CMRJ316

250 words agree or disagree to each questions 

Q 1.
Intermediate sentencing is an alternative form of punishment for offenders for a variety of criminal offenses. Typically most of the type of offenders are not of those who are violent offenders or who have committed crimes against persons. These type of punishments are an alternative for the typical probation or supervised release after a sentence in a traditional correctional facility. According to Caputo, “the principle forms of intermediate sanctions include: intensive supervision programs; boot camps; day reporting centers; home confinement; monetary penalties; compulsory labor in the form of community service; and halfway houses. (Caputo, 2004)” These types of punishments for committing crimes serves to limit the number of individuals incarcerated and offer a different form of rehabilitation. I believe that these types of punishments do have the capacity to help the issues with repeating crimes because it has the potential to rehabilitate outside of prison and supervise the individual outside of the traditional prison cell during the period of the punishment. These type of punishments are more and more common now a days and ultimately individuals who do not learn their lesson or are effectively will ultimately face more serious consequences. A lot of these types of punishments are coupled together with other types of punishments. An example may be probation and community service for small violations. The punishment is over when they have met the terms that were set in the sentencing phase of the court proceedings. Intermediate sanctions have effects on recidivism when offenders do not return back to the areas they were previously living. “Results show low rates of return to former neighborhoods and high rates of residential mobility after prison, a significant portion of which is driven by intermediate sanctions resulting from criminal justice system supervision. These results suggest that, through parole supervision, the criminal justice system generates significant residential mobility” compared individuals who were incarcerated and returned to the same areas where they lived before prison are at higher risk of recidivating, presumably because they encounter the same criminogenic influences that contributed to their prior offense(s)  (Harding, Morenoff, Herbert, Small, Allard, 2013).”
I think that for smaller level misdemeanors this is an effective method of correcting the criminal behavior. This also seems to have a positive impact because offenders are able to remove themselves from the situations that are influencing them to break the law these small changes and removing them from the traditional punishment in a jail have an opportunity to be rehabilitated outside of a 9×9 cell. The reduction in cost isn’t so overwhelming that it should be done in every situation but there are plenty of instances in which an intermediate punishment could be effective for many offenders.  
References
Caputo, G. (2004). Intermediate sanctions in corrections. Denton, Tex: University of North Texas Press.
Harding, D., Morenoff, J., Herbert, C., Small, M., & Allard, S. (2013). Home Is Hard to Find: Neighborhoods, Institutions, and the Residential Trajectories of Returning Prisoners. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 647(1), 214–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716213477070

Q 2. 

As we look at intermediate sanctions as a punishment alternative we must first define what are intermediate sanctions and how are they used by correction facilities.  Intermediate sanctions offer an alternative to long term incarceration or release on probation or parole.  They are sanctions that provide the incarcerated individual with a variety of supervision and treatment programs that are more tailored for what the individual offender needs.  The supervision in intermediate sanction programs are more rigorous than traditional probation or parole release programs and are geared toward the offender that may be deemed more violent or dangerous and in need of enhanced supervision, but also facilities the rehabilitation elements aimed at decreasing recidivism.  
One example of one of the more popular or widely used intermediate sanctions is the use of residential reentry facilities also known as halfway houses.  This type of facility or house is used on inmates who are nearing the end of their incarceration and would benefit from guided reentry programs.  Participants are often free to come and go from the facility, but must participate in classes or programs designed to address their greatest need.  That may be drug and alcohol counseling or treatment programs, anger management, and often offer assistance with job placement and support for the program participants.  There is typically staff on site that provide program supervision and record participants progress.  There has been some debate about how successful these programs are given their recidivism rates.  According to a study conducted by Wong, Bouchard, Gushue and Lee that was published in 2019, they conclude that generally halfway houses are adequately effective in helping offenders reintegrate with society (Wong, Bouchard, Gushue, & Lee, 2019).  They also find that the quality of staff aimed at supporting the offender appears to be an important factor in determining the ultimate success of the offender. 
Another interesting example of using technology to help with intermediate sanction is the use of electronic monitoring on early release offenders.  Several states make use of an ankle bracelet that has GPS technology to monitor offenders after their release from prison.  The monitor must be charged, but it connects to a system that track the offender’s whereabouts.  Different states have different standards for the classification of offender they will allow to be monitored electronically.  Typically, lower level offenders who do not have a violent history are allowed early release into a halfway house.  It is not unusual to see sexual offenders that society wants to keep track of wearing an ankle monitor.  There are some pretty clear advantages to this type of monitoring.  It is one of the lowest cost forms intermediate sanctions, and the offender can be tracked down to a specific location in a couple of minutes generally.  If the battery dies or if the bracelet is allowed to lose its charge they the offenders parole officer in notified.  This method alone may not be the answer to supervised release, but when used on conjunction with other methods it has proven to be somewhat effective (Jones, & Ross, 1997).  
Intermediate sanctions like the ones detailed above can help with the supervision of early release offenders, but by demographic there will always be those who reoffend and end up committing crimes that return them to prison.  That idea that we as a nation can continue to incarcerate an endless number of citizens is just not a realistic solution.  To be effective we must have a change of mission that is bought into by the employees who work in the corrections industry.  For many of them all they have ever known is an “us versus them” approach to the job they do.  Without truly believing that they can make a difference they will never try to help with the rehabilitation side of corrections.  
References
Jones, M., & Ross, D. (1997). Electronic House Arrest and Boot Camp in North Carolina: Comparing Recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 8(4), 383–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/088740349700800404
Wong, J., Bouchard, J., Gushue, K., & Lee, C. (2019). Halfway Out: An Examination of the Effects of Halfway Houses on Criminal Recidivism. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 63(7), 1018–1037. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18811964