Intermediate sanctions have been said to provide judges with a wider range of sentencing options so that they might better match the severity of punishment with the seriousness of the crime, while diverting nonviolent offenders from prison without posing a risk to public safety. However, the social construction of intermediate sanctions assumes that government is a rational actor that wants to achieve just deserts and crime reduction. Intermediate sanctions such as continue to be implemented and politically justified, although these sentences do not lead to reduced recidivism or reduced prison crowding. What is worse is that the political and academic rhetoric justifying the continued use of these failed policies ignores other alternatives such as providing drug treatment for offenders sentenced to intermediate sanctions. Policy makers tend to dismiss the findings that shock incarceration and intensive supervision probation are ineffective. The result is that the findings of criminologists usually do not become part of the public policy agenda. Criminologists who want to be part of the policy process will have to spend more time becoming part of the public discourse about crime and try to influence the public's understanding of crime to create policies that reflect reasoned arguments rather than political rhetoric. Notes and 45 references (Author abstract modified)