According to Mackenzie (2002) about five million or more individuals are under criminal justice system supervision and authority in the United States of America. Close to 1.6 million are housed in local, state or federal correctional facilities. An estimated 70% of these individuals are supervised in either probation or parole, which are forms of community corrections. The suggestion here is that a large part of the correctional population at any one point is under the supervision of corrections in the United States (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997). About 3.8 individuals both men and women are in community parole and probation programs on both the state and federal levels (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997).
Community supervision and corrections typically refer to probation and parole programs (Mackenzie, 2002). These are programs in place, which serve as alternatives to incarceration (Champion, 2010). Incarcerating non-violent offenders have proven to be financially onerous, while not an appropriate form of deterrence. The emphasis then is to employ strategies in correctional facilities, which encourage the implementation and utilization of diversion programs such as probation and parole that will not only reintegrate an offender back into the community, but will connect an offender to family and other protective forms of support, which often deter an offender from recidivating. Even though probation and parole are forms of rehabilitation programs, they are not the same in terms of purpose, scope and objectives (Mackenzie, 2002).
Local judges tend to explore probation more than other judges, and offenders that have been convicted in the criminal courts, and later released by the said entity often serve a sentence based on conditions and terms that the court superimposes on that individual, and this is done for a period of time specifically determined by the judge (Mackenzie, 2002); as mentioned before it is a form of alternative that is employed to incarceration. The judge typically instructs the offender to spend his probation sentence in a community supervision program, and the court has jurisdiction and authority over the offender and his court order so it can modify supervise, resentence and cancel terms of probation if the offender is non-compliant and violate all the terms of his probation (Mackenzie, 2002). Either the local government or the state will have supervisory authority over the probation program. Since there are over two thousand agencies of probation in the United States, which can supervise an offender at any time (Mackenzie, 2002). Parole on the other hand focuses on an offender’s early release from a correctional facility before his sentence has expired, often due to his good behavior behind bars, and so the court releases him and allows him to finish his sentence in a community supervision program (Mackenzie, 2002). For some, parole is also seen as after-care, supervised release or community supervision. The paroling authority that has legal designation over the parolee is the parole board (Mackenzie, 2002). The release of an offender whether juvenile or adult on parole who were sentenced to time in a correctional facilities is determined by the board that dictates the terms that the offender must meet during community supervision, and will revoke parole and return an offender back to the correctional facility to finish out his sentence if the terms of parole are not upheld (Mackenzie, 2002).
Alternatives to incarceration as found in community corrections not only include probation and parole, but other types of sanctions as well, for example, fines, community service, boot camps, restitution and intensive supervision (Champion, 2010). Intermediate sanctions or alternative forms of punishment are often under the control and authority of agencies that administer probation and parole. Origins of probation and parole: In spite of the difference between probation and parole, both were create to mitigate severity of punishment, as it did neither deterred crime nor prevented and offender from recidivating. For probation, its rots can be traced back to the early days of the English courts and bail or release on recognizance were in place, which allowed an offender to be released and return to the community under certain conditions as he awaits trial, while parole surfaced around the middle of the nineteenth century when offenders at that time were sentenced to strict or determinate sentences while incarcerated (Mackenzie, 2002). Offenders had to serve a specific time in prison for the crime they committed, but this became an issue when prisons became overcrowded and so governors felt pressured to issue a large number of pardons or the wardens of prisons had to release prisoner randomly to make way for the new ones entering their facilities (Champion, 2010).
Community Corrections and the Rehabilitation Model: The theoretical and philosophical model that has guided community supervision for the past thirty years have change (Mackenzie, 2002). Probation and Parole programs have become more focused on the rehabilitative aspect found in community supervision. Both probation and parole are conceived out of a notion that offenders should get second chances or opportunities in which they can both redeem and reform themselves (Mackenzie, 2002). Rehabilitative models shifted their focus during the Progressive era in the history of corrections, 1900-1920 (Champion, 2010). This new model incorporated treatment to be employed in conjunction with indeterminate sentencing. The focus was on deviant behavior and the psychosocial factors that led to an offender’s engagement in criminality; whether it was due to an unhealthy and unstable home environment or a defect in psychological mechanisms (Champion, 2010). Since each offender was different, the rehabilitation model suggested that criminal justice procedures need to be more individualized, so that when a social worker or probation officer writes a presentence report, the sentence would be individualized as well (Mackenzie, 2002).
Making a decision to release an offender either on probation and parole is the decision of probation and parole agencies. The roles of these agencies are two-fold: probation officers make these decisions during the investigative part of their job, and typically they assist the court in making a determination as to whether an offender should be released on probation as an alternative to incarceration. The court might then take the advice of the probation officer and defer adjudication or offer the offender a pretrial diversion, which requires probation (Mackenzie, 2002), and the judge has to make a decision to release and offender from prison. Secondly, these agencies assume the role of supervisor for those offenders deemed suitable for an early release from prison (Mackenzie, 2002). The level of risk of an offender must be assessed before a sentencing decision is made, as if he poses a threat to public safety then an alternative sanction to incarceration might not be an appropriate sentence (Boland, Mahanna & Stones; Mackenzie, 2002). A probation officer prepares a presentence investigation report(PSI), once an offender is arrested. The PSI provides relevant information to the court, and incudes accurate information about the offender. This information is helpful in determining the offender’s therapeutic needs, sentencing and level of risk (Mackenzie, 2002). In addition, information in the PSI is also helpful in developing the program in the community and in the institution as well as for release planning and conditions of supervision ( Champion, 2010). Parole release is determined by the offender’s case file, PSI and information garnered through an interview with the offender. Conditions of release is based on statutory requirements such as offender must have met the minimum sentencing requirements, and earned good-time credits during time of imprisonment. This alternative to incarceration is sanctioned by the parole board that will revoke an offender’s parole if he is seen as in violation of tis terms and conditions (Mackenzie, 2002).
Both prison and jail populations are affected, when terms of parole and probation are revoked (Parent et al. 1992, Mackenzie, 2002). More than 60% of prisoners admitted to Oregon’s prison facilities in 1988 were done so as a result of either prole or probation revocations; and about 66% of those admitted in Texas prisons in 1989 were for the same reason and the same 60% admitted in California prison facilities (Mackenzie, 2002).
Even though some reports suggest that recidivism rates are high for those who enter community supervision through probation and parole, it is a fact that alternative to incarceration reduces the issue of overcrowding while encouraging individualized sentencing and treatment. Rehabilitation encourages the underlying issues that led to criminal such as unstable environment and maladaptive psychological processing to be addressed, and not focused primarily on the harm as encouraged by a criminal procedure such as incarceration.
References
Boland, Barbara; Mahanna, Paul; and Stones, Ronald. The Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1988.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1992.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. Probation and Parole Population Reaches Almost 3.8 Million.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1996.
Champion, D. J. Probation, Parole and Community Corrections (6th Edition) 6th Edition. 2010.
MacKenzie, D. L. Probation and Parole: History, Goals, and Decision-Making. 2002. Web 6 August 2016.
Parent, Dale G.; Wentworth, Dan; Burke, Peggy; and Ney, Becki. Responding to Probation and Parole Violations. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1992.
