INTRODUCTION

During the 1980s, in response to the record numbers of convicted offenders and widespread prison crowding, correctional officials in the United States expanded the range of sentencing options for convicted offenders (Morris & Tonry, 1990; Cullen, Wright, & Applegate, 1996; Tonry & Lynch, 1996; Byrne, Lurigio, & Petersilia, 1992; Harland, 1996; Smykla & Selke, 1995). Prior to this, there were few sentencing options for punishing criminals. Offenders were either incarcerated or given standard probation. In some jurisdictions, ordinary probation often equated with perfunctory supervision. The problem was that the range of severity of crimes did not fall neatly into these two categories of punishments. For many offenders, prison was often too severe a punishment whereas probation was too lenient.

To remedy the situation, many states began to develop alternatives. These alternatives, variously labeled intermediate sanctions, correctional options, alternative punishments, or community corrections, were designed to be punishments somewhere between prison and routine probation with respect to harshness and restrictiveness. Rather than being limited to a choice of either prison or ordinary probation, offenders could be given one of a variety of sanctions that ranged between prison and probation in severity. Numerous different types of intermediate sanctions were developed including house arrest, electronic monitoring, intensive supervision, boot camps, split sentences, day reporting centers, fines, and community service.

As a result of the disillusionment with the effectiveness of rehabilitation and the focus on justice and incapacitation, intermediate sanctions were proposed as an ideal way to provide a range of sanctions between probation and parole (Morris & Tonry, 1990; Tonry, 1996a).