1995Journal of Research in Crime and DelinquencyRequires access

The Severity of Intermediate Sanctions

William Spelman

Open publisher page 127 citations

Abstract

In the state of Texas, 128 recently convicted offenders used a modified magnitude estimation procedure to rate the severity of 26 felony punishments, ranging from 6 months regular probation through a variety of intermediate sanctions to 5 years in prison. Average ratings suggest that intermediate sanctions provide a true continuum of sanctions and that substantial scope exists for interchangeability among punishments. Also, 75% of offenders rated one or more intermediate sanctions as more severe than an incarcerative sanction; thus the current approach to sentencing, focusing on the distinction between prison and probation, is inappropriate from the viewpoint of desert and deterrence. Because all of the most cost-efficient sanctions were community based, increased use of intermediate sanctions would be an effective use of scarce resources. Different types of offenders rated sanctions differently, and proposals for exchange or sanction units will ultimately need to take these differences into account.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

In the state of Texas, 128 recently convicted offenders used a modified magnitude estimation procedure to rate the severity of 26 felony punishments, ranging from 6 months regular probation through a variety of intermediate sanctions to 5 years in prison. Average ratings suggest that intermediate sanctions provide a true continuum of sanctions and that substantial scope exists for interchangeability among punishments. Also, 75% of offenders rated one or more intermediate sanctions as more severe than an incarcerative sanction; thus the current approach to sentencing, focusing on the distinction between prison and probation, is inappropriate from the viewpoint of desert and deterrence. Because all of the most cost-efficient sanctions were community based, increased use of intermediate sanctions would be an effective use of scarce resources. Different types of offenders rated sanctions differently, and proposals for exchange or sanction units will ultimately need to take these differences into account.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 127 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

In the state of Texas, 128 recently convicted offenders used a modified magnitude estimation procedure to rate the severity of 26 felony punishments, ranging from 6 months regular probation through a variety of intermediate sanctions to 5 years in prison. Average ratings suggest that intermediate sanctions provide a true continuum of sanctions and that substantial scope exists for interchangeability among punishments. Also, 75% of offenders rated one or more intermediate sanctions as more severe than an incarcerative sanction; thus the current approach to sentencing, focusing on the distinction between prison and probation, is inappropriate from the viewpoint of desert and deterrence. Because all of the most cost-efficient sanctions were community based, increased use of intermediate sanctions would be an effective use of scarce resources. Different types of offenders rated sanctions differently, and proposals for exchange or sanction units will ultimately need to take these differences into account.

Key concepts: Sanctions, Prison, Scope (computer science), Political science, Deterrence (psychology), Variety (cybernetics), Criminology, Psychology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Severity of Intermediate Sanctions — Research Paper | ScholarLens