NCJ Number
85018
Journal
Police Journal Volume: 55 Issue: 3 Dated: (July-September 1982) Pages: 285-290
Date Published
1982
Length
6 pages
Annotation
Restitutive and treatment alternatives to incarceration (creative punishment) are becoming more attractive than costly and ineffective incarceration, and they show evidence of being accepted as sufficiently punitive from the perspectives of victims and criminal justice professionals while reducing recidivism.
Abstract
Creative punishment has been defined as an attempt to design a mode of constructive punishment that considers the needs and characteristics of the offender and his/her motivation. Under this concept, a sentencing plan is developed which meets the needs of the offender, justice, and community or victim reparation. The emphasis is still on punishment but other than traditional incarceration. Creative punishment also makes use of professional knowledge, such as psychology, which is useful in the sentencing process. Creative punishment accentuates the differences between the handling of property offenders and offenders against persons as well as between violent and nonviolent offenders. A study of 100 presentence evaluation and counseling cases in San Diego, Calif., found that restitution as a form of punishment is an acceptable alternative or supplement to incarceration for a wide range of crimes, particularly where the offender makes restitution for property offenses. The type of intensive professional expertise used in these cases also suggests that it reduces recidivism rates. Thus, alternatives to incarceration that involve offenders who are minimal threats to the community, include a sufficient punitive element, and use professional treatment methods can satisfy the demand for justice and reduced recidivism. Six notes are listed.