Apart from the issue of capital punishment, punishments for crime in the first half of the 20th Century were confined primarily to imprisonment, probation, and the fine. During the next four decades, there was increasing experimentation in many countries with punishments that were less confining than imprisonment but involved a closer supervision of the offender in the community than probation normally provides. These are termed "intermediate punishments." Proponents of intermediate punishments argue that they will reduce the prison population, that they will save money, and that they will prevent crime. This paper examines each of these claims and concludes that the case for the development of intermediate punishments rests less on the value of these punishments in isolation and more on the need to create a comprehensive system of punishment characterized by sanctions graduated in severity and with more emphasis on intermediate punishments than currently exists. A comprehensive system of sanctions that relies less on incarceration than current sentencing will require more sophistication than current sentencing systems. It will require that some incarcerative and some community-based punishments be interchanged. The discussion concludes with discussion of some of the other impediments, both political and organizational, that confront those seeking to establish such a comprehensive, graduated system of criminal sanctions.