Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Access Criminology and Criminal Justice journals now

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Criminal Justice Policy Review
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bondi, C. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

When Policies Conflict: Can Retributive State Policy Goals Be Met Effectively By Rehabilitative Alternative Sentencing Strategies*

Connie B. Bondi

Pennsylvania State University, Fayette

Programs do not exist in a vacuum; therefore program evaluations which ignore the outside influences that impact the program are in error. The community sentencing program discussed had a stated goal of rehabilitation yet was found to have predominantly retributive outcomes. Examination of the external influences impacting the program (state level policy and the judiciary) provided explanations for the apparent dysfunction between the program's stated goal of rehabilitation and its retributive outcomes. Both the funding agent (the state) and the judiciary viewed community sentencing as a method of making probation a more meaningful sanction. Once the program accepted the state funding, it was obligated to process the offenders the judiciary sent despite the obvious shift in correctional philosophy. As a rehabilitative program, the program failed to meet its stated goals; however, in the final analysis it was found that the program both successfully and cost-effectively met the funding agency's goal of retribution. The observed effects this shift in philosophy had upon the program counselors are briefly discussed.

Criminal Justice Policy Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, 121-132 (1991)
DOI: 10.1177/088740349100500204
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?