Intermediate Sanctions in Probation Officers’ Sentencing Recommendations: Consistency,Net Widening,and Net Repairing

Abstract

To explore the role of intermediate sanctions in probation officers’ sentencing recommendations, 30 actual felony cases were selected. These cases were then randomly assigned to 10 probation officers who were experienced in writing pre-sentence investigations. Each officer reviewed a total of 9 cases; this gave a total of 90 ratings, with each case rated by three probation officers. Each officer expressed his or her preference for either a standard prison term, regular probation, or one of three intermediate sanctions: boot camp, intensive probation, and a split sentence (60 days jail followed by probation). Data showed that probation officers were in substantial agreement in their recommendations for a given case, but there were consistent differences among the probation officers, with some showing a consistent tendency toward leniency and others toward severity. The intermediate sanctions were used consistently, in that they were seen as less severe than a prison term and more severe than standard probation. In 61 of the 90 ratings, an intermediate sanction was the first choice of the rater. In 44 of these cases, the next choice was standard probation, suggesting that the intermediate sanction served a net widening (or net repairing) function; in 17 cases the next choice was prison, suggesting that the intermediate sanction served to divert from (standard) incarceration.

Keywords

intermediate sanctions probation net widening

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abadinsky, H. ( 2006). Probation and parole: Theory and practice (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Austin, J. , Camp-Blair, D. , Camp, A. , Castellano, T. , Adams-Fuller, T. , Jones , et al. (2002). The multi-site evaluation of boot camp programs, final report (Document No. 192001). U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved September 10, 2009, from http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:6XZeC0NhniQJ:www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/192011.pdf+The+multi-site+evaluation+of+boot+camp+programs,+final+report&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=in

Banks, D. , & Gottfredson, D.C. (2004). Participation in drug treatment court and time to arrest. Justice Quarterly, 21, 637-658.

Blomberg, T.G. ( 1980). Widening the net: An anomaly in the evaluation of diversion programs. In M.W. Klein & K. S. Teilman (Eds.), Handbook of criminal justice evaluation (pp. 572-792). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Byrne, J.M. ( 1990). The future of Intensive Probation Supervision and the new intermediate sanctions. Crime & Delinquency, 36, 6-42.

Foster, B. ( 2006). Corrections: The fundamentals. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Gowan, D. ( 2000). Overview of the Federal Home Confinement Program, 1988-1996 . Federal Probation, 64, 11-18.

Ikonomov, D. ( 2005). The evolution of conditional sentencing and the potential for developing a system of intermediate sanctions. Canadian Criminal Law Review, 9, 295-315.

Norman, M.D. , & Wadman, R.C. ( 2000). Probation department sentencing recommendations in two Utah counties. Federal Probation, 64, 47-51.

10.

Petersilia, J. ( 1999). A decade of experimenting with intermediate sanctions: What have we learned? Corrections Management Quarterly, 3, 19-18.

11.

Schmalleger, F. , & Smykla, J.O. ( 2007). Corrections in the 21st century (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

12.

Seiter, R.P. ( 2008). Corrections: An introduction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

13.

Tonry, M. , & Lynch, M. ( 1996). Intermediate sanctions. In Tonry, M. (Ed.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research (Vol. 20, pp. 99-144). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

14.

Weinrath, M. ( 1999). Are new directions warranted for the presentence report? An empirical assessment of its predictive validity in the adult court system . Journal of Crime & Justice, 22, 113-123.

15.

Worrall, J.L. ( 2006). Crime control in America: An assessment of the evidence . Boston: Pearson.