Please respond to all the following:
1- Intensive supervision programs are more restrictive and provide much greater oversight of and contact with offenders. One result from this closer supervision is that more technical violations are discovered. As a result, a higher percentage of ISP offenders fail to complete their supervision. If a goal of ISP is to keep offenders out of prison, what should officers and courts do in response to technical violations?
2- Considerable research has supported the practice of reserving intensive supervision, especially electronic monitoring and GPS, for high risk offenders. The intensive supervision or treatment of low risk offenders is associated with worse outcomes for those offenders. Therefore, the targeting of appropriate offenders for intensive supervision programs is critical. What criteria do you think are important to consider when determining whether a specific offender is appropriate for such supervision? Are there any factors that should exclude an offender from intensive supervision? Why are these important and what should be the alternative form of supervision for these offenders? Remember that an important goal for these programs is to reduce the use of incarceration.
3- Despite the considerable evidence that boot camp graduates do not have lower recidivism rates, such programs remain popular with some politicians and the public. Why do you think this is the case? What explains the disconnect between research on the value of these programs and continuing support for them?