8.2 Intermediate Sanctions
David Carter; Michelle Holcomb; and Kate McLean
Community corrections on a whole have changed dramatically over the last half-century. Due to a rapid and overwhelming increase in the offender population – largely due to policy changes – we have witnessed an immense increase in the use of sanctions at the community level, including probation and parole. It has only been within the last 10 years that community correctional populations have begun to decrease.
While much attention has been paid to the crisis of mass incarceration in the United States, a majority of individuals under correctional control are supervised in the community. As of 2022, roughly 1.9 million individuals are incarcerated in the United States – while over 3.7 million are under some form of community-level control (Sawyer & Wagner, 2022). The sheer volume of individuals under community correction is rarely noted but has important resonance for offender recidivism, reincarceration, and life chances generally speaking. The public may view probation or parole as concessions to offenders, but in fact, these methods of supervision have the power to dramatically improve offenders’ success – or to send them to jail or prison.
As we have discussed, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, there was a fundamental shift in corrections. This is largely due to the “Nothing Works” principle in the area of rehabilitation. In turn, there was a nationwide turn toward the use of “institutional corrections,” or prison and jail sentences. Yet, when parole is available, the use of institutional corrections has dramatic implications for community corrections, as incarcerated offenders are ultimately released to the supervision of a parole officer. As the U.S. prison population has bulged, many policymakers have started to realize the value and necessity of community sanctions for relieving an overcrowded, and ineffective, system.
At the same time, community corrections have also evolved in line with the “punitive turn” in criminal justice. The last 40 years has seen the rise of what are often termed “intermediate sanctions,” or punishments in between traditional probation (offender supervision in the community, with behavioral restrictions) and traditional incarceration (continuous offender detention in prison or jail). Examples include house arrest, electronic monitoring, shock incarceration (incarceration for a very short period), and intensive supervision probation (with more regular check-ins with the probation officer or daily drug testing.)
What Would You Do?
As stated before, there are three primary goals for corrections: to punish the offender, to rehabilitate the offender, and to protect society. Often the first and third goals take precedence, displacing and even opposing the goal of rehabilitation. Here is an example of how this might happen.
Imagine a man who is married and has a couple of small children, a stable blue-collar job, and a house/mortgage and is living just a little bit better than paycheck to paycheck. We can call him Jacques LeBlanc. Jacques likes to hang out with his friends after watching LSU football on Saturdays and have a beer and catch up on life. For all intents and purposes, Jacques is a decent guy. He does not have a significant criminal record. Perhaps one misdemeanor when he was a juvenile, and a couple of speeding tickets, like tens of millions of other adults.
However, one evening after the game, Jacques is driving home when his wife texts him to pick up some boudin at the store. He looks down at his phone at the exact same time that someone pulls out in front of him. An accident occurs. No one is seriously injured, but the damage to both vehicles is enough to warrant a write-up of the accident. This leads to police presence. At the scene, the officer smells alcohol on Jacques. The officer is obligated to go through standard procedures, which results in Jacques being arrested. The question is this – what should Jacques’ punishment be?
This question forces us to reckon with both the rule of law and the unintended consequences of punishment. Arguably, Jacques should be punished, as he chose to drive after drinking alcohol. But would Jacques’ incarceration lead to other events that may have lasting, negative effects for both Jacques, his family, and the larger community?
This brings up the question of “collateral consequences,” or the long-term, informal consequences of criminal sanctions. If Jacques receives a lengthy jail sentence, will he lose his job? Will he lose his family? Will this put him a greater risk of recidivating in the future? At what point has the immediate action caused punishment beyond what the law stipulates is punishment?
Alternate punishments that vary from diversion to incarceration.
