Revised version of a paper presented at the 1991 Annual Meetings of the American Society of Criminology, San Francisco, California. The authors express their thanks to Ted Chiricos, Stanley Cohen, Malcolm Feeley, Dan Freed, Gary Kleck and Sheldon Messinger for their comments and suggestions.
Stacking the Deck by Piling Up Sanctions: Is Intermediate Punishment Destined to Fail?1
Article first published online: 26 JAN 2009
© 1994 Howard League and BPL
The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice
Volume 33, Issue 1, pages 62–80, February 1994
How to Cite
BLOMBERG, T. and LUCKEN, K. (1994), Stacking the Deck by Piling Up Sanctions: Is Intermediate Punishment Destined to Fail?. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 33: 62–80. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2311.1994.tb00794.x
- Issue published online: 26 JAN 2009
- Article first published online: 26 JAN 2009
Abstract: Intermediate punishment as referred to in the United States or intermediate sanctions as referred to in England ad Wales are emerging as major crime control refonn strategies despite the absence of empirical justification for these strategies. The essential goal underlying these strategies is to provide more proportionate and tough sentencing alternatives to prisons and nominal probation. This paper provides an assessment of several salient operational natures of a Florida intermediate punishment programme especially in relation to the programme's demonstrated tendency to file up sanctions' on participating offenders. Various sanctioning agent perceptions, associated decision making and programme outcomes are explored in relation to the ‘piling up of sanctions’ process. The paper concludes with a discussion of several policy implications raised by the reported findings for programmes in England and Wales and the United States.