Intensive Supervision Program: A Progress Report.”Crime & Delinquency31:393-410.
30.
Pease, Ken
. 1985. “Community Service Orders.” Pp. 51-94 in Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 6, edited by Michael Tonry and Norval Morris. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31.
Petersilia, Joan
. 1987. Expanding Criminal Sentencing Options. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
32.
Petersilia, Joan
. Susan Turner, James Kahan, and Joyce Peterson. 1985. Granting Felons Probation: Public Risks and Alternatives. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
33.
Petersilia, Joan
. Susan Turner, James Kahan, Joyce Peterson. and Susan Turner. 1986. Prison versus Probation in California: Implications for Offender Recidivism. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
34.
Riley, Pamela Johnson
and Vicki McNickle Rose. 1980. “Public vs. Elite Opinion on Correctional Reform: Implications for Social Policy.”Journal of Criminal Justice8:345-356.
35.
Rosecrance, John
. 1985. “The Probation Officers' Search for Credibility.”Crime & Delinquency31:539-554.
36.
Simon, Herbert A.
1947. Administrative Behavior. New York: Macmillan.
37.
Sudnow, David
. 1965. “Normal Crimes: Sociological Features of the Penal Code in a Public Defender's Office.”Social Problems12:255-276.
38.
Thomson, Douglas R.
1987. Intensive Probation Supervision in Illinois: A First Year Progress Report on the Evaluation. Chicago: Center for Research in Law and Justice, University of Illinois at Chicago.
39.
Thomson, Douglas R.
and Anthony J. Ragona. 1987. “Popular Moderation versus Governmental Authoritarianism: An Interactionist View of Public Sentiments Toward Criminal Sanctions.”Crime & Delinquency33:337-357.
40.
Tonry, Michael
. 1988 “Structuring Discretion.” Pp. 267-337 in Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 10, edited by Michael Tonry and Norval Morris. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
