Fair Sanctions to Cut Crime, Recidivism, and Improve Justice

· Updated on December 11, 2025

Fair Sanctions to Cut Crime, Recidivism, and Improve Justice

QUESTION: What general guidelines or strategies exist for effectively sanctioning all who commit crimes, reducing crime and recidivism, and improving justice?

Paper For Above Instructions

Designing sanctions that are fair, crime-reducing, and justice-enhancing is a central challenge for criminal justice systems. Research over the last several decades shows that how we sanction people matters at least as much as whether we sanction them. Below is a synthesis of general guidelines and strategies, drawn from the contemporary literature on effective corrections, policing, and legitimacy.

1. Use Evidence-Based Principles for Sanctions and Supervision

a. Follow the Risk–Need–Responsivity (RNR) model

A strong consensus in correctional research is that sanctions and treatment should be guided by the Risk–Need–Responsivity (RNR) principles:

  • Risk: Match the intensity of intervention to a person’s risk of reoffending.

  • Need: Focus on criminogenic needs (e.g., antisocial thinking, substance use, unstable employment).

  • Responsivity: Deliver primarily cognitive-behavioral interventions and adapt them to the person’s abilities, motivation, and culture. Public Safety Canada+2Corrections New Zealand+2

RNR implies that simply making punishments harsher for everyone is ineffective. Low-risk people usually need minimal supervision; over-intervening can actually increase reoffending by disrupting prosocial ties.

b. Prioritize rehabilitation that works

Meta-analyses show that cognitive-behavioral programs (CBT) for people who offend can reduce recidivism by roughly 20–30% compared with controls when well implemented. Office of Justice Programs+3PMC+3ScienceDirect+3

Guidelines emerging from this work include:

  • Use structured, skills-based programs that target thinking patterns, emotion regulation, and problem-solving.

  • Ensure program integrity: trained staff, adequate dosage, and fidelity monitoring.

  • Emphasize community-based services and reentry supports rather than relying solely on custodial sanctions. Office of Justice Programs+1

Sanctions that incorporate these elements—such as problem-solving courts, mandated CBT, and treatment-oriented probation—are more likely to reduce repeat offending than purely punitive approaches.

2. Target Crime Strategically Rather Than Punishing Broadly

a. Focus enforcement on high-risk people and places

Policing research shows that crime is heavily concentrated in “hot spots”—small areas that account for a disproportionate share of offenses. Hot spots policing, which concentrates patrols and problem-solving in these locations, produces significant reductions in crime and disorder in most evaluations, especially when interventions are problem-oriented rather than purely enforcement-heavy. ResearchGate+4Psicothema+4college.police.uk+4

Similarly, focused deterrence strategies (such as Group Violence Intervention) identify high-risk individuals or groups and combine:

  • Clear communication about legal consequences

  • Swift, certain responses to serious violations

  • Offers of assistance (employment, treatment, relocation)

A meta-analysis finds that focused deterrence is associated with moderate, statistically significant reductions in crime, especially violence. PMC

These strategies suggest a guideline: concentrate sanctions on the highest risks and most harmful behaviors, not on sweeping minor offenses into the system.

b. Use alternatives to incarceration where appropriate

Because imprisonment has high social and fiscal costs and mixed effects on recidivism, guidelines increasingly favor:

  • Diversion for low-risk, low-level offenses

  • Community supervision with conditions tied to RNR principles

  • Graduated sanctions that respond proportionally to violations

This approach preserves the ability to use custody for serious and violent crimes while reducing unnecessary incarceration that can worsen long-term outcomes.

3. Build Procedural Justice and Legitimacy

Reducing crime is not only about threats of punishment; it is also about people’s willingness to obey the law voluntarily. Procedural justice theory shows that when people experience authorities as fair, respectful, and unbiased—and when they feel they have a voice—they are more likely to see the law as legitimate and comply with it. PMC+5Yale Law School+5JSTOR+5

Guidelines from this literature include:

  • Treat all people with dignity, regardless of their alleged offense.

  • Explain decisions and processes clearly.

  • Allow individuals to tell their side of the story.

  • Apply rules consistently across groups.

These practices matter in policing, courts, and corrections. Fair process can improve cooperation with investigations, compliance with court orders, and success on supervision—thus indirectly reducing crime and recidivism while enhancing perceptions of justice.

4. Incorporate Restorative and Problem-Solving Approaches

Restorative justice practices—such as victim–offender mediation and conferences—aim to repair harm, give victims a meaningful voice, and encourage offenders to take responsibility. A recent meta-analysis finds that restorative programs produce small but significant reductions in general recidivism and often high victim satisfaction. SAGE Journals

Similarly, problem-solving courts (drug courts, mental health courts, veterans courts) integrate treatment, judicial oversight, and incentives. Syntheses of interventions highlight that well-designed drug courts and structured group counseling can outperform traditional processing in reducing reoffending. Office of Justice Programs

Guidelines here include:

  • Use restorative options when victims are willing and cases are suitable.

  • Tailor problem-solving courts to specific needs (substance use, mental illness) with strong links to services.

  • Maintain accountability through clear goals and graduated responses to non-compliance.

These strategies can complement traditional sanctions by promoting healing and addressing root causes of offending.

5. Ensure Proportionality, Consistency, and Transparency

To “sanction all who commit crimes” without undermining justice, systems must avoid arbitrary or excessive punishment. General principles drawn from legal and empirical work include:

  • Proportionality: Punishments should reflect the seriousness of the offense and the individual’s culpability, not just political pressure.

  • Consistency and non-discrimination: Similar cases should receive similar sanctions, with safeguards against racial or socioeconomic bias.

  • Transparency and review: Sentencing guidelines, risk tools, and program criteria should be open to public scrutiny and regular evaluation.

Research on RNR and procedural justice underscores that clear, rule-governed decision-making improves both effectiveness and legitimacy. Post California+3Public Safety Canada+3Corrections New Zealand+3

6. Support Reentry and Desistance

Finally, reducing recidivism requires attention to the transition from sanction back to community. Evidence-based guidelines emphasize:

These supports align with the “desistance” perspective, which views people as capable of change when given meaningful opportunities and prosocial bonds.

Conclusion

The literature suggests that effective, just sanctioning is not about punishing everyone more harshly. Instead, systems should:

  1. Apply RNR-guided, rehabilitative sanctions that target criminogenic needs.

  2. Use strategic policing and prosecution (hot spots, focused deterrence) rather than blanket enforcement.

  3. Build procedural justice and legitimacy in all interactions.

  4. Incorporate restorative and problem-solving approaches where appropriate.

  5. Maintain proportional, consistent, transparent punishment structures.

  6. Provide robust reentry supports that enable desistance.

When these guidelines are followed, jurisdictions are more likely to sanction fairly, reduce crime and recidivism, and move closer to a genuinely just criminal justice system.

References (APA – 10 sources)

Beaudry, G., Yu, R., Långström, N., & Fazel, S. (2021). Effectiveness of psychological interventions in prison to reduce recidivism: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Psychiatry, 8(9), 759–773. PMC

Braga, A. A., Weisburd, D., & Turchan, B. (2019). Focused deterrence strategies and crime control: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 15(3–4), e1049. PMC

Hough, M. (2010). Procedural justice, trust, and institutional legitimacy. Policing, 4(3), 203–210. SLCDocs

Li, J. C. M., et al. (2024). Police legitimacy and procedural justice for children and youth: A systematic review. Children and Youth Services Review, 159, 107134. PMC

Lipsey, M. W., Landenberger, N. A., & Wilson, S. (2007). Effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for criminal offenders: A meta-analysis. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 3(6). Wiley Online Library

Public Safety Canada. (2022). Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation. Government of Canada. Public Safety Canada

Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37(3), 513–548. JSTOR

Taxman, F. S. (2006). Risk, need, and responsivity (RNR): It all depends. Crime & Delinquency, 52(1), 28–51. PMC

Turchan, B., et al. (2024). The effects of hot spots policing on violence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 74, 101940. ScienceDirect

Yesberg, J. A., et al. (2024). Fairness in policing: How does internal procedural justice influence officers’ behavior? Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice. Advance online publication. 

← Back to blog