Shock Incarceration: Rehabilitation or Retribution?

Author(s):  
Doris Layton MacKenzie ◽  
Larry A. Gould ◽  
Lisa M. Riechers ◽  
James W. Shaw
Keyword(s):  
1993 ◽  
Author(s):  
Doris L. MacKenzie ◽  
James W. Shaw ◽  
Voncile B. Gowdy
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Gaylene Styve Armstrong ◽  
Doris Layton MacKenzie
Keyword(s):  

1992 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alida V. Merlo ◽  
Peter J. Benekos

This article reviews the impact that the punitive, “get tough” policies of the 1980s have had on corrections. With record breaking increases in prison populations, legislators and policy makers have had to confront the realities of fiscal constraints while responding to the conservative agenda on crime. The consequence has been to develop and expand alternatives to incarceration which can be both tough on criminals but cheaper than traditional prison punishment. However, intermediate punishments such as intensive probation, electronic monitoring, and shock incarceration may be widening the correctional net. In reviewing these developments, the authors examine ideologies and consequences, and observe that economic considerations will influence corrections policies in the 1990s.


1991 ◽  
Vol 16 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 153-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Damon D. Camp, Jr.
Keyword(s):  

1993 ◽  
Author(s):  
Doris L. MacKenzie ◽  
James W. Shaw ◽  
Voncile B. Gowdy
Keyword(s):  

1997 ◽  
Vol 77 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
REBECCA D. PETERSEN ◽  
DENNIS J. PALUMBO

Intermediate sanctions have been said to provide judges with a wider range of sentencing options so that they might better match the severity of punishment with the seriousness of the crime, while diverting nonviolent offenders from prison without posing a risk to public safety. However, the social construction of intermediate sanctions assumes that government is a rational actor that wants to achieve just deserts and crime reduction. The authors argue that instead, intermediate sanctions are socially constructed via political symbolism that is meant to convince the public that government is continuing to be tough on crime while reducing prison costs. Through discussion of shock incarceration and intensive probation, the authors contend that a more favorable way of “doing criminology” and influencing public policy is through discourse about principles of social justice.


1991 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 225-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Doris Layton MacKenzie ◽  
Dale G. Parent
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document