{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0106951871657754, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.591549295774648, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Social Construction of Intermediate Punishments

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.