Over the years, several problems have emerged in relations to parole management. At some point in time, parole management posed several challenges that people began to think that perhaps it’s something that is relatively impractical; however, intense pressure was laid to law enforcement agencies to come up with programs that could effectively work. Parole is just but a status of a convicted offender being released conditionally from prison before the actual expiry of the incarceration period by a paroling authority (Donald, 2011). Due to this reason, the inmates are thoroughly supervised by the relevant authority; moreover, they are expected to adhere strictly to the terms of parole. The complexity of the problem has led to several challenges; furthermore, a parolee has the right to be probated before being set free, yet still, law enforcement agencies have to conduct probationary services on these offenders.
Nonetheless, the right to probation is a constitutional right for every offender neither should it be substituted for a prolonged jail term. Consequently, these offenders have to be released back to the community with particular restrictions imposed on them (Donald, 2011). Even though probation is a constitutional right for an offender, the issue of public well-being also comes in, as a matter of fact, these individuals previously committed some serious crimes before serving a jail term; based on this fact, they still pose some serious threat to the community (Samaha, 2012). Moreover, law enforcement agencies have to monitor these individuals before releasing them fully to the community, failure of which may lead to some more serious crimes. The community must always be protected from potential threats; this forms the core function of a probation board.
A typical example of a special needs offender is a sex offender, an offense that encompasses rape, defilement and any other serious crime attached to human sexuality. Well, as it is known, sex offenders may sometimes be infected, when they engage in these quire sexual acts, and indiscriminately spread the virus. Logically speaking, these individuals pose a greater challenge to the community thus necessitating their watch (Samaha, 2012). There are some programs under parole, but the most conspicuous ones are remote location monitoring, home confinement, and community service. Remote location monitoring is a mechanism where a parolee is supervised using electronic technology. The program functions in a simple way, where an electronic device is planted on a parolee’s body to enable remote tracking. The technology is used to monitor an offender’s movement, perhaps when placed under a house arrest or ordered to limit movement.
The major strength of the program is that it can be used to monitor a convict's movements from a remote location; it does not need more time and energy. Still, it can be used to monitor several offenders simultaneously. Its shortcoming lies in the fact that it only depends on electronic technology; it is solely dependent on the internet (Samaha, 2012). It’s quite notable that the technology is widely used in most developed countries even though in some cases it has terribly failed; technological advancement is driving it out of place. Other programs like home confinement prove to work too; one can be locked up at home without much supervision, and it’s less costly even though it’s quite demeaning. People placed under house arrest often escape or even get sick. Lastly, there is the community service, a program where a convict is expected to perform some activities within the community. The major advantage of this program is that community members supervise it alongside the paroling authority. It’s quite practical as the authority will not spend too much time and energy on a single offender, however, in some cases, the community members can aid the offender to escape or even commit more serious crimes (Donald, 2011). A practical scenario is where the community members fail to report the breach of the terms of parole only for the convict to defile more minors and infect them with HIV.
Following the shortcomings associated with the three programs, a new program should be developed where former convicts are taken for more guidance. Jurisdictions should constitute parole centers where professional counselors should guide these special needs offenders. Programs that emphasize on physical restraint might not be the most appropriate way to deal with these criminals, contrary to physical restraint, authorities should major on behavior change (Donald, 2011). When an offenders’ behavior is not properly guided, there is a possibility that he or she may commit more serious crimes in the future, perhaps after the probation period. The center would be mandated with the duty of enacting the appropriate life skills to the offenders and enlighten them with the skills of living a crime-free life. After the expiry of their probation period, these individuals should be subjected to psychological counseling and offered jobs that would make them become more respected members of the society, for example, counseling of the special needs offenders.
Take for example the case of a sexual offender suffering from HIV; it’s quite so that he be given conditions that favor his health condition. After all, they need medication to lead a healthy life. The major strength of the program is that it would monitor the convicts, take care of their basic rights while teaching them the life skills needed to live a crime-free life. Everyone wants to leave a legacy; these individuals should be directed on how to do things that would impact positively on the society, and contrary to crime (Donald, 2011). Furthermore, it would still protect the community from the potential dangers of these offenders, just the same way as home confinement, community service, and remote location monitoring. The primary objective of these programs should be to protect the community from the threats that come with placing convicts under parole.
The reason behind incarceration is to isolate people who are deemed to pose potential threats to the community and its well-being, when under probation; the unwanted character is somehow still present within the community. The underlying assumption is that the monitoring programs works, failure of which places the community under the perceived threats yet again. It’s an undeniable fact that parole programs have failed not just in one instance but on several occasions, this is something that has sent parole authorities under thought of developing new programs. The program will be the most successful since it would capitalize on behavior change of the sexual offenders rather than physical restraint as evidenced in the past (Donald, 2011). It’s quite clear that sexual offense emanates from emotional feeling, for that reason, a program that is primarily based on behavior change would be more useful as compared to mere physical restraint. When an individual’s behavior is effectively put under control, then it’s likely that such individuals would engage in the heinous acts thereafter. Moreover, it would still perform the functionalities of the traditional programs.
References
Donald, J. (2011). Correctional Service. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, NY: James Wiley and Sons Publishers.
Samaha, J. (2012). Criminal Justice. A Review of Parole Programs to Special Needs Offenders. Belmont, California, CA: Thomson and Wadsworth Publishers.
