low-grade imprisonment sanctions being available. In contrast, both the IBH researchers and Judge Alm identified the following key elements that the DFE researchers did not: the importance of HOPE being integrated into an existing probation system; the need for the sanctions regime to be supported by a corresponding continuum of treatment for participants; the importance of establishing an expedited warrant system for probationers that have absconded; and the importance of a quality assurance strategy to monitor each stakeholder’s compliance with the model. Further, the IBH researchers (notably, under the supervision of Judge Alm) also identified several key elements that the DFE researchers did not, such as the need to achieve buy-in from all stakeholders and the importance of training relevant staff (prosecutors, defence counsel, clerical staff, drug testers, law enforcement, judges and probation officers) in HOPE principles. In addition, the DFE researchers interpreted a number of the key elements of HOPE differently from how both Judge Alm and the IBH researchers interpreted them: the IBH researchers generally emphasised that sanctions (whatever they are) need to be consistent and proportionate, while the DFE researchers identified jail or confinement as the only available sanction; the IBH researchers emphasised the importance of identifying which violations are most appropriately subject to zero tolerance (which might include missed appointments), while the DFE researchers described HOPE as being characterised by SCF responses to any condition violations; and the IBH researchers described HOPE as a sanction-based program that not only punishes but also supports the offender, while the DFE researchers only focused on the punitive nature of the program (‘emphasizing the stick over the carrot’).
low-grade imprisonment sanctions being available. In contrast, both the IBH researchers and Judge Alm identified the following key elements that the DFE researchers did not: the importance of HOPE being integrated into an existing probation system; the need for the sanctions regime to be supported by a corresponding continuum of treatment for participants; the importance of establishing an expedited warrant system for probationers that have absconded; and the importance of a quality assurance strategy to monitor each stakeholder’s compliance with the model. Further, the IBH researchers (notably, under the supervision of Judge Alm) also identified several key elements that the DFE researchers did not, such as the need to achieve buy-in from all stakeholders and the importance of training relevant staff (prosecutors, defence counsel, clerical staff, drug testers, law enforcement, judges and probation officers) in HOPE principles. In addition, the DFE researchers interpreted a number of the key elements of HOPE differently from how both Judge Alm and the IBH researchers interpreted them: the IBH researchers generally emphasised that sanctions (whatever they are) need to be consistent and proportionate, while the DFE researchers identified jail or confinement as the only available sanction; the IBH researchers emphasised the importance of identifying which violations are most appropriately subject to zero tolerance (which might include missed appointments), while the DFE researchers described HOPE as being characterised by SCF responses to any condition violations; and the IBH researchers described HOPE as a sanction-based program that not only punishes but also supports the offender, while the DFE researchers only focused on the punitive nature of the program (‘emphasizing the stick over the carrot’).
SwiftCertainAndFairApproachesToSentencing.docx