Probation and Parole unit 1 Assignment

The System CJ3620 Unit 1

The goals and objectives of any criminal justice corrections " system " should emphasize punishment, rehabilitation and accountability with respect to all criminal offenders. However, in reality, although the mission and vision of the various state and county corrections systems throughout the United States may be similar in nature, they sometimes differ in practice. Simply, an effective corrections system should ensure that offenders are held accountable for their criminal actions, and the system will also attempt to deter individuals from engaging in criminal activity in the future. Despite the aforementioned noble theory, the corrections system should incarcerate certain criminal offenders especially if the offender poses a serious threat to public safety. Therein lies the dilemma. Who should qualify for probation or parole?

When contemplating a best practice model regarding the imposition of sentencing, one must realize that there are many "types" or "degrees" of sanctions available other than incarceration. More specifically, there are social as well as fiscal advantages associated with probation and parole. However, before we delve into these advantages, we need to appreciate and define probation and parole . According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics website, "probation" can be defined as follows: Probation refers to adult offenders whom courts place on supervision in the community through a probation agency, generally in lieu of incarceration. . . . In many instances, while on probation, offenders are required to fulfill certain conditions of their supervision (e.g., payment of fines, fees or court costs, participation in treatment programs) and adhere to specific rules of conduct while in the community. Failure to comply with any conditions can result in incarceration (FAQ Detail, n.d., para. 1). The term "probation" may be used loosely for criminal offenders, who have been paroled, and the technical difference can be noted by defining "parole." According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics website, "parole" can be defined as follows: Parole refers to criminal offenders who are conditionally released from prison to serve the remaining portion of their sentence in the community. Prisoners may be released to parole either by a parole board decision (discretionary release/discretionary parole) or according to provisions of a statute (mandatory release/mandatory parole). . . . Parolees are also typically required to fulfill certain conditions and adhere to specific rules of conduct while in the community. Failure to comply with any of the conditions can result in a return to incarceration (FAQ Detail, n.d., para. 2).

Nevertheless, sanctions under the umbrella of probation or parole are typically imposed and provided under certain and distinct levels of supervision at the community level (Welner, 2001). However, this will be discussed more thoroughly in Unit 3 and Unit 4. In an effort to truly appreciate the rationale for probation or parole, you need to realize that prison overcrowding is a huge problem in the United States, and the finances associated with the housing of just one inmate is approximately $25 - 30,000 per year. Therefore, we must be sensitive to the issues of costs and space during our analysis. As a result, and, since incarceration is typically the most costly correctional alternative, many experts, scholars, and criminal justice practitioners endorse state sentencing laws. These laws typically invoke incarceration for the most serious and violent criminal offenders only. However, many researchers and theorists complain that probation, which is the

most commonly, used incarceration alternative, lacks sufficient and effective punishment for many offenders (Jackson, 1983). With this in mind, politicians often find themselves perplexed and uncertain regarding this quandary, and, as you may have realized, they are concerned for their political lives. Obviously, politicians want their constituents to feel safe, and, when constituents feel safe, reelection is likely.

Lawmakers must weigh the effectiveness or popularity of incarceration versus alternative sanctions. As you may or may not know, the primary consequence arising from the political war against crime is the high incarceration rate, which, as noted earlier, is evident nationwide. Do you see the recurrent theme? Further, some politicians have even supported the ideal that the best way to combat crime is not only to place more offenders in prison, but place those offenders in prison for longer periods of time. However, research supports that increased incarceration rates have not had a positive effect on recidivism rates and may actually lead to an increase in crime itself (Irwin, Austin, & Baird, 1998).

As you continue to gain an appreciation for the rationale for the use of probation or parole in today's society, you also need to realize that the social and economic implications of incarceration affect families, as well as the communities at large, in other ways as well. For example, when one is imprisoned, there is an obvious reduction regarding their economic opportunities as evidenced by the loss of work experience and the devaluing or lessening of their talents and abilities. Further, previous or potential employers may sense a lack of responsibility as well as a sense of unreliability (Western, 2003). Therefore, high rates of incarceration are costly for taxpayers because of costs associated with the incarceration itself and because of costs associated with welfare or economic assistance programs resulting from diminished social and work skills.

At this point, you can see the value of probation and parole. The closed-minded individual may want to lock up the bad guys and throw away the key, but, an open-minded individual would need to reflect on the following:

1. What type of crime has been committed? (i.e. shop lifting vs. kidnapping) 2. Are we dealing with a repeat offender? (i.e. first time vs. three-peat) 3. Can the offender be rehabilitated? (i.e. drug user vs. sex offender) 4. Can probation or parole benefit the community? (i.e. community service) 5. What type of message are we sending to the public? (i.e. deterrence vs. incentive)

Think about it. During the semester, we will explore several debates as indicated above, and there is no clear cut matrix regarding the imposition of probation or parole.

The use of case study analysis has been invaluable regarding the rationalization and implementation of probation and parole. According to the Appa.net website: Historically, critical criminal and juvenile justice decisions about sanctioning and treatment of individuals were guided by the personal experience and judgment of public safety professionals with limited access to information about the person's likelihood of recidivism. . . After decades of experience and study, researchers and practitioners have identified key factors that can help predict the likelihood of an individual returning to crime, violence or drug use as well as the types of supervision and services that are most likely to address

those risks. Risk and needs assessment instruments are tools that incorporate this knowledge and provide actuarial, data-based information to practitioners at every stage of the criminal and juvenile justice systems. (Risk and Needs, 2009, para. 1)

Notwithstanding extensive studies and observation, in reality, it is not easy to establish the veracity of these predictors. Every human being acts and reacts differently to stimuli, and despite our attempts to stereotype or profile offenders, the failures are well-documented. Additionally, plea bargaining has a dramatic effect on these studies for obvious reasons, but we need to understand the role of the prosecutor to appreciate this concept.

In short, it can be argued that the prosecutor is the most powerful person in the criminal justice system. During trial and sentencing, the assigned judge is the most powerful person in the courtroom, but, prior to trial and pre-trial motion activity, the prosecutor has the power to reduce the charges against the defendant, and he has the power to dismiss the charges against the defendant as well. Of course, there are always exceptions and limitations in unique circumstances, but the prosecutor wields a lot of authority. Many argue that the prosecutor's most useful tool is the ability to plea bargain. When assessing recidivism and crime reduction as mentioned in the previous paragraph, it is not easy to incorporate the success or lack thereof to various case studies since prosecutorial discretion is not uniform. Simply, some

prosecutors tend to be conservative while others tend to be liberal. I think you see my point.

In any event, let's consider the following hypothetical. If an individual shoplifts clothing items from Target, and if the value of the items is less than $5000, should this individual spend time in prison for the criminal act? Is probation a viable alternative if the offender did not use a weapon and if the offender has no criminal history? Or, on the other hand, should the perpetrator serve a short sentence with the possibility of parole in ninety days? Of course, there are other issues to consider, which include, but are not limited to the value of the goods and other relevant statutory language, but, for our purposes, let's stipulate that prison is an option for this and future discussions.

Let's take this to another level. If the shoplifter was a repeat offender, who resells the goods on the black market , should probation be a viable alternative to incarceration? Further, if the funds received from the resale are used to fund a transnational crime organization that has been tied to human trafficking and if the offender had no knowledge of what the funds are used for, should probation even be considered despite his ignorance? If the perpetrator cooperates with authorities, and as a result, two organized crime members are brought to justice, then should probation or the possibility of parole be entertained? There are no easy answers to these questions, and you should have more questions than answers at this point.

Nevertheless, by the end of this Unit, you will be begin your analysis of certain criteria of culpability, which makes an offender

eligible for probation or parole, and you will begin to identify effective community supervision strategies. Further, you will begin to define some jurisdictional differences between probation and parole, and you will demonstrate the nature and scope of probation and parole through the use of case study analysis.

(CSLO1, CSLO2, CSLO3, CSLO4)

FAQ Detail - Bureau of Justice, (n.d.), Retrieved January 17, 2016, from http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm? ty=qa&iid=324

Irwin, J., Austin, J., & Baird, C. (1998). Fanning the flames of fear: Incarceration policy. Crime and Delinquency Journal, 44(1), 32-48.

Jackson , P. C. (1983). Some effects of parole supervision on recidivism. British Journal of Criminology, 23, 17-34.

Risk and Needs - APPA, (2009), Retrieved January 17, 2016, from http://www.appa- net.org/eweb/Dynamicpage.aspx?site=APPA_2&webcode=IB_IssuePaper&wps_key=59dd054a-36d3-464c-ba97- bd8b032d12ea

Welner, M. (2001). The other side of alternatives. Forensic Panel Letter, 5(2), 10-11.

Western, B. (2003). Incarceration, employment and public policy. Retrieved January 18, 2016 from the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice web site via http://www.njisj.org/reports/western_report.html