Probation and parole are alternative sentences to incarceration, which offer convicted offenders the opportunity to remain in the community, but operate under supervision (Hanser 12). Whereas probation takes place before and often instead of imprisonment, parole usually occurs as an early prison release. The convicted offender is required to comply with probation and parole conditions. The offenders are subjected to warrantless searches without any reasonable cause.
In the United States, over 2,000 agencies administer probation on offenders who commit felonies as well as misdemeanors. Adult probation as well as parole are established in executive branches of state government in over three-fourths of the country. For instance, in Georgia, the Department of Corrections is responsible for provision of probation services, while discretionary release is provided by the Board of Pardons and Paroles. More than half of the states have a statewide agency providing for both probation and parole services.
When granting probation or parole, there are statutory restrictions on felony cases. Crimes such as rape, kidnapping and murder do not usually allow for a probationary sentence. Probation and parole are also not allowed for repeat offenders. Judges have different views in granting a probationary sentence as a statutory alternative. Despite the importance attached on the recommendations of the probation department, there is equally a difficulty in envisioning very many cases that judges would grant probation against recommendations of probation officers. Judges also have the discretion of seeking recommendations from prosecutors and police officers. Judges may be influenced on whether to grant probation basing on the geographical location of the court. Political and social perceptions towards probation and parole differ in urban and rural jurisdictions. Due to the crowding of court calendars in urban areas, there are higher chances of plea bargaining; thus, resulting to the granting of probation. Another great influence on judges to grant probation is the incessant problem of overcrowding in state prisons. The feelings of a judge towards the particular offence or offender may also influence him/her to grant probation. When these factors come into play, the issue of differential punishment is raised, which downplays the whole purpose of criminal justice system (Abandisky 30).
There are several advantages of probation (and parole) as presented by the American Bar Association (Abandisky 36). According to the Association, probation maximizes an individual’s liberty, while still providing for vindication of the authority of the law. Thus, probation ensures a proper balance between public interests and individual liberties.
Second, probation ensures that the offender is effectively rehabilitated, as he/she continues with normal community contacts. It is good to provide offenders with minimal rehabilitation in order to make them productive members of the community. Offenders can be motivated to comply with probation conditions in completing community service hours or substance abuse treatment. Offenders’ rehabilitation enables them to make contributions to their family, and maintain family and community ties. If the same offenders are subjected to incarceration, they are likely to harden and reinforce their criminal behavior. Probation officers are able to keep track of offenders’ compliance with the terms and conditions of the court.
The third advantage of probation and parole is that they help in avoiding the negative impacts of confinement. Research indicates that incarceration of first-time offenders enables them to learn and adopt traits from hardcore inmates. First-time offenders leave prison with enhanced criminal behavior, thus posing greater risk of harm to the public. Therefore, the offender does not have to encounter the complexities associated with reintegrating into the community.
With regards to costs, probation drastically reduces financial costs of crime, as compared to incarceration. According to Siegal (35), the cost of prison is more than $25,000 per inmate on an annual basis, whereas the cost of probation is $2,000 per year. Employed probationers are able to continue staying in their communities and paying taxes. It is vital to note that offenders who were unemployed at the time they were convicted, have high chances of being trained and helped to find a job. In addition, this promotes the community’s tax revenues, while allowing offenders to keep pace with prevailing employment offers. Employed offenders are given the opportunity to settle fines and court costs, and restitute the victims (Champion 57).
Another advantage of probation is that it protects offenders from deficiencies. Research indicates that most offenders find themselves in trouble not because of pathologies, but because of deficiencies. Deficiencies such as defective thinking patterns, substance abuse problems, and lack of education increase chances of criminal behavior. Thus, the community benefits to a great extent in cases where these deficits are resolved.
Lastly, probation plays an important role in minimizing the effects on the offender’s innocent dependents. Probation allows married offenders to maintain the integrity of the family, unlike incarceration, which could result to unnecessary disruptions (Braswell et al. 98).
With regards to disadvantages, first, probation and parole limit the constitutional rights of offenders, with probation and parole officers enjoying a wider range of powers to intrude into the liberties of offenders more than police officers. Due to their conditional privilege status, both probation and parole do not provide offenders with procedural process rights. The development of jurisprudence has resulted to probationers and parolees enjoying some due process rights. Nevertheless, probationers and parolees, like inmates, are subjected to restrictions that do not apply to ordinary citizens.
In the case of Mempa v Rhay (1976), Mempa admitted to the charge of burglary after four months of probation. The court immediately revoked his probation without a proper hearing and without legal representation. Consequently, he was sentenced to imprisonment. The Supreme Court was to determine whether probationers had a right to legal representation by a counsel at a hearing for revocation of probation. It was held that the 6th and 14th Amendments provided for the right of probationers to be represented by counsel. Furthermore, the court was of the opinion that probationers facing revocation should be allowed to rebut evidence through the cross-examination of state witnesses.
The case of Morrisey v Brewer (1972) determines the issue of giving offenders due process rights in regards to conditional liberty. The parolee had been arrested by his parole officer due to various technical violations and taken to prison without any hearing. The parolee petitioned the Supreme Court claiming that the parole officer had violated his due process rights, as provided under the 14th Amendment. The court held in favor of the parolee that due process is necessary in situations involving liberty interests. According to the court, revocation of a parole order does not guarantee the parolee the same rights, as those of an unconvicted defendant, but there were several rights provided under the 14th Amendment to which the parolee was entitled. The court highlighted the rights to include: written notice of the alleged parole violation, provision of evidence against the parolee, right to be heard by a neutral and detached body, right to cross-examine state witnesses, and a written statement of reasons for parole revocation.
Probationers and parolees are disadvantaged in the hands of their supervising officers. Since the convicted offenders waive their 4th Amendment rights, supervising officers are free to search them at any time without warrant and probable cause. The evidence obtained by probation and parole officers can be used to revoke hearings. According to the American Probation and Parole Association, the law should minimize on the intrusion of the civil liberties of probationers and parolees by imposing minimum conditions. In fact, the only condition should be that the probationer or parolee leads a law-abiding life during the probationary period.
The probationer only obtains a prison sentence following strong grounds to believe that he/she is not capable of leading a law-abiding life. The sentence hangs over the head of the probationer when they fail to provide the proof. This is the reason why most recidivist offenders have already served prison periods, probation periods, and parole periods most often prefer prison sentence to the more overwhelming probation conditions such as intensive supervision and daily reporting. Most active street criminals have a negative attitude towards probation because they believe that they will still end up in prison due to the fact that they will not comply with probation conditions.
Some members of the community view probation and parole as sentences that allow convicted offenders to get away with crimes (Alarid 112). Opponents of probation believe that criminal justice is not properly achieved when criminals are given lesser sentences. The general public views probation and parole as disadvantageous in the sense that they are a soft approach to crime. This ‘soft in crime’ image is considered to promote permissiveness and unbothered attitudes toward crime victims. The general public condemns the blind advocacy to rehabilitative ideals which result to the criminal justice system overlooking the realities of violent, predatory offenders.
In conclusion, the advantages of probation and parole include: maximization of individual liberty, reduction of costs, effective rehabilitation, and avoidance of negative effects of incarceration, protection of offenders from deficiencies and protection of the interests of innocent dependents. Disadvantages, on the other hand, include; limitation of constitutional rights of offenders, abuse of power by probation and parole officers, and the negative perception of the public toward probation and parole ‘soft’ approach to sentencing. Once can argue that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
Works Cited
Abandisky, Howard. Probation and Parole: Theory and Practice. Pearson Education, Inc, 2015.
Alarid, Leanne. Community based corrections. Cengage Learning, 2016.
Braswell, Michael C., Belinda R. McCarthy, and Bernard J. McCarthy. Justice, crime, and ethics. Routledge, 2014.
Champion, Dean J. Probation, parole, and community corrections. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002.
Hanser, Robert D. Community corrections. Sage Publications, 2013.
