Use of Intermediate Sanctions

This research develops a policy analysis of the use of intermediate sanctions in the administration of criminal justice. The most severe sentence in non capital punishment cases in the United States is incarceration in prison, while the least severe sentence is probation (Langan, 1994). An intermediate sanction is a sentence that is less severe than incarceration in prison, but more severe than probation.

Public policies are the guidelines for public action. They prescribe, in general terms, (a) objectives, and (b) the means by which those objectives will be pursued. Policy analysis is the application of a variety of political and cognitive strategies to the formulation or evaluation of a public policy (Starling, 1993). Policy analysis is not based in a single discipline. Political, organizational, sociological, technological, and economic issues are addressed in most policy analyses. "In policy analysis one of the keys to judging expert testimony is to recognize the biases inherent in single-discipline answers" (Starling, 1993, p. 11). Similarly, an excessive reliance on either normative or quantitative approaches to evaluation typically produces ineffective policy analyses.

It is important to remember that any public policy is a part of a wider political system. Thus, an effective policy analysis looks beyond the narrow scope of the immediate issue to the ways in which a proposed policy will affect or the ways in which a

. . .
icy analysis. Drug courts are a diversionary form of the intermediate sanctions concept (Fleming, 1996). Drug courts do not initially either incarcerate offender in prison or place offenders on probation. Rather, drug courts divert offenders into supervised treatment programs wherein their freedom of movement is restricted, their behavior is monitored, and they receive therapy for their addiction and abuse problems. Some drug courts follow a practice called "creaming," whereby only first-time offenders least likely to commit subsequent crimes after receiving treatment are admitted to the program. More ambitious drug courts, however, admit persons with a record of more serious offenses. The latter programs might be just as effective, even though their successful completion rates are likely to be lower and their recidivism rates higher than those of drug courts that practice "creaming" ("Drug Courts Talk," 1996). A United States Department of Justice rule prohibits the inclusion of violent offenders from drug court programs funded by the federal government. The rule defines a violent offender as one charged with or convicted of an offense involving use of a firearm, use of force, or infliction of severe bodily injury; or one
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
POLICY ANALYSIS, Patton Sawicki, Center Rand, Courts Blessing, Abuse Week, Department Justice, Courts Move, Crime TASC, Austin Texas, drug courts, County Florida, intermediate sanctions, policy analysis, drug court, intermediate sanctions policy, sanctions policy, courts blessing, drug courts blessing, courts blessing 1994, blessing 1994, drug court programs, court programs, incarceration prison, blessing 1994 3, abuse week,
Approximate Word count = 1699
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Use of Intermediate Sanctions