Community Corrections and Intermediate Sanctions: An Annotation
Community corrections are tools used by law enforcement to let convicted criminals complete their sentences in the open rather than in prison. On the other hand, intermediate sanctions allude to disciplinary measures that, in terms of severity, fall between community corrections and incarceration. The two words, though, can be used interchangeably. This essay will provide annotations for works produced on both platforms.
Caputo, G. A. (2004). "Intermediate Penalties for Offenders." University of North Texas Press, Denton, Texas
The above report focuses solely on the different types of intermediate sanctions provided to offenders by the Constitution of the United States. It further discusses seven ways in which intermediate sanctions can be implemented by the justice system to correct offenders. These intermediate sanctions include intensive supervision, boot camps, and centers of day reporting, home confinement with the use of electronic monitoring, monetary penalties such as restitutions and fines, community service and half homes. Gail Caputo teaches Criminal Justice at Rutgers University in New Jersey. This makes her a credible authority in the field of community corrections and intermediate sanctions, which are a subset of Criminal Justice. This authority thus naturally extends to give her report plausibility. The article is relevant to the discussion of community corrections and intermediate interventions, since it lays a basis that provides a working definition of intermediate sanctions that has been used throughout the text.
Tonry, M. (1997). "Intermediate Sanctions in Sentencing Guidelines." Washington DC: National Institute of Justice.
The above article focuses on discussing the guidelines laid out by the Constitution and which intermediate sanctions are supposed to adhere to when being accorded to offenders. The report is rife with quotations of constitutional clauses that define these intermediate sanctions. The work also looks into why intermediate sanctions are not as effective in practice as they are in theory. It provides information that cites recidivism rates, the cost of prison beds, and the inappropriate awarding of intermediate sanctions to undeserving inmates so as to enable financial cut-backs. Professor Michael Tonry heads the Criminal Law and Policy department at University of Minnesota. Having also taught criminal law at Cambridge, he gives his report the credibility needed to authoritatively discuss the correctional devices. The report is relevant to the cause of this paper, since it provides a legal perspective into the guidelines, which these unconventional correctional devices are regulated by the Constitution.
Trotter, J.A. (1991). "Intermediate Sanctions: The Use of Community Based Alternatives to Incarceration in the United States." American University
The above report provided an analysis on the attitudes and opinions that the public portrayed concerning the use of intermediate sanctions during a period in the history of the United States when crime and drug abuse had substantially proliferated. The report was written in the era between when President Lyndon Johnson's administration declared a war on crime and when President George Bush's administration declared a war on drugs. Through a qualitative research approach, the report presented historical evidence that showed that the public was in opposition to the use of intermediate sanctions in correctional capacities. Joseph Trotter was the director of the Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Program for the American University. His report was thereby a credible source of information regarding correctional devices. This report was relevant to the paper, since it presented the perspective of the American public with regard to the issue of community corrections and immediate sanctions.
VERA Institute of Justice (2013). "The Potential of Community Corrections to Improve Safety and Reduce Incarceration"
The above report focuses on the presentation of evidence that supports the effectiveness of community corrections used in place of incarceration. The main objectives in the report are the provision and analysis of tabulated data about the expenditures that federal prisons in the United States incur due to their large numbers of inmates. The paper moreover introduces several issues and that when addressed, could free up federal prisons and help implement community corrections. These concepts and issues include the application of supervision to offenders based on the level of risk which they pose to authorities and publicity. The VERA Institute of Justice is a nonprofit research organization that has been fighting for the end of injustice in law enforcement in the U.S. Hence, the report is a plausible source of information regarding the Corrections Department. The report is suitable to this paper since it provides statistical evidence about American prisons and community corrections.
Conclusion
To sum up, it can be argued that the above articles have discussed a variety of aspects concerning community corrections and intermediate sanctions. In most of the articles, points raised concerning community corrections can also be extrapolated to reflect issue in intermediate sanctions. In terms of themes, one article provides a working definition of community corrections while another reviews the constitutional frameworks that support these devices. For the remaining two reports, one gauges public opinion on the use of these devices as the other gauges the effectiveness of community corrections. Therefore, they are plausible sources relevant to the topic of community corrections and intermediate devices.
References
Caputo, G.A. (2004). Intermediate sanctions in corrections. Denton, TX : University of North Texas Press.
Tonry, M. (1997). Intermediate sanctions in sentencing guidelines. Washington DC : National Institute of Justice.
Trotter, J.A. (1991). Intermediate sanctions : The use of community based alternatives to incarceration in the United States. The American University. Retrieved on October 23-24, 1991 from https://jpo.wrlc.org/bitstream/handle/11204/277/Intermediate%20Sanctions_The%20Use%20of%20Community-Based%20Alternatives%20to%20Incarceration%20in%20the%20United%20States.pdf?sequence=4
VERA Institute of Justice (2013). The potential of community corrections to improve safety and reduce incarceration. Retrieved on July, 2013 from https://www.vera.org/publications/the-potential-of-community-corrections-to-improve-safety-and-reduce-incarceration-configure
