Assignment
Flo20thebest
Chapter9Corr.pptxChapter 9: Community Corrections: Parole and Prisoner Reentry
Stohr, Corrections: The Essentials 3e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
What Is Parole?
Origin is French “parole d’honneur,” or “word of honor.”
Historically used in European and U.S. military conflict to conditionally release prisoners of war.
Modern parole:
Parole: The release of prisoners from prison before completing their full sentences.
Two basic ways parole differs from probation:
Parole is an executive function, not judicial.
Parolees have spent time in prison.
2
9.1: State the history and purpose of parole.
Parole: The release of prisoners from prison before completing their full sentences.
Parolees are under the supervision of a parole officer.
Two basic ways it differs from probation:
Parole is an administrative function practiced by a parole board (the executive branch of government).
Probation is a judicial function.
Parolees have spent time in prison before release into the community.
Probationers typically haven’t spent any time in prison.
Probation officers and parole officers may be the same or different roles, depending on the state.
2
Stohr, Corrections: The Essentials 3e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
Brief History of Parole (1 of 5)
Alexander Maconochie
Superintendent of Norfolk Island penal colony, Australia (1830s).
Operated on three basic principles:
Cruel and vindictive punishment harms the criminal and society.
Punishment should only be to reform the convict.
Sentences seen as tasks to be performed.
This system required indefinite prison terms, so prisoners would be incentivized to work towards release.
3
9.1: State the history and purpose of parole.
Alexander Maconochie
Superintendent of Norfolk Island penal colony (Australia, 1830s).
Operated on three basic principles:
Cruel and vindictive punishment debases both the criminal and society that allows it, making both worse.
Purpose of punishment should only be reformation of convict.
Sentences should be seen in term of tasks to be performed by convict.
Required indefinite prison terms to implement his programs, so prisoners would have an incentive to work towards release.
3
Stohr, Corrections: The Essentials 3e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
Brief History of Parole (2 of 5)
Alexander Maconochie
Realist: Knew retribution was necessary to deter criminals and incapacitation may just be a “hold” on a criminal career.
Goal of corrections is teaching virtue.
Devised a mark system which awarded credits for good behavior and task completion.
Ticket of leave (TOL) given to those with enough marks.
TOLs granted freedom to work, marry, and acquire property, but church/court appearance was mandatory.
4
9.1: State the history and purpose of parole.
Devised a mark system which awarded credits for the speedy and efficient performance of tasks and good behavior.
Accumulation of enough credits allowed for a ticket of leave (TOL).
TOLs granted freedom to live and work outside prison prior to expiration of sentence.
TOL convicts could work, acquire property, and marry.
However, they needed to appear before a magistrate whenever required and church attendance was mandatory.
Only 20 of 900 TOL convicts under Maconochie’s watch were convicted of new felonies, a recidivism rate of just 2.2%.
When Maconochie returned to England and attempted to institute these reforms, he was dismissed for coddling criminals.
4
Stohr, Corrections: The Essentials 3e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
Brief History of Parole (3 of 5)
Walter Crofton
Irish system: Prison system used in the 1850s which consisted of four stages.
Stage 1: 9-month solitary confinement, with reduced rations and no work for the first 3 months.
Stage 2: Convict could earn good marks through labor and good behavior.
Stage 3: Enough good marks enabled transfer to open prerelease prison.
Stage 4: Ticket of leave could be obtained by convict
5
9.1: State the history and purpose of parole.
Stage 1: Solitary confinement for first nine months.
First three months: reduced rations and no work.
Strictly enforced idleness presumed to make even the laziest men eager to work.
Stage 2: Could earn marks through labor and good behavior.
Stage 3: Enough good marks enabled transfer to an open prerelease prison.
Stage 4: Ticket of leave could be obtained by convict.
TOL convicts were supervised in the community by police officers or civilian volunteers.
Supervisors visited their homes and attempted to secure employment for them.
5
Stohr, Corrections: The Essentials 3e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
Brief History of Parole (4 of 5)
Zebulon Brockway
Elements of both systems brought to practice in the United States in the 1870s.
Brockway was Superintendent of Elmira Reformatory (NY).
System required indeterminate sentencing:
“Good time” earned through good conduct could reduce inmate sentence.
6
9.1: State the history and purpose of parole.
Brought elements of both systems into practice in the United States during the 1870s.
Superintendent of Elmira Reformatory (NY).
System required indeterminate sentencing.
“Good time” earned through good conduct could reduce inmate sentences.
6
Stohr, Corrections: The Essentials 3e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
Brief History of Parole (5 of 5)
No provisions for offenders receiving early release until establishment of U.S. Parole Board in 1930.
Parole soon became essential and valued part of American system.
View of parole has changed from its origins to recent history to the present:
Originally: humanistic, reform-oriented.
Recent history: a way of maintaining order in prisons by making early release possible for good behavior.
At present: a reintegration program and partial solution to prison overcrowding.
7
9.1: State the history and purpose of parole.
No provisions for offenders receiving early release until establishment of U.S. Board of Parole in 1930.
Parole soon became an essential and valued part of the American system, but the view of it changed.
Originally a humanistic method of dealing with “reformed” individuals.
Became a way of maintaining order in prisons by holding out the prospect of early release for good behavior.
Has also become somewhat of a reintegration program, and a partial solution to prison overcrowding.
7
Stohr, Corrections: The Essentials 3e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
The Modern Parole System (1 of 5)
874,800 state and federal parolees in 2016.
87% men.
45% White, 38% Black, 15% Hispanic, 2% other.
Increases in crime rates from the 1970s to early 1990s, especially by probationers and parolees, led to “tough on crime” approaches.
Richard Davis: Polly Klaas kidnapping, rape, and murder; Davis was on mandatory parole.
Jesse Timmendequas: Megan Kanka kidnapping, rape and murder; he was also on mandatory parole.
Willie Horton’s furlough crime spree: armed robbery, rape, and assault.
8
9.2: Identify the difference between mandatory and discretionary parole and how they both differ from unconditional release.
Number of parolees incarcerated for drug offenses has fallen, but these offenses remain a major reason for the United States’ high incarceration rate.
Increases in crime rates from the 1970s to early 1990s, many committed by probationers or parolees.
Led to “tough on crime” approaches.
High profile cases led to calls for the abolition of parole from a fearful public:
Richard Davis kidnapped, raped, and murdered 13-year-old Polly Klaas.
Jesse Timmendequas kidnapped, raped, and murdered 7-year-old Megan Kanka.
Willie Horton was serving a life sentence for murder, but was granted a weekend furlough (temporary leave of absence) in which he committed an armed robbery, a rape, and an assault.
8
Stohr, Corrections: The Essentials 3e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
The Modern Parole System (2 of 5)
Federal government and number of states abolished parole.
Unconditional release: Unsupervised release for inmates who have completed their entire sentences.
Discretionary parole: Parole granted to parole board-selected inmates.
In some states, this was abolished in favor of mandatory parole.
Gives parole board discretion to assess risk to society based on several factors.
9
9.2: Identify the difference between mandatory and discretionary parole and how they both differ from unconditional release.
The federal government and a number of states abolished parole.
Means prisoners are unconditionally released after the completion of their sentences without supervision or reporting requirements.
Unconditional release: A type of release from prison for inmates who have completed their entire sentences. They are released unconditionally—with no parole.
Prisons can still grant early releases for overcrowding and budgetary concerns, but due to abolishment of parole there is much less rational control today over who is released.
Discretionary parole: Parole granted at the discretion of a parole board for selected inmates who have earned it.
In some states, this is what was really abolished in favor of mandatory parole.
Parole is earned by avoiding disciplinary infractions and engaging in programs that prepare them for reentry into the community.
Allows parole board members to assess the probability of a given offender’s risk to society based on:
The crime for which an offender was incarcerated.
Criminal history.
Prison behavior.
Psychological assessments.
9
Stohr, Corrections: The Essentials 3e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
The Modern Parole System (3 of 5)
Mandatory parole: Automatic parole after a set period for nearly all inmates.
Used by federal government and half the states.
Provisions for earning good time.
Parole granted due to a calculation based only on time served.
Percentage of mandatory parole releases are dropping, discretionary parole releases are increasing.
Reverses trend from 1980 to 1999.
Discretionary parolees more likely to complete parole.
10
9.2: Identify the difference between mandatory and discretionary parole and how they both differ from unconditional release.
Used by federal government and half the states.
Still has provisions for earning good time.
Davis and Timmendequas were released due to mandatory parole.
Parole granted as the result of a mathematical norm calculated solely on the basis of time served.
Percentage of mandatory parole releases are dropping, discretionary parole releases are increasing.
In 2012, 41% entered parole through discretionary release versus 35% that entered through mandatory release.
Discretionary parolees have a higher chance of completion (52% in 1999) compared to mandatory parolees (32%), a discrepancy which has persisted until at least 2008.
Reverses trend from 1980 to 1999.
Both types are supervised post-release.
Unconditionally released inmates (17–18%) are unsupervised.
10
Stohr, Corrections: The Essentials 3e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
The Modern Parole System (4 of 5)
Parolee Recidivism
Langin and Levin (2002):
300,000 parolees from 15 states, released in 1994.
Within 3 years: 67.5% rearrested.
Property offenders had highest rates (over 70%).
Murderers (40.7%) and sex offenders (41.4%) had lowest recidivism rates.
Durose, Cooper, and Snyder (2014):
Similar results, plus more data.
36.8% of rearrested prisoners were arrested in the first 6 months, and 56.7% within 1 year.
16.1% of prisoners responsible for 48.4% of arrests.
11
9.2: Identify the difference between mandatory and discretionary parole and how they both differ from unconditional release.
Langin and Levin study (2002) followed 300,000 parolees from 15 states released from prison in 1994.
Within 3 years of release, 67.5% were rearrested for new offenses.
744,000 new offenses including 2,871 murders, 2,444 rapes, 21,245 robberies, and 54,604 assaults.
Property offenders had the highest recidivism rate (more than 70%).
Murderers (40.7%) and sex offenders (41.4%) had the lowest recidivism.
Rates reflect any new crime committed, not necessarily the same crime they served time for.
Durose, Cooper, and Snyder (2014) showed almost identical results, plus:
More than a third (36.8%) of all prisoners arrested within the first 5 years after release were arrested in the first 6 months.
More than half (56.7%) were arrested in the first year.
42.3% of prisoners were either not arrested or arrested only once during the 5 years after release.
16.1% of released prisoners were responsible for nearly half (48.4%) of the 1.2 million arrests in the sample during the 5-year follow-up period.
10.9% of prisoners were arrested in different states from the ones they served time in.
11
Stohr, Corrections: The Essentials 3e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
The Modern Parole System (5 of 5)
Parolee Recidivism
Solomon, Kachnowski, and Bhati (2005).
Average number of prior arrests: Discretionary parolees (7.5), unconditional release (9.6), and mandatory (9.5).
Rearrest rates were on average 9.9 months for unconditional release, 10.4 months for mandatory parolees, and 11.5 for discretionary.
Time served averaged 18.5 months (mandatory), 21.3 months (discretionary), and 32 months (unconditional release.)
Supervision vital in early stages of release.
Mandatory parole release forms have fairly standard conditions, set by the parole board and enforced by parole officers.
12
9.2: Identify the difference between mandatory and discretionary parole and how they both differ from unconditional release.
Solomon, Kachnowski, and Bhati (2005) analyzed a subset of 38,624 parolees for whom the type of release was known.
Few differences between the groups.
Average number of prior arrests was lowest for discretionary release parolees (7.5) and highest for unconditionally released parolees (9.6) and mandatory parolees (9.5).
Rearrest rates were an average of 9.9 months after release for unconditionally released parolees, 10.4 months for mandatory parolees, and 11.5 months for discretionary parolees.
Time served ranged from averages of 18.5 months (mandatory parolees) to 21.3 months (discretionary parolees) and 32 months (unconditional releases.)
Supervision is vital early in the parole process, as criminals are most susceptible to returning to crime while they are trying to reestablish themselves.
Mandatory parole release forms have fairly standard conditions in most states, indistinguishable from conditions set for probationers. Some conditions:
Requiring addicts to attend recovery programs.
Requiring sex offenders to avoid contact with children or accessing pornography.
Conditions are typically set by parole boards or individual parole officers, and are enforced by parole officers.
12
Stohr, Corrections: The Essentials 3e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
Parole Boards (1 of 2)
Parole board: Panel qualified to make judgments about to suitability of a prisoner to be released after time served.
Members appointed by governor for fixed term in most states.
Some require criminology/corrections background.
Many serve part-time for minimal salaries and per diem.
Chairpersons and vice-chairpersons full-time salaried.
Parole eligibility date: the earliest possible date of release for an inmate.
13
9.3: Describe the roles and duties of the parole board and parole board members.
Only required in states that employ discretionary system.
Parole board: A panel of people presumably qualified to make judgments about the suitability of a prisoner to be released from prison after having served some specified time of his or her sentence.
Members typically appointed by the governor for fixed (renewable) terms.
Some states require expertise in criminology and corrections.
Many serve part-time and collect minimal salaries and per diem expenses.
Chairpersons and vice chairpersons are full-time and salaried in nearly all states.
Inmate’s parole eligibility date: the earliest possible time an inmate can be released from prison.
13
Stohr, Corrections: The Essentials 3e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
Parole Boards (2 of 2)
Board decides to grant parole after:
Assessing a variety of information about inmate.
Interviewing them at hearing.
Gaining face-to-face insight about inmate.
Considering other factors like crime, history, mental health, behavior, and repentance.
Can never be certain who will succeed or fail, so parole boards are likely to err on side of caution.
14
9.3: Describe the roles and duties of the parole board and parole board members.
Making the decision to grant parole requires board members to:
Assess a variety of information about inmate.
Interview him/her at the hearing.
Gain face-to-face insight about inmate.
Considerations:
Nature of offense.
Criminal history.
Indications that inmate is repentant.
Mental health status (per psychological and psychiatric reports).
Presentence investigation report.
Reports of institutional conduct (disciplinary actions and program participation).
Parole plan.
Supporting or opposing statements.
Some members wield more influence in decision making process.
Can never be certain who will succeed or fail on parole, but boards are likely to err on side of caution.
14
Stohr, Corrections: The Essentials 3e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
What Goes in Must Come Out: Prisoner Reentry into the Community (1 of 9)
Prison reentry according to Travis (2005):
Process of leaving prison and returning to society.
Not form of supervision (parole), goal (rehabilitation), or an option.
Reflects iron law of imprisonment: “They all come back” to the community.
Understanding process is pressing issue in corrections.
Unless they die or abscond, offenders are eventually released.
One in five leave with no post-release supervision.
15
9.4: Explain the issues involved in successful prisoner reentry into the community.
Prison reentry according to Travis (2005):
Process of leaving prison and returning to society.
Not a form of supervision (parole), goal (rehabilitation), or option.
Reflects iron law of imprisonment: “They all come back,” or return to their communities.
Understanding the process is a pressing issue in corrections.
457,100 adult offenders entered American prisons in 2016 and 456,000 left.
Except for those who die in prison or abscond, all eventually are released.
One in five leave with no post-release supervision.
15
Stohr, Corrections: The Essentials 3e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
What Goes in Must Come Out: Prisoner Reentry into the Community (2 of 9)
On average, parolees more prone to criminal lifestyles and will necessarily be more difficult to supervise.
The longer people remain in prison, harder it is to adjust to outside world.
Inmate code defines as right almost everything that is wrong on outside.
Over time code becomes etched in.
Release from prison is release from comfort zone.
16
9.4: Explain the issues involved in successful prisoner reentry into the community.
Parole is more a legal status than a systematic reintegration process.
On average, parolees are more prone to criminal lifestyles.
Should be expected to be more difficult to supervise.
The longer people remain in prison, the harder it is to adjust to outside world.
Inmate code defines as right almost everything that is wrong on outside.
Over time code becomes etched in.
Release from prison releases them from comfort zone.
16
Stohr, Corrections: The Essentials 3e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
What Goes in Must Come Out: Prisoner Reentry into the Community (3 of 9)
“Prisonization” is the internalization of prison culture.
To reduce prisonization, some suggest reducing the length of sentences.
People who serve shorter sentences are already less likely to commit further crimes because they typically committed less serious crimes in the first place.
17
9.4: Explain the issues involved in successful prisoner reentry into the community.
Prisonization: the internalization of prison’s culture.
Some propose we reduce length of prison sentences.
Others point out that people who commit less serious crimes serve shorter sentences and are already less likely to commit further crimes.
17
Stohr, Corrections: The Essentials 3e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
What Goes in Must Come Out: Prisoner Reentry into the Community (4 of 9)
The Impact of Imprisonment and Reentry on Communities
Crime highly concentrated in certain neighborhoods.
Disproportionate number of criminals come from and go back to those neighborhoods.
High incarceration rates may reduce crime for short period, but afterwards weakened families and communities lead to higher crime rates.
18
9.4: Explain the issues involved in successful prisoner reentry into the community.
Crime is highly concentrated in certain neighborhoods.
Disproportionate numbers of criminal come from and go back to those neighborhoods.
High incarceration rates may reduce crime for short periods, but this strategy only provides temporary reprieve.
Eventually leads to higher crime rates due to weakening of families and communities.
Loss of individuals concentrated in certain communities can lead to more crime than would have occurred had they remained due to:
Low community organization and cohesion.
Social and economic disruption.
18
Stohr, Corrections: The Essentials 3e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
What Goes in Must Come Out: Prisoner Reentry into the Community (5 of 9)
The Impact of Imprisonment and Reentry on Communities
Clear, Rose, and Ryder interviews (2001):
When public control (incarceration) occurs and high levels, private (informal) control decreases, leading to overall increase in crime.
Mumola (2000) skeptical of claims that removing antisocial fathers weakens private control in communities.
Moffit (2005) found presence of criminal fathers in the home increases antisocial behavior in children.
19
9.4: Explain the issues involved in successful prisoner reentry into the community.
Mumola (2000) studied incarcerated parents and their children to examine the financial impact of removing working fathers from the community.
48% of imprisoned parents never married.
28% divorced or separate.
Few men lived with their children before imprisonment.
Majority convicted of violent or drug crimes.
85% of the incarcerated had drug problems.
These figures make it difficult to believe Clear, Rose, and Ryder’s assertion; does the presence of antisocial fathers is a community really contribute to private control?
Moffitt (2005) performed a longitudinal study of 1,116 British families that showed the presence of a criminal father in the household strongly predicted antisocial behavior in his children.
These effects were stronger the more time he spent with the family.
Other studies support this suggestion. Children are already genetically more likely to behave antisocially, but the presence of an antisocial father modeling antisocial behaviors adds an extra layer of risk.
19
Stohr, Corrections: The Essentials 3e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
What Goes in Must Come Out: Prisoner Reentry into the Community (6 of 9)
What Makes for a Successful Reentry
Reentry is a process.
Target offenders need programming for successful reentry.
Reality is less treatment and programming options available today.
U.S. Department of Justice (Solomon et al., 2004) proposes three programmatic phases believed necessary for successful reentry.
20
9.4: Explain the issues involved in successful prisoner reentry into the community.
Reentry is a process.
One part of that process is preparing offenders to reenter through programming that targets their needs.
Reality is less treatment and programming options are available today.
20
Stohr, Corrections: The Essentials 3e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
What Goes in Must Come Out: Prisoner Reentry into the Community (7 of 9)
What Makes for a Successful Reentry
Phase 1 – Protect and Prepare:
Use of institution-based programs designed to prepare for reentry to society.
Phase 2 – Control and Restore:
Use of community-based transition programs to work with offenders prior to and immediately following release.
Phase 3 – Sustain and Support:
Use of community-based long-term support programs designed to connect offenders no longer under supervision.
21
9.4: Explain the issues involved in successful prisoner reentry into the community.
United States Department of Justice proposes three programmatic phases of reentry:
Phase 1: Protect and Prepare. Use of institution-based programs designed to prepare for reentry to society.
Phase 2: Control and Restore. Use of community-based transition programs to work with offenders prior to and immediately following release.
Phase 3: Sustain and Support. Use of community-based long term support programs designed to connect offenders no longer under supervision.
21
Stohr, Corrections: The Essentials 3e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
What Goes in Must Come Out: Prisoner Reentry into the Community (8 of 9)
What Makes for a Successful Reentry
Success in phase 1: Offenders must apply themselves to programs offered and make conscious decision crime is not for them.
Success in phase 2: Implementing choices learned in phase 1 in the real world, without getting sidetracked by crime or frustration.
Success in phase 3: Important to assist placing offenders in outside agencies that can address needs, especially employment and education.
22
9.4: Explain the issues involved in successful prisoner reentry into the community.
To succeed in Phase 1, offenders must apply themselves to programming offered to them and make a conscious decision that crime is not for them.
To succeed in Phase 2, offenders have to implement decisions from Phase 1 in the real world and cannot get sidetracked by frustrations or crime.
To succeed in Phase 3, it is important that community corrections officers assist in placing offenders in outside agencies that can address needs.
Some needs are more significant than others:
Most important tool is employment.
Prospects are usually limited unless education can be obtained.
22
Stohr, Corrections: The Essentials 3e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
What Goes in Must Come Out: Prisoner Reentry into the Community (9 of 9)
Determining Parole “Success”
Difficult to define due to no agreed upon standard: differing definitions result in a success rate of just 19% in Utah but 83% in Massachusetts.
More conservative states have stricter standards of success.
Success has more to do with the behaviors of parole authorities than parolees.
23
9.4: Explain the issues involved in successful prisoner reentry into the community.
Difficult to define due to no agreed upon standard. Is it:
A completed crime-free or technical violation-free period of parole?
The offender being released without a return to prison, despite their behavior on parole?
States define it differently: Utah and Massachusetts criminals had parole “success” rates of 19% and 83%, respectively, in 1999.
More conservative jurisdictions have more conservative measures of success.
Success has a lot to do with the behavior of the parole authorities.
23
Stohr, Corrections: The Essentials 3e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
Parole Violations and Graduated Sanctions (1 of 7)
States increasingly reluctant to reincarcerate for minor infractions.
Parole officers can restructure conditions of parole without a formal hearing for Severity Level I or II infractions.
Level III or IV violations lead to revocation.
Seiter and Kadela (2003) examined reentry programs including halfway houses, work release, and treatment programs.
Most effective programs are concrete programs that increase workforce skills and intensive drug programs.
Community programs more effective than prison-based.
24
9.5: Compare and contrast halfway houses, house arrest, electronic monitoring, and global positioning devices.
Increased reluctance of states to reincarcerate offenders for minor infractions
Parole officers can restructure conditions of parole without a formal hearing for any Severity Level I or II infraction. Level III or IV violations automatically lead to revocation in almost all circumstances.
Seiter and Kadela (2003) examined various reentry programs:
Transitional community programs:
Halfway houses.
Work release.
Treatment program for deficits like drug dependency, low education, poor life skills.
Programs that work best are concrete programs providing offenders with a competitive skillset for the workforce and intensive drug programs.
Community programs are more effective than prison-based programs.
24
Stohr, Corrections: The Essentials 3e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
Parole Violations and Graduated Sanctions (2 of 7)
Halfway Houses
Halfway houses: Transitional places of residence for clients “halfway” between prison and community supervision.
Earliest houses run by private charitable organizations: Earliest home in NYC (1845), founded by Quaker abolitionist Isaac T. Hopper.
Federal and state governments adopted principles as good idea
A transition or intermediate point.
Federal prison system releases about 80% of inmates to them.
25
9.5: Compare and contrast halfway houses, house arrest, electronic monitoring, and global positioning devices.
Halfway houses (community residential centers): Transitional places of residence for correctional clients who are “halfway” between the constant supervision of prison and the much looser supervision in the community.
Early halfway houses organized and run by private religious and charitable organizations.
Earliest home established in New York City, NY (1845) by Quaker abolitionist Isaac T. Hopper.
Federal and state governments adopted Hopper’s principles as a good idea.
Many states use them as transition points between prison and full release.
Federal prison system releases about 80% of inmates to them.
May serve as intermediate sanction for offenders.
25
Stohr, Corrections: The Essentials 3e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
Parole Violations and Graduated Sanctions (3 of 7)
Halfway Houses
Operated by corrections or faith-based organizations; offenders still under jurisdiction of authorities.
Assumptions of cost-cutting legislatures:
Public safety at fraction of cost, and allows offender to remain in community to “earn their keep.”
Reduces recidivism and gives offenders a home.
Marion (2002)
Finds increased correctional budget, not decreased.
High recidivism (10.8–50.6%) and unsuccessful release rates.
26
9.5: Compare and contrast halfway houses, house arrest, electronic monitoring, and global positioning devices.
Rationale that individuals with multiple problems have better chance at success if placed in centers where they will be strictly monitored while obtaining services.
Currently, may be operated by corrections personnel or faith-based organizations.
Residents remain under control of probation/parole authorities and may be removed if they violate parole.
Views of cost-conscious legislatures:
These community-based alternatives are merely “prison lite,” offering public safety at a fraction of the cost of incarceration.
Allows offender to remain in community to earn their own keep with employment.
Assumed to reduce recidivism.
Provide housing (and therefore an address for employment purposes) for those who may be homeless.
Marion (2002) questions these assumptions.
Increased correctional budgets, not decreased.
Halfway houses often admit individuals that would not have gone to prison anyway.
High rates of unsuccessful release.
10.8–50.6% recidivism rate.
26
Stohr, Corrections: The Essentials 3e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
Parole Violations and Graduated Sanctions (4 of 7)
Halfway Houses
Lowenkamp and Latessa (2002) found community programs were mostly effective.
No benefit to low-risk offenders.
Substantially reduces recidivism in medium-/high-risk offenders.
May et al. (2005)
“Experienced” criminal offenders rated halfway houses as nearly as punitive as prison.
High responsibility level is unappealing.
27
9.5: Compare and contrast halfway houses, house arrest, electronic monitoring, and global positioning devices.
Lowenkamp and Latessa (2002) performed a comprehensive examination of 38 facilities in Ohio.
Found that community-based programs were mostly effective.
Of no use for low-risk offenders.
Reduce recidivism substantially for medium- and high-risk offenders.
Should not be viewed as “coddling” criminals.
Viewed as nearly as punitive as prison to “experienced” criminal offenders due to high levels of responsibility.
27
Stohr, Corrections: The Essentials 3e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
Parole Violations and Graduated Sanctions (5 of 7)
House Arrest, Electronic Monitoring, and Global Positioning Systems
House arrest: Requires offender to remain in their home aside from approved activities.
Initial phase of intensive probation/parole supervision or an alternative to pretrial detention/jail.
Initially impossible to assure compliance.
Gained popularity after electronic monitoring.
28
9.5: Compare and contrast halfway houses, house arrest, electronic monitoring, and global positioning devices.
House arrest: Program that requires offenders to remain in their homes except for approved periods to travel to work, school, or other approved destinations.
Used as an initial phase of intensive probation or parole supervision or as an alternative to pretrial detention or jail.
Initially not widely accepted due to lack of ability to assure offender compliance.
Gained popularity after advent of electronic monitoring.
28
Stohr, Corrections: The Essentials 3e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
Parole Violations and Graduated Sanctions (6 of 7)
House Arrest, Electronic Monitoring, and Global Positioning Systems
Electronic monitoring (EM): Computerized technology used to monitor offenders under house arrest for compliance.
Global positioning system (GPS) monitoring: Supervision method where probationers and parolees are tracked via satellite.
More sophisticated; used for surveillance and detention.
28 states required EM for sex offenders in 2007.
29
9.5: Compare and contrast halfway houses, house arrest, electronic monitoring, and global positioning devices.
Electronic monitoring (EM): A system by which an offender under house arrest can be monitored for compliance using computerized technology such as an electronic device worn around the offender’s ankle.
Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring: A system of probation and parole supervision whereby probationers and parolees are required to wear tracking units that can be monitored by satellites.
More sophisticated.
Can be used for surveillance as well as detention.
28 states had legislation calling for some form of EM for sex offenders in 2007.
29
Stohr, Corrections: The Essentials 3e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
Parole Violations and Graduated Sanctions (7 of 7)
House Arrest, Electronic Monitoring, and Global Positioning Systems
Detractors criticize EM as intrusive:
Far less so than prison and often preferred.
Additional problem is low cost:
Appealing to politicians who may not consider which offenders should be eligible.
Significant impact on overcrowding.
European nations have used EM to ease burden of overcrowding over last 20 years.
30
9.5: Compare and contrast halfway houses, house arrest, electronic monitoring, and global positioning devices.
Detractors criticize EM as intruding too much into privacy.
Far less intrusive than prison, and preferred to prison by many offenders.
Additional problem is low cost of EM relative to incarceration.
Appealing to politicians; sometimes used without sufficient care as to who should be eligible for it.
High-profile crimes have been committed by individuals who succeeded in removing electronic bracelets.
Seems to have significant impact on prison overcrowding and reduction of costs when used in place of incarceration.
Several European nations have turned to EM to ease burden of overcrowded prisons over past two decades.
30
Stohr, Corrections: The Essentials 3e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
Concluding Remarks on Reentry and Recidivism
Reentry is difficult process.
Correctional work premised on assumption people can change.
Joan Petersilia’s (2004) suggestions:
Intensive community settings that use cognitive-behavioral treatment techniques and positive reinforcement on high-risk individuals.
Careful therapist/program matching.
Vocational training.
Projected recidivism reduction of 30%.
31
9.5: Compare and contrast halfway houses, house arrest, electronic monitoring, and global positioning devices.
Reentry is a difficult process.
Correctional work is premised on assumption that people can change.
Joan Petersilia (2004) made suggestions for successful reentry programs:
Community settings.
Intensive (6 months or more).
Focus on high-risk individuals.
Use cognitive-behavioral treatment techniques.
Careful therapist and program-matching with offenders.
Vocational training.
Positive reinforcement.
She believes these programs could reduce recidivism by 30%.
31
Stohr, Corrections: The Essentials 3e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
Legal Issues in Parole
Originally thought probationers/parolees weren’t entitled to procedural due process.
Mempa v. Rhay (1967): Probationers facing revocation can challenge evidence.
Morrissey v. Brewer (1972): Defendants entitled to some due process rights.
Liberty interest: Interest in freedom from governmental deprivation of liberty without due process.
Probationers/parolees waive search and seizure rights, but seized evidence can only be used for revocation (not a new case.)
32
9.6: State the legal challenges faced related to parole.
Mempa v. Rhay (1967).
Supreme Court ruled probationers facing revocation of parole should have the opportunity to challenge evidence:
Cross-examining state witnesses (typically just the probation officer).
Presenting exculpatory witnesses.
Testifying themselves.
Morrissey v. Brewer (1972).
Liberty interest: An interest in freedom from governmental deprivation of liberty without due process.
Court ruled that while parole revocation does not call for all the rights due to a defendant that is not yet convicted, there are certain Fourteenth Amendment protections defendants are entitled to:
Written notice of violations.
Disclosure of evidence against parolee.
Opportunity to be heard; to present witnesses and documentary evidence.
Right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses.
“Neutral and detached” hearing body.
Written statement by the fact finders describing the evidence and reasons for revocation.
Probationers and parolees waive Fourth Amendment search and seizure rights. However, evidence seized by officers without a warrant can only be used in revocation hearings, not trial evidence in a new case.
32
