Final answer:
The statement regarding intermediate sanctions providing tighter control over non-incarcerated offenders is true. Intermediate sanctions are alternatives to full imprisonment and aim to balance punishment and rehabilitation for offenders, consistent with enlightened principles of justice.
Step-by-step explanation:
One of the main characteristics of intermediate sanctions is indeed tighter control over non-incarcerated offenders, and this statement can be deemed as true. Intermediate sanctions provide a range of punitive and monitoring strategies short of full-scale imprisonment, often tailored to the needs and risks associated with different types of offenders. They can include measures such as intense supervision, house arrest, electronic monitoring, mandatory community service, and drug testing, among others.
While incarceration reduces crime among high-risk offenders, it is less effective for less serious offenders or for drug offenses. The main goal of intermediate sanctions is to find a balance between the necessity to punish and rehabilitate offenders without resorting to the high costs—both economic and social—associated with imprisonment. They offer a way to enhance public safety while also aiming for the reintegration of offenders into society. The justice system strives to use enlightened methods to handle those incarcerated, as mandated by the Eighth Amendment, in a sophisticated and fair way.