Intermediate Punishments

Intermediate punishments are punishments, which are more restraining, compared to probation however, less restrictive compared to imprisonment. The primary purposes of intermediate punishment are to trim down the pressures of filled to capacity jails and prisons, in addition to short-staffed probation officials, along with offices. There exist two primary kinds of judgments for committing a crime, these are either to be incarcerated, or probation nevertheless the judges in addition has additional sentencing alternatives that he/she can extend, for instance intermediate punishments. These punishments comprise of fines, society service, restoration, forfeiture, along with pretrial diversion programs (Ulmer, 2004).

Fines refer to sums paid to the court due to the crime that has been committed. Society/community service refers to a situation where an individual has to work without pay in order to pay off the debt to public. Restitution refers to the sum of money, which the judge commands the wrongdoer to recompense the individual, family or enterprise for damages associated to the offense. Forfeiture points to the government’s seizures of every private property associated to the criminal deed. Whereas, Pretrial diversion programs points to an option to trial where the wrongdoer is offered particular counseling or undergoes a treatment program in response for an abandonment of all the charges. Additionally there exist other program that fall under the category of intermediate sanctions for instance, daytime reporting center whereby the lawbreaker reports on a daily basis, for treatment, edification, and incapacitation; thorough supervision probation that are supervised by probation officers with lesser case loads, and the restriction are stricter than normal probation. Others include shock imprisonment, also referred to as, “scared straight” a type of remedy that shocks with the destitution of prison whereas home detention and electronic supervision, is whereby a criminal serves their sentence at home within a restricted area (Abadinsky, 2012).

 The phrase “the punishment fits the crime” applicability to the intermediate punishment is by the fact that the lawbreaker is entirely free and the judge awards a specific kind of intermediate punishment depending on the weight of the offense.  Thus, essentially the wrongdoer pays for his wrongdoings in a just manner.

References

Ulmer, J. T. (2004). Restrictive intermediate punishments and recidivism in Pennsylvania. Federal Sentencing Reporter. doi:10.1525/fsr.2004.16.3.182

Abadinsky, H. (2012). Probation and parole: Theory and practice (11th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.