Intermediate Sanctions in Sentencing Guidelines

Bibliographic Data

ID11348985
AuthorsMichael Tonry (corresponding author)
Year1998
Volume23
Pages199-253
Publication date1998-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueCrime and Justice (BOOK_SERIES)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0192-3234 • E-ISSN: 2153-0416
PublisherUniversity of Chicago Press (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1086/449271
OpenAlexW2049195009
LanguageEN
Citations received14
References cited11

Every American state has created new intermediate sanctions in recent years and nearly half have, have had, or are considering having sentencing guidelines. Guidelines can reduce sentencing disparities, including race, gender, and geographical disparities; effect changes in statewide sentencing patterns; and coordinate sentencing policies and corrections resources. Well-managed intermediate sanctions can scale punishment severity to crime seriousness and save money. Some research suggests positive effects on offenders' treatment participation. These aims, however, are often frustrated by judges' decisions to use intermediate sanctions for offenders different from those for whom programs are designed. As a result, some states are now incorporating intermediate sanctions into guidelines. A number of concepts-including "purposes at sentencing" and "parsimony" -and a number of mechanisms-zones of discretion, categorical exceptions, and dispositional presumptions-show promise as means to that end

Criminology · Discretion · Political science · Punishment (psychology · Race (biology · Sanctions · Sentencing guidelines · Seriousness · Sociology · State (computer science · Unrest · Computer Science · Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis · Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints · Law · Psychology · Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub