English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Every American state has created new intermediate sanctions in recent years and nearly half have, have had, or are considering having sentencing guidelines. Guidelines can reduce sentencing disparities, including race, gender, and geographical disparities; effect changes in statewide sentencing patterns; and coordinate sentencing policies and corrections resources. Well-managed intermediate sanctions can scale punishment severity to crime seriousness and save money. Some research suggests positive effects on offenders' treatment participation. These aims, however, are often frustrated by judges' decisions to use intermediate sanctions for offenders different from those for whom programs are designed. As a result, some states are now incorporating intermediate sanctions into guidelines. A number of concepts-including "purposes at sentencing" and "parsimony" -and a number of mechanisms-zones of discretion, categorical exceptions, and dispositional presumptions-show promise as means to that end.

Intermediate Sanctions in Sentencing Guidelines