This Article Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF) All Versions of this Article: 0032885509349564v1 89/4/426    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Homant, R. J. Articles by DeMercurio, M. A. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

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

¹ University of Detroit Mercy, Detroit, MI, USA
² Michigan Department of Corrections, Lansing, MI, USA

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: homantr{at}udmercy.edu.

	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.

First published on October 13, 2009, doi:10.1177/0032885509349564

The Prison Journal 2009;89:426.

A more recent version of this article appeared on December 1, 2009


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?