ABSTRACT
NON-JAIL SENTENCING OPTIONS Sentencing judges make decisions to incarcerate offenders in jails or prisons or to place them on probation with its numerous ancillary programs (“in” or “out” decisions). If the decision is to retain the offender in the community under probation or its supplemental programs, the judge increasingly has a large number of supervision and control strategies from which to pick, known as intermediate sanctions (Allen et al., 2007 ; Gowdy, 1993 ). Selected programs are not capriciously imposed but are designed to achieve a correctional objective, such as community protection, reintegration, and treatment and rehabilitation. Court officers, usually probation officers, oversee the implementation of, and offender compliance with, court conditions. If the offender appears to be failing at technical conditions (such as no alcohol or attending treatment programs), the judge may tighten the requirements by imposing mandatory daily attendance. In extreme cases, a request for medical intervention (e.g., methadone maintenance for heroin addicts) may be issued. If these conditions are not met or are insufficient for the particular client, the court may further increase the conditions of control by imposing weekend confinement in jail or house arrest. If these are insufficient, the judge may order a short term of jail incarceration to be followed by additional control programs, such as house arrest with electronic monitoring. In extreme cases, the court may order an interlock device installed in the offender’s vehicle, as well as intensive supervision. Tightening the conditions and restraints is commonly called “tourniquet sentencing” (see Box 3.7 ). We turn now to a brief description of major ancillary control (“probation-plus”) programs.
