Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In Victoria, Australia, the intensive correction order (ICO) was introduced in the Sentencing Act of 1991. In general terms, it is suitable for offenders who are being rejected for community-based orders on the basis of their high risk and/or recidivism and who would have received short terms of imprisonment. The present study investigated general perceptions of ICOs by both staff and offenders, the type of offenders currently receiving ICOs, and relationships between offender characteristics and ICOs. It was found that ICOs are quite successful in fulfilling their stated aim of providing a credible sanction to fill the gap between community-based orders and short-term imprisonment and that ICO "target groups" such as drunken drivers are significantly represented.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Byrne, J. (1989). Reintegrating the concept of community into community-based corrections. Crime and Delinquency, 35(3), 1-49.

Byrne, J. , Lurigio, A. , & Baird, C. (1989). The effectiveness of the new intensive supervision programs. Research in Corrections, 2(2), 1-48.

Clear, T. , & Hardyman, P. (1990). The new intensive supervision movement. Crime and Delinquency, 36(1), 42-60.

Department of Justice, Community Based Corrections Branch . (1993a). Information and issues relating to the implementation of the Sentencing Act 1991. Victoria, Australia: Author.

Department of Justice, Community Based Corrections Branch . (1993b). Magistrates conference: Information on the implementation of the Sentencing Act 1991. Victoria, Australia: Author.

Erwin, B. (1987). Evaluation of intensive probation supervision in Georgia: Final report. Department of Corrections.

Liska, A. , & Reed, M. (1985). Ties to conventional institutions and delinquency: Estimating reciprocal effects. American Sociological Review, 50, 547-560.

McCarthy, B. (Ed.). (1987). Intermediate Punishments: intensive supervision, home confinement and electronic surveillance. New York: Criminal Justice Press.

Morris, N. , & Tonry, M. (1990). Between prison and probation: Intermediate punishments in a rational sentencing system. New York: Oxford University Press.

10.

Office of Corrections Victoria . (1991-1992).Annual report. Victoria, Australia: Department of Justice.

11.

Office of Corrections Victoria . (1992). Breaching discretion and discipline. Victoria, Australia: Department of Justice.

12.

Petersilia, J. (1985). Community supervision: Trends and critical issues. Crime and Delinquency, 31, 339-347.

13.

Petersilia, J. , & Turner, S. (1992). An evaluation of intensive probation in California. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82, 610-658.

14.

Richards, D. (1991, October). Future directions of community-based corrections in Victoria. Paper presented at Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology Conference, Melbourne, Australia.

15.

Stanley, S. , & Baginsky, M. (1984). Alternatives to prison: An examination of non-custodial sentencing of offenders. London: Peter Owen.

16.

Turner, S. , Petersilia, J. , & Deschenes, E. (1992). Evaluating intensive supervision probation/parole (ISP) for drug offenders. Crime and Delinquency, 38, 539-556.

17.

Vass, A. (1990). Alternatives to prison: Punishment, custody and the community. London: SAGE Publications.

18.

Walker, N. (1987). Crime and criminology: A critical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.

19.

Walkdate, S. (1989). Victimology: The victim and the criminal justice process. London: Unwin Hyman.

A Criminological Study of the Use of Intensive Correction Orders in Victoria,Australia

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References