Although the incarceration rate in America has been increasing in recent years, the alternative methods of punishment in the case of non-serious crimes became highly effective for correctional rehabilitation. Despite the supposed equality of punishment of like cases, the particular scholars distinguish the issue of principled interchangeability of punishment. The purpose of this work is to identify the term of interchangeability of punishment of like cases, and the reasons for this practice.
Morris and Tonry initially identified and promoted the principled interchangeability of punishment of like cases (Morris & Tonry, 1990). According to the scholars, a comprehensive and valid justice system should apply the interchangeability of punishment; some convicted offenders should be imprisoned while others could endure the intermediate punishment regardless of the equality of cases (Morris & Tonry, 1990). Although in a contemporary legal system, all individuals are esteemed under equal conditions, Morris and Tonry (1990) stated that like cases should not receive equal punishment as a penalty depends on various factors.
The psychological factor is regarded as principal; the same punishment may affect various offenders in a considerably different way. The subjective experience of criminals based on their social background and individual characteristics should be considered as well (Ginneken & Hayes, 2016).
Nevertheless, the psychological phenomenon of attitude change over the course of a penalty and the intensified surveillance in prisons make a more positive impact on convicts than an intermediate punishment. Gaes et al. (2016) conducted the study to examine the connection between imprisonment, probation, and home arrest with recommitment. The results demonstrated that the majority of offenders sentenced to home arrest recommitted an offense while probation and imprisonment did not affect the repetition of crime (Gaes, Bales, & Scaggs, 2016). However, Morris and Tonry (1990) admit that probation is an ineffective method of punishment as it is not severe enough, and the degree of repentance is complicated for evaluation.
Although imprisonment is applied to criminals to deter them, in equal cases, the level of restriction may be reconsidered for particular offenders depending on their behavior in the course of custody. On contrary, such alternative punishment as probation will be replaced with imprisonment in case of “two or more prior felonies” or severe crime while under supervision (Semisch, 2015, p. 4). The principled interchangeability of punishment plays an essential role in case of recommitment; an individual will be imprisoned instead of receiving an intermediate punishment for a minor offense if restrictive measures are repeatedly applied (Morris & Tonry, 1990).
An intermediate punishment is economically beneficial; though it may be cost-intensive at the beginning, it will appear to be highly effective in the course of time as electronic monitoring is “less costly for the corrections administrations than imprisonment” (Andersen & Andersen, 2014, p. 349).
The principled interchangeability of punishment of like cases implicates the difference in the level of restriction for various criminals who committed equal crimes. This measure is legally applied to offenders in case of recommitment as previous sanctions proved inefficient. The psychological impact of the interchangeability remains controversial as various punitive measures differently influence offenders. In the case of minor crimes, the particular individuals recognize their guilt under an intermediate punishment while others require imprisonment for repentance. Nevertheless, probation and community control are regarded as effective methods of punishment of equal non-serious cases; these measures are less expensive comparing with prisons’ support.
References
Andersen, L. H., & Andersen, S. H. (2014). Effect of electronic monitoring on social welfare dependence. Criminology & Public Policy, 13(3), 349-379. Web.
Gaes, G. G., Bales, W. D., & Scaggs, S. J. A. (2016). The effect of imprisonment on recommitment: An analysis using exact, coarsened exact, and radius matching with the propensity score. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 12(1), 143-158. Web.
Ginneken, E. F., & Hayes, D. (2016). ‘Just’ punishment? Offenders’ views on the meaning and severity of punishment. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 17(1), 62-78. Web.
Morris, N., & Tonry, M. (1990). Between prison and probation: Toward a comprehensive punishment system [Extract]. Oxford University Press, Inc., 9-33.
Semisch, C. R. (2015). Alternative sentencing in the federal criminal justice system. Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission.