Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Community Penalties in the United States

  • Published:
European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The author discusses some background matters concerning the US criminal justice systems that may provide useful context for non-US readers, and summarises the main general conclusions about the operation of community penalties from two decades' research. He also briefly summarises research concerning each of the major penalties that have been attempted. Why American jurisdictions have been comparatively unsuccessful at use of community penalties as alternatives to incarceration and whether that lack of receptivity can be changed is discussed in the conclusion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albrecht, H-J., Sentencing and punishment in Germany. In: M. Tonry and K. Hatlestad (Eds), Sentencing Reform in Overcrowded Times, pp. 181–187. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, D.C., Sensible Justice: Alternatives to Prison. New York: New Press, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anglin, D. and Y-I. Hser, Treatment of drug abuse. In: M. Tonry and J.Q. Wilson (Eds), Drugs and Crime, pp. 393–460. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird, S.C. and D. Wagner, Measuring diversion: The Florida community control program. Crime and Delinquency, 36, pp. 112–125, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, R.A., C.R. Huff and J.R. Lilly, House Arrest and Correctional Policy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumer, T.L., M.G. Maxfield and R.I. Mendelsohn, A comparative analysis of three electronically monitored home detention programs. Justice Quarterly, 10, pp. 121–142, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumer, T.L. and R.I. Mendelsohn, Electronically monitored home confinement: Does it work? In: J.M. Byrne, A.J. Lurigio and J. Petersilia (Eds), Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckett, K, Making Crime Pay: Law and Order in Contemporary American Politics. Oxford/New York 1997.

  • Blomberg, T.G., W. Bales and K. Reed, Intermediate punishment: Redistributing or extending social control? Crime, Law, and Social Change, 19, pp. 187–201, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of Justice Assistance, National Assessment of Structured Sentencing. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, J.M., A.J. Lurigio and J. Petersilia, Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, J.M. and A. Pattavina, The effectiveness issue: Assessing what works in the adult community corrections system. In: J.M. Byrne, A.J. Lurigio and J. Petersilia (Eds), Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clear, T. and A.A. Braga, Community corrections. In: J.Q. Wilson and J. Petersilia (Eds), Crime. San Francisco, CA: Institute for Contemporary Studies, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, G.F., B. Mahoney, M. Thornton and R.A. Hanson, The Practices and Attitudes of Trial Court Judges Regarding Fines as a Criminal Sanction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craddock, A. and L.A. Graham, Day Reporting Centres as an Intermediate Sanction. Unpublished final report to the National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC, 1996. (available from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Rockville, MD.)

  • Doble, J. and S. Immerwahr, Delawareans favour prison alternatives. In: M. Tonry and K. Hatlestad (Eds), Sentencing Reform in Overcrowded Times, pp. 259–265. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gendreau, P., F.T. Cullen and J. Bonta, Intensive rehabilitation supervision: The next generation in community corrections? Federal Probation, 58, pp. 72–78, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillsman, S. Fines and day fines. In: M. Tonry and N. Morris (Eds), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 12, pp. 49–98. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillsman, S. and J.A. Greene, The use of fines as an intermediate sanction. In: J.M. Byrne, A.J. Lurigio and J. Petersilia (Eds), Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillsman, S., J. Sichel and B. Mahoney, Fines in Sentencing: A Study of the Use of the Fine as a Criminal Sanction. Wahington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, J. and C. Kempinen, Pennsylvania's sentencing guidelines: The process of assessment and revision. In: M. Tonry and K. Hatlestad (Eds), Sentencing Reform in Overcrowded Times, pp. 62–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lilly, J.R., Electronic monitoring in the US. In: M. Tonry and K. Hamilton (Eds), Intermediate Sanctions in Overcrowded Times, pp. 112–116. Boston: North-Eastern University Press, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubitz, R.L., Sentencing changes in North Carolina. Overcrowded Times, 7(3), pp. 1, 12–15, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, D.L., Boot camps: A national assessment. In: M. Tonry and K. Hamilton (Eds), Intermediate Sanctions in Overcrowded Times, pp. 149–160. Boston: North-Eastern University Press, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, D.L. and D. Parent., Boot camp prisons for young offenders. In: J.M. Byrne, A.J. Lurigio and J. Petersilia (Eds), Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, D.L. and A. Piquero, The impact of shock incarceration programs on prison crowding. Crime and Delinquency, 40, pp. 222–249, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, D.L. and J. W. Shaw, Inmate adjustment and change during shock incarceration: The impact of correctional boot camp programs. Justice Quarterly, 7(1), pp. 125–150, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxfield, M. and T. Baumer., Home detention with electronic monitoring: Comparing pretrial and post-conviction programs. Crime and Delinquency, 36, pp. 521–536, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, B. (Ed.), Intermediate Punishments: Intensive Supervision, Home Confinement, and Electronic Surveillance. Monsey, New York: Criminal Justice Press, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, D., Punishment without Walls: Community Service Sentences in New York City. New Brunswick, NY: Rutgers University Press, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, D., Punishing labour: unpaid community service as a criminal sentence. In: J.M. Byrne, A.J. Lurigio and J. Petersilia (Eds), Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, D., J. Greene and C. Worzella, Day Fines in American Courts: The Staten Island and Milwaukee Experiments. Issues and Practices. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIvor, G., CSOs succeed in Scotland. In: M. Tonry and K. Hamilton (Eds), Intermediate Sanctions in Overcrowded Times, pp. 77–84. Boston: North-Eastern University Press, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meachum, L.R., House arrest: Oklahoma experience. Corrections Today, 48(4), pp. 102ff., 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, N. and M. Tonry, Between Prison and Probation: Intermediate Punishments in a Rational Sentencing System. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullaney, F.G., Economic Sanctions in Community Corrections. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Institute of Justice, Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) — 1993 Annual Report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parent, D., Day Reporting Centres for Criminal Offenders: A Descriptive Analysis of Existing Programs. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parent, D., Day reporting centres: An emerging intermediate sanction. Overcrowded Times, 2(1), pp. 6, 8, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parent, D., Boot camps failing to achieve goals. In: M. Tonry and K. Hamilton (Eds), Intermediate Sanctions in Overcrowded Times, pp. 139–149. Boston: North-Eastern University Press, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pease, K., Community service orders. In: M. Tonry and N. Morris (Eds), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 6, pp. 51–94. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersilia, J. and S. Turner, Intensive probation and parole. In: M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 17, pp. 281–335. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renzema, M., Home confinement programs: Development, implementation, and impact. In: J.M. Byrne, A.J. Lurigio and J. Petersilia (Eds), Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. and L. Stalans, Public Opinion, Crime, and Criminal Justice. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, L.W., D. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter and S. Bushway, Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising. Report prepared for the National Institute of Justice. Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland: College Park, MD, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tak, P.J.P., Netherlands successfully implements community service orders. In: M. Tonry and K. Hatlestad (Eds), Sentencing Reform in Overcrowded Times, pp. 200–203. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tak, P. and A. van Kalmthout, Prison population growing faster in the Netherlands than in US, Overcrowded Times, 9(3), pp 1, 12–15, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonry, M., Overt and latent functions of intensive supervision probation. Crime and Delinquency, 36, pp. 174–191, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonry, M., Sentencing Matters. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonry, M., Intermediate Sanctions in Sentencing Guidelines. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice Issues and Practices, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonry, M. and K. Hamilton, Intermediate Sanctions in Overcrowded Times. Boston: North-Eastern University Press, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonry, M. and M. Lynch, Intermediate sanctions. In: M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 20, pp. 99–144. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, S., Day-fine projects launched in four jurisdictions. Overcrowded Times, 3(6), pp. 5–6, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, S. and J. Petersilia, Day Fines in Four US Jurisdictions. RAND No. 1153-NIJ. Santa Monica, CA, 1996.

  • US General Accounting Office, Intermediate Sanctions: Their Impacts on Prison Crowding, Costs, and Recidivism are Still Unclear. Gaithersburg, MD: US General Accounting Office, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weigend, T., Germany reduces use of prison sentences. In: M. Tonry and K. Hatlestad (Eds), Sentencing Reform in Overcrowded Times. Oxford, New York, pp. 177–181, 1997.

  • Windlesham, Lord, Politics, Punishment, and Populism. Oxford/New York, 1998.

  • Wright, R.F., North Carolina prepares for guidelines sentencing and North Carolina avoids early trouble with guidelines. In: M. Tonry and K. Hatlestad (Eds), Sentencing Reform in Overcrowded Times, pp. 79–88. Oxford, New York, 1997.

Download references

Authors
  1. Michael Tonry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tonry, M. Community Penalties in the United States. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 7, 5–22 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008755227099

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008755227099

Search

Navigation