This research paper examines the origins and reasons for the use of intermittent incarceration of convicted criminals on probation in the United States and elsewhere, how and when it is used, the results gained from experience with it, other pros and cons and prospects for its future use.
Origins and Rationale for the Use of Intermittent Incarceration
Morris & Tonry (1990) define intermittent incarceration as "a method of allowing the offender to serve an incarcerative sentence without having to disrupt his employment and family ties as does a longer single period of jail or prison" (p. 218). They say it is employed "for incapacitative purposes and training for conformity" (p. 178).
Intermittent incarceration in the form of halfway houses used to transist paroled convicts on their way back to society dates back to the mid-19th century in the United States and Great Britain. However, Latessa & Travis (1992) say that until the 1970s, "for typical criminal offenders, . . . halfway home placements were rare" (p. 162). They, renamed as community correction residential centers, came into vogue as a result of the community corrections movements of the 1960s. The President's Commission on Crime and Administration of Justice (1967) provided impetus to the movement to provide alternatives to imprisonment by placing "increasing emphasis on the role of the community in corrections, and on the value of keeping offenders in the community, rather than in prison" (Latessa & Travis, 1992, p. 168). The primary goal then was to improve the rehabilitation of convicted criminals, prisons being perceived by many, said British Home Secretary David Waddington as "an expensive way of making bad people worse," (Alternatives, 1998, May, p. 1867).
Beginning in 1966 led by Minnesota, Wisconsin, California and Kansas, 25 states passed community corrections laws and made funds available for improved probation programs, including a plethora of alte...