Intermediate Sanctions in correction

Intermediate sanctions are designed primarily for offenders who require a correctional option that is punitive and restrictive than probation but less severe than imprisonment, although they are also used for a variety of offenders like person on probation, person on parole and prison inmates among others. Unlike probation and parole, it is difficult to accurately determine the number of offender involved in intermediate sanctions. This is because it is varied, complex and dynamic (Brown, 1990). There is widespread debate on the effectiveness of most of the community correctional practices.

Empirical evidence show that intensive supervision, electronic monitoring shock probation and other control oriented practices do not minimize recidivism although these sanctions can reduce prison crowding (Brown, 1990). Other practices such as halfway housing and day reporting centers are effective in changing offender behavior. Studies also indicate that there are reductions in serous offences such as auto theft and burglary in re-offending among cohorts with high proportions of intermediate sanctions (Randolph 2005). Future of Parole and Probation

Thomas Gale (2005) summarizes the future of parole and probation thus “If the future of community corrections is the creation or maintenance of public safety, the prospects for success would surely be increased by some borrowing from the joint efforts that contribute community justice and restorative justice”(p. 108). This future is most likely. Through aligning their operational capacity to make the communities safe, probation and parole have a chance of creating enough public worth to secure the political and material support they require. References Brown, P. (1990).

Guns and probation officers: The unspoken reality. Federal Probation. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1988). Report to the nation on crime and justice. Washington, D. C. : U. S. Government Printing Office. John Randolph (2005) Criminal Justice and Crosscurrents. Upper Sandle River: Prentice Hall. Thomas Gale (2005). Crime and punishment in America . New York: Vintage Van Laningham, D. , Taber, M. , & Diamants, R. (1977). How probation officers view their job responsibilities. In D. B. Kennedy (Ed. ), The dysfunctional alliance:Emotion and reason in justice administration. Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Publishing.