Deterrence of sentencing is one of the things we should keep in the sentencing process. Sometimes people learn from other mistakes and I think that was the intention of deterrence by sentencing. Deterrence by sentencing as stated by Latessa, Allen & Ponder (2016) is 4
Running head: EXPLORATION OF CORRECTIONS “Discouraging the individual’s and the public’s propensity to commit additional crimes by the imposition of harsh punishment; the goal is crime reduction” (p. 79). Overall, America needs a new paradigm for sentencing and corrections. Smith & Dickey (1999) said it best “Sentencing courts and corrections agencies are not communicating about what matters. When imposing sentence, a judge rarely states clearly the purpose of the sentence or the process by which corrections are expected to achieve it. When correctional agencies are left guessing, they revert to routine administration of the generic penal measures (prison, probation, and parole) and let offenders under supervision in the community decide who will earn revocation” (p. 1). Alternatives Alternatives relative to our current approach to sentencing include probation and diversion and intermediate sanctions. Front-end solutions are mentioned by Latessa, Allen & Ponder (2016) as “options for controlling the number of inmates being sent to prison” (p. 113). Some of the options included fall under the intermediate punishments which are “house arrest, deferred prosecution, electronic monitoring, shock probation, intensive supervised probation, intermittent jail incarceration, and other programs” (p. 113). Another alternative suggested by Latessa, Allen & Ponder (2016) is the back-end solutions which is a “strategies for reducing prison population overcrowding by early release programs, such as parole, shock parole, and expanded good-time credits” (p.114). Proactive community supervision (PCS) is another alternative used throughout communities that help offenders. PCS according to Latessa, Allen and Ponder (2016) “improving offenders’ lives and fully restoring them as productive participants to the community” (p. 114). The PCS program many things can be accomplished and the agents can help the community in several ways. Accomplishments stated in Latessa, Allen and Ponder include “protect public 5
Running head: EXPLORATION OF CORRECTIONS safety, hold offenders accountable to victims and the community, and help offenders become responsible and productive” (p. 114). The agent piece of the PCS program that can be expected from the community mentioned by Latessa, Allen & Ponder includes: Spend their days near where parolees and probationers call home; work with parolees and probationers to help them beat the drug and alcohol addictions that can lead them back to crime and violence; help parolees and probationers get basic education and job skills so
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 8 pages?
- Spring '14
- criminal law, Latessa