parole and probation
Over the years from 1980 to 2007.incaceration has been the most used method for punishment, which has dominated the United States criminal justice system. Since 2007, changes have been made to reduce the inmate’s population and economize on taxpayer dollars. According to the public safety performance project carried out on 25th September 2018, 4.5 million people are on probation and parole inclusive of prisoners in local prisoners, state prisons as well as in federal prisons. In 2016, one of fifty-five adults was under probation, where the probation and parole reports have increased to twenty-four percent since 1990 to 2016. The primary goal of the use of probation and parole is to minimize societal crime rates and enhance public safety—the major problem brought about by probation and parole supervision failures. The paper tries to solve the big question by reviewing the latest bureau of justice statistics on parole and probation survey carried out since 2016 to date.
Problem Statement (2 paragraphs)
Lately, probation and parole supervision failures are considered as determinants and drivers of incarceration. According to reports, individuals sent for probation do not receive maximum supervision. Half of the individuals receive complete control, but the rest are taken back to jail due to inadequate supervision, which leads to relapse (Phelps, 2020). In the year 2016, two million on probation unsuccessfully succeeded and resulted in imprisonment. Annually, about three hundred and fifty thousand people in punishment are taken back to jails after supervision failure. Supervision during probation and parole involves a close interaction between probation officers and individuals because officers should monitor and spend the most time with the offenders.
Probation and parole department failure of supervision is contributed by misplacement of priorities during service delivery. Probation officers, as well as prison organizations, concentrate more on surveillance and control instead of service delivery and effective treatment. People in parole and probation do not receive maximum attention and supervision compared to incarcerated individuals. Recently the United States and other countries have recognized probation and parole injustices, for instance, onerous restrictions and unrealistic supervision periods as well as offenders scurrility. The criminal justice system imposes silly rules and regulations in community supervision, making it challenging for sanctioned offenders.
The United States’ accurate measure of people under correlation control sums up to 6.7 million inclusive of incarceration, parole, and probation. The majority of people under correlation are in probation and parole, making it challenging to supervise the vastly growing population. The probation and parole population has doubled that of incarcerated individuals, which is the basis for supervision failure. Despite the growing number of probates and parolees, the correctional department has received less attention from the criminal justice system and professionals. The negligence has mainly contributed to cases of inadequate supervision and unfair treatment from probation officers.
Transition paragraph needed here.
The paper is written under the review of the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA), the prison policy initiative, a press release on correctional control released in 2018 with detailed information about United States variation in the use of probation and modification. The use of punishment has increased in New Jersey, Colorado, Arkansas, and Oklahoma, as well as a decrease, noted in states like Texas, Washington, Florida, and Illinois. Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice 24th edition, United States public safety performance project results issued in September 2018 as well as the deterrence and optimal use of probation and parole journal published by Mitchell Polinsky and Paul Riskind (2019).
Topic 1 (1.5 pages)
Probation and Parole Intensive Supervision and Numerous Conditions.
The criminal court of justice and prison agencies have established several conditions that tend to be unrealistic as well as lead to supervision failure. The set requirements are considered harsh and unrealistic according to the original offense. Probation and parole set people to fail instead of being a correctional alternative (Trusts, 2018). Due to the harsh conditions such as strict parole supervision, most individuals end up in revocation as well as jail terms. The supervision fee has gone higher even to smaller criminal offenses. According to a research institute, the parole and probated individual should comply with twenty rules and requirements daily according to the probation department. Violation of the parole and probation requirements leads to imprisonment. The parole and probation department concentrate on control and offering punishment instead of offering correctional services through intervention. The requirements involve;
• No changing of employment or education institute without permission and notice.
• Offenders not supposed to move around in different areas without supervision.
• Strict curfews, as well as the use of electronic monitoring devices such as wrist bracelets, which demand payments.
• Reporting to the parole and probation officers regularly.
• Payment of high supervision fee, which is partitioned in terms of fines, restitution as well as electronic monitoring fees. Fee payment does not consider factors such as an individual’s ability to pay, which is unjust.
• Maintaining full-time education or employment.
• Payment for alcohol and drug tests which are regularly carried out and submitted to the officer. The drug and alcohol test is done even in offenders not involved or has no drug records.
• Disassociating with family and friends reported having a bad criminal record.
The requirements of probation and parole are unfair and highly costly, especially to less privileged people. The requirements are designed in the interest of the organization but discourage and affect the correctional offender process. The specifications may lead to stress and depression, making the offender relapse and get back to criminality. The probation department has imposed other special requirements; for instance, women prohibited from getting pregnant and sitting in the front seat of the car (Trusts, 2018). Various activists have come forward to deny the criteria, for example, Topeka. Most criminal offenders and people in probation come from less privileged countries, suffer from mental illness such as anxiety as well as have acquired low levels of education. With the individual’s conditions, some of the fees demanded by the department are way beyond affordability, for instance, Probation and parole fees, electronic device fees, program fees, drug screening fees as well as fines. To sum up, people put under parole and probation are considered to suffer from addiction as well as drug use to individuals with no drug history due to supervision pressure.
Additionally, probation and parole are imposed and affects marginalized people. For instance, according to reports, more women are sanctioned compared to men. Women are more vulnerable and influenced by the strict conditions of the department. For example, women should take care of children and families, attend correctional programs, have a fulltime job, as well as travel in case of applications involving traveling (Trusts, 2018). The other marginalized are the blacks, where according to statistics, blacks on probation are 30% while the other US population is 13%. Due to the unprivileged nature of blacks compared to whites, blacks are prone to renovation more than whites or Hispanic Americans. Probation fees and strict conditions have affected the minority as well as inadequate supervision, and conditions imposed for surveillance lead to revocation.
Topic 2 (1.5 pages)
Probation and Parole Technical Violation.
According to study reports, in forty-one states, people on parole and probation are sent back to prison wherein 2019, eighteen percent of probationers and parolees are sent back to jail for supervision violations. Currently, very few arrests considered as new crimes because surveillance and probation officer’s main target is to catch mistakes rather than promote behavior correction and process success. Revocation brought about by technical violation of supervision can be reduced by proper supervision and monitoring criteria to binge about behavioral change instead of focusing on the arrest. According to the director of the council of state government justice center, the primary aim of states is to provide public safety through crime reduction instead of working on improving supervision, which has failed terribly (Polinsky, and Riskind, 2019).
In the United States, about thirty-seven states have recorded a decrease in monitoring as well as crime rates, for instance, in Texas. Most of the sates aim at enhancing public safety and reducing tax payers’ dollars instead of prioritizing community correction resources and programs, especially for high-risk offenders. Most prison’s significant population is covered by victims of a technical violation, which includes small cases. Technical violators of supervision are rearrested for situations such as failure to perform a drug test which is paid for by individuals, failure to attend correctional p programs, or missed curfews. The parole officers fail to understand that parolees and pronators are human and prone to mistake, so instead of imprisonment for minor cases, they should be educated and assisted in complying with the harsh requirements. The probation and parole system has lost its functionality due to poor decision making leading to prison overcrowding as well as an increase in crime rates to the probated individuals. About ninety-five thousand people are imprisoned for a technical violation, which has led to a tight prison budget of 2. Billion annually.
The criminal justice system and policymakers have proposed the integration of other correctional practices during probation and parole. For instance, providing medical treatment to offenders with mental illnesses would reduce the rate of revocation, rehabilitating, and treating drug-addicted persons would also reduce technical violations (Sorsby, Shapland, and Robinson, 2017. The use of the above interventions, as well as the application of supervision policies, would improve the criminal justice system probation and parole sanction method. Relying strictly on supervision only has brought about negative impacts on the individual, community as well as the prisons. Probation and parole are currently not functioning as expected. The punishment initially was designed to reduce incarcerations while parole intended to minimize lengthy sentences. Policymakers are urged to invest in strategies that would improve probation and parole as methods of de-incarceration instead of enhancing incarceration.
Topic 3 (1.5 pages)
Focus on Moderate and High-risk Parolees and Probates.
According to most research and reports reviewed, a wide range of people finds it vital to classify offenders according to the risk of criminality when carrying out supervision. Classifying offenders, according to recidivism, assist the department offer treatment benefits and services to the most prone individuals. Probation and parole are confirmed to reduce criminality to high-risk and moderate offenders but, at the same time, has led to recidivism to low-risk offenders. According to research, probation and parole over-supervise the low-risk offenders as well as overcharging, primarily through community programs, electronic monitoring systems charges well as drug tests (Brett, 2019). Disrupting and over-supervising the low-risk offenders through separation from most supportive systems such as families and employment mat lead to recidivism and mental illnesses. Paying attention to high-risk offenders through resource offers, treatments, and educational programs have reduced the level of crime rates as well as reoffending.
According to a national research council, the critical principle of effectively monitoring parolees and people on probation is through identifying and carrying out behavioral and recidivism assessment. The assessment results determine the high- risk and low-risk offender’s treatment and intervention required. Low-risk offenders require reduced warrants, supervision, as well as administrative services compared to high-risk offenders. Subjecting low-risk offenders to strict control and programs most of the time worsens an individual’s criminal record and may lead to revocation or reoffending. Parole agencies and probation departments prioritizing the high-risk individuals than low-risk individuals would enable the officer’s deal with loads of cases, manage time, save on energy, and reduce instances of violence and technical violation (Brett, 2019). Additionally, intensive supervision for hgh0-risk offenders does not guarantee successful outcomes. Most of the time, the high-risk offenders are rebellious, aggressive, while some go through mental illnesses. Engaging the high-risk offenders into correctional programs and balancing both intensive and intervention would assist and enhance outcomes.
Surveillance only is not critical to an excellent criminal status or a method of motivation, according to most studies. Parole and probation supervision’s primary aim is to create a good relationship between the offenders and the officers, inclusive of other correctional methods. When surveillance officers meet the professional standards at work as well as the high-risk and low-risk offenders adhere to regulations and maintain discipline, success follows. High-risk offenders are placed into intensive care programs such as home detention and supervision by the use of electronic monitoring systems. Exempting Low –risk offenders from intensive control such as electronic bracelets, wherein the case of guidance, the individual tends to change their behaviors to worst. Nevertheless, high-risk offenders such as murders, sexual offenders, and gangs should be placed into intensive treatments and education programs to shape their mental, spiritual, and behavioral perspectives. The community correctional agencies should make efforts to carry out an assessment that enhances appropriate and adequate supervision offered to high-risk offenders and low- risk offenders.
Conclusion (2 paragraphs)
To sum up, criminal justice systems and law enforcement professionals are accountable for any form of negligence in performing duties. The probation and parole officers are liable for failure to provide adequate supervision to offenders as well as impacts for inadequate control. Design probation and parole systems to offer support and assist law offenders developed a change in behaviors instead of committing other crimes. According to recent reports, the probation and parole officers are counted liable for injuries caused by an offender on parole to a third party. Injuries and violence emerge due to inadequate supervision as well as a lack of skills and understanding in handling high-risk cases and low-risk cases. Supervision failure is the most significant issue in probation and parole, where supervision is accompanied by strict conditions, evil as well as intensive supervision to low-risk offenders. Probation and parole supervision is currently costly, forcing individuals to pay for most services offered.
The expensive nature of probation and parole has led to negligence and agencies prioritizing on tax payer’s dollar cost as well as public safety. Most private probation and parole agencies acquire money from offenders instead of helping them. The problem solution involves the application of more effort in the use of correctional programs, especially to high-risk offenders instead of pure surveillance and control. Some of the interventions include treatment to mentally ill persons, drug addicts, offering education, community development programs as well as education on communication and positive interactions. Lastly, the criminal justice system department and professions should focus more on high-risk offenders than low-risks, work on reducing technical violation as well as imposing policies and conditions based on the offender’s interest.
Brett, S. (2019). Reforming Monetary Sanctions, Reducing Police Violence. Reducing Police Violence (December 18, 2019), 4.
Phelps, M. S. (2020). Mass Probation from Micro to Macro: Tracing the Expansion and Consequences of Community Supervision. Annual Review of Criminology, 3.
Polinsky, A. M., & Riskind, P. N. (2019). Deterrence and the Optimal Use of Prison, Parole, and Probation. The Journal of Law and Economics, 62(2), 347-371.
Sorsby, A., Shapland, J., & Robinson, G. (2017). Using compliance with probation supervision as an interim outcome measure in evaluating a probation initiative. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 17(1), 40-61.
Sturm, A., Menger, A., de Vogel, V., & Huibers, M. J. (2019). Predictors of Change of Working Alliance over the Course of Probation Supervision: A Prospective Cohort Study. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 0306624X19878554.
Trusts, P. C. (2018). Probation and parole systems marked by high stakes, missed opportunities. Chart book, September.