Punishment-Justice for the Unjust

P A R T

4

Corrections

RIGHTS OF THE CONVICTED AND IMPRISONED
Common law, constitutional, statutory, and humanitarian rights of the convicted and imprisoned:
■

■

■

■

■

■

■

A right against cruel or unusual punishment A right to protection from physical harm A right to sanitary and healthy conditions of confinement A limited right to legal assistance while imprisoned A limited right to religious freedom while imprisoned A limited right to freedom of speech while imprisoned A limited right to due process prior to denial of privileges

These individual rights must be effectively balanced against these public-order concerns:
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Punishment of the guilty Safe communities The reduction of recidivism Secure prisons Control over convicts The prevention of escape Rehabilitation Affordable prisons

ISBN: 0-536-09974-X

How does our system of justice work toward balance?
Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the Twenty-First Century, Ninth Edition, by Frank Schmalleger. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc.

Punishment—Justice for the Unjust?
The great Christian writer C. S. Lewis (1898–1963) once remarked that if satisfying justice is to be the ultimate goal of Western criminal justice, then the fate of offenders cannot be dictated merely by practical considerations. “The concept of just desert is the only connecting link between punishment and justice,” Lewis wrote. “It is only as deserved or undeserved that a sentence can be just or unjust,” he concluded. Once a person has been arrested, tried, and sentenced, the correctional process begins. Unlike Lewis’s exhortation, however, the contemporary American correctional system—which includes probation, parole, jails, prisons, capital punishment, and a variety of innovative alternatives to traditional sentences—is tasked with far more than merely carrying out sentences. We also ask of our correctional system that it ensure the safety of law-abiding citizens, that it select the best alternative from among the many available for handling each offender, that it protect those under its charge, and that it guarantee fairness in the handling of all with whom it comes into contact. This section of Criminal Justice Today details the development of probation, parole, community corrections, and imprisonment as correctional philosophies; describes the nuances of prison and jail life; discusses special issues in contemporary corrections (including AIDS, geriatric offenders, and female inmates); and summarizes the legal environment which both surrounds and infuses the modern-day practice of corrections. Characteristic of today’s correctional emphasis is a society-wide push for harsher punishments. The culmination of that strategy, however, is dramatically overcrowded correctional institutions, the problems of which are also described. As you read through this section, encountering descriptions of various kinds of criminal sanctions, you might ask yourself, “When would a punishment of this sort be deserved?” In doing so, remember to couple that thought with another question: “What are the ultimate consequences (for society and for the offender) of the kind of correctional program we are discussing here?” Unlike Lewis, you may also want to ask, “Can we afford it?”

12

Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections

13 14

Prisons and Jails

Prison Life

ISBN: 0-536-09974-X Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the Twenty-First Century, Ninth Edition, by Frank Schmalleger. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc.

C H A P T E R

12

Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
■

OUTLINE
■ ■ ■ ■

Introduction What Is Probation? What Is Parole? Probation and Parole: The Pluses and Minuses The Legal Environment The Job of Probation and Parole Officers Intermediate Sanctions The Future of Probation and Parole

■

■ ■ ■

■ ■

■ ■

■

Explain the differences between probation and parole, and describe the advantages and disadvantages of each. Describe in detail the legal environment surrounding the use of probation and parole, and know the names of significant court cases. Describe the federal probation system. Explain the nature of the job of probation and parole officers. List the advantages of intermediate sanctions over more traditional forms of sentencing. Describe the likely future of probation and parole.

“

This year, some 600,000 inmates will be released from prison back into society. We know from long experience that if they can’t find work, or a home, or help, they are much more likely to commit crime and return to prison. . . . America is the land of second chance, and when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life.

Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the Twenty-First Century, Ninth Edition, by Frank Schmalleger. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc.

”

—President George W. Bush1
ISBN: 0-536-09974-X

“

Community corrections is an integral part of the criminal justice system and should be fully implemented and promoted in order to save expensive and scarce jail and prison space for violent and serious offenders.

—National Association of Counties, Justice and Public Safety Steering Committee2

”

ISBN: 0-536-09974-X Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the Twenty-First Century, Ninth Edition, by Frank Schmalleger. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc.

452

PA R T 4

Corrections

KEY CONCEPTS
TERMS
caseload community corrections community service conditions of parole (probation) home confinement intensive probation supervision (IPS) intermediate sanctions mixed sentence parole parole board parole (probation) violation parole revocation prisoner reentry probation probation revocation remote location monitoring restitution revocation hearing shock incarceration shock probation split sentence

CASES
Bearden v. Georgia Escoe v. Zerbst Gagnon v. Scarpelli Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates Griffin v. Wisconsin Mempa v. Rhay Minnesota v. Murphy Morrissey v. Brewer Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott U.S. v. Knights

The original full-text court opinion for each of these cases is available on the CD-ROM that accompanies this book.

Introduction
Hear the author discuss this chapter at cjtoday.com
On February 1, 2004, 11-year-old Carlie Brucia was abducted as she took a shortcut to her home from a slumber party at a friend’s house. Video footage of Carlie’s abduction was captured by an unattended car wash security camera, which showed the girl being grabbed by an unidentified man and led away.3 Carlie’s body was discovered days later in a church parking lot a few miles from her home. Shortly after her abduction, authorities announced the arrest of Joseph P. Smith, a 37-year-old auto mechanic and father of three who had a lengthy criminal record. Authorities charged Smith with Carlie’s murder and said that they would try him for first-degree homicide, kidnapping, and capital sexual battery. It was soon learned that Smith had been arrested at least 13 times in Florida in the 11 years before Carlie’s abduction and had previously been charged with kidnapping and false imprisonment. Only a month before Carlie’s murder, a probation officer had asked a Florida judge to declare Smith a probation violator because of unpaid fines and court costs that he had been ordered to pay. The probation officer’s request was denied and Smith remained free. In 2005, convicted sex offender John Evander Couey, 46, was arrested and charged with the rape and murder of nine-year-old Jessica Lunsford of Homosassa, Florida.4 Prosecutors revealed tear-jerking details of the last moments of Jessica’s life, saying that she had been tied up and buried alive, kneeling and clutching a purple stuffed dolphin. Like the Smith case, it turns out that Couey had a long record, including 24 arrests for burglary, carrying a concealed weapon, indecent exposure, and other offenses. He had previously been arrested and charged with fondling a child. Although Couey was sentenced to 10 years in prison, he was paroled in 1980 because of prison overcrowding. In yet another story that came out of Florida in 2005, the body of 13-year-old Sarah Lunde was discovered in a fish pond about a mile from her Hillsborough County home.5 The man arrested in her killing, 36-year-old David Onstott, has a lengthy criminal record dating back to 1986, including charges of sexual abuse and attempted murder. After his arrest Onstott confessed to choking Lunde and dumping her body near her home. Stories like those involving Brucia, Lunsford, and Lunde appear all too frequently in the media and cast a harsh light on the early release and poor supervision of criminal offenders. This chapter takes a close look at the realities behind the practice of what we call community corrections. Community corrections, also termed community-based corrections, is a sentencing style that depends less on traditional confinement options and more on correctional resources available in the community. Community corrections includes a wide variety of sentencing options, such as probation, parole, home confinement, the electronic monitoring of offenders, and other new and developing programs—all of which are covered in this chapter. Learn more about comCriminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the Twenty-First Century, Ninth Edition, by Frank Schmalleger. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc.

■

Lecture Note Discuss community corrections, including its assumptions, its forms, and its prevalence. Class Activity Visit a local criminal court. Observe the sentencing choices of individual judges. Are some judges more likely to order probation than others? If so, how great is the difference? community corrections
The use of a variety of officially ordered programbased sanctions that permit convicted offenders to remain in the community under conditional supervision as an alternative to an active prison sentence.

■

ISBN: 0-536-09974-X

Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections

CHAPTER 12

453

A car wash surveillance camera in Sarasota, Florida, showing 11-year-old Carlie Brucia being abducted in 2004. Brucia’s body was later discovered at a church three miles from the abduction site. Police quickly arrested Joseph P. Smith, 37, a chronic drug abuser with a long arrest record, and charged him with kidnapping and murder. Court records showed that Smith had violated the conditions of his probation and should have been imprisoned at the time of the abduction. In 2005, Smith was tried and convicted of kidnapping, raping, and strangling Brucia.
AP Wide World Photos

munity corrections by visiting the International Community Corrections Association via Web Extra 12–1 at cjtoday.com.

What Is Probation?
Probation, one aspect of community corrections, is “a sentence served while under supervision in the community.”6 Like other sentencing options, probation is a court-ordered sanction. Its goal is to retain some control over criminal offenders while using community programs to help rehabilitate them. Most of the alternative sanctions discussed later in this chapter are, in fact, predicated on probationary sentences in which the offender is ordered to abide by certain conditions—such as participation in a specified program—while remaining free in the community. Although the court in many jurisdictions can impose probation directly, most probationers are sentenced first to confinement but then immediately have their sentences suspended and are remanded into the custody of an officer of the court—the probation officer. Probation has a long history. By the fourteenth century, English courts had established the practice of “binding over for good behavior,”7 in which offenders could be entrusted into the custody of willing citizens. American John Augustus (1784–1859) is generally recognized as the world’s first probation officer. Augustus, a Boston shoemaker, attended sessions of criminal court in the 1850s and offered to take carefully selected offenders into his home as an alternative to imprisonment.8 At first, he supervised only drunkards, but by 1857 Augustus was accepting many kinds of offenders and was devoting all his time to the service of the court.9 Augustus died in 1859, having bailed out more than 2,000 convicts. In 1878, the Massachusetts legislature enacted a statute that authorized the city of Boston to hire a salaried probation officer. Missouri followed suit in 1897, along with Vermont (1898) and Rhode Island (1899).10 Before the end of the nineteenth century, probation had become an accepted and widely used form of community-based supervision. By 1925, all 48 states had adopted probation legislation. In that same year, the federal government enacted legislation enabling federal district court judges to appoint paid probation officers and to impose probationary terms.11 probation
A sentence of imprisonment that is suspended. Also, the conditional freedom granted by a judicial officer to a convicted offender, as long as the person meets certain conditions of behavior.

■

Lecture Note Explain probation as a sentence of imprisonment that is suspended. Tell the class that offenders who violate the conditions of probation may be sent to prison to serve the remainder of their sentences.

ISBN: 0-536-09974-X

The Extent of Probation
Today, probation is the most common form of criminal sentencing in the United States. Between 20% and 60% of those found guilty of crimes are sentenced to some form of probation. Figure 12–1 shows that 59% of all offenders under correctional supervision in the United States
Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the Twenty-First Century, Ninth Edition, by Frank Schmalleger. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc.

Accepting released offenders into the community without a period of supervised release is morally unsatisfying; they have not yet earned their place at our table.
—Jeremy Travisi

454

PA R T 4

Corrections

CJ NEWS

Getting Tough on Paroled Sex Offenders
From the moment he enters the sex offender’s apartment, North Dakota parole officer Brian Weigel is looking for contraband. He kicks aside a blanket on the floor, peers down and spies a video game rated for mature players—complete with buxom computer-generated women on the cover. And despite protests from the man who lives here, the video game is coming with Weigel. In the year since college student Dru Sjodin was abducted from a North Dakota parking lot and killed, allegedly by a convicted sex offender, the state has worked to make its sex offender laws among the strictest in the nation. Officers such as Weigel have to determine whether an offender is sticking to restrictions that often include a ban on sexual material in the home. “There’s a real threat,” said Weigel, one of five sex offender specialists in the state’s parole and probation division. “If these guys reoffend, there’s going to be another real victim out there.” Weigel’s unit is new, part of the state’s heightened enforcement since Sjodin’s abduction a year ago.

The 22-year-old University of North Dakota student’s body was found in 2004 in a ravine in Minnesota. The man charged with abducting Sjodin and killing her, Alfonso Rodriguez, is a convicted sex offender who had been released from prison six months before she disappeared. He has pleaded not guilty to a federal charge of kidnapping resulting in death. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty. The passage of a year has not softened the blow for Sjodin’s family. “Every day weighs heavy in our hearts,” said Linda Walker, Sjodin’s mother. “There isn’t one day that we don’t think of her, even from the moment we wake up to the moment we go to sleep.” The case drew national attention as volunteers, National Guard soldiers and law enforcement officers searched the region for months, looking for Sjodin. Her body wasn’t found until after the snow melted. The U.S. Senate endorsed a bill called “Dru’s Law,” which would set up a national public database of sex offenders and require strict monitoring of high-risk sex offenders for a year after their release from prison. The bill was introduced by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D–N.D.

ISBN: 0-536-09974-X

University of North Dakota student Dru Sjodin, 22 (left), was abducted from a shopping mall, raped, and murdered in 2003. Known sex offender Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr., 50 (right), stands accused of the crimes. He had been released from prison six months before Sjodin disappeared after having served 23 years for stabbing and trying to kidnap a young woman. Sjodin’s brutal murder has spurred both North Dakota and Minnesota (where Rodriguez lived) into making their sex offender laws among the toughest in the nation.
Grand Forks Police Department, Reuters, Landov LLC, and AP Wide World Photos

Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the Twenty-First Century, Ninth Edition, by Frank Schmalleger. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc.

Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections

CHAPTER 12

455

CJ NEWS (continued)

“The entire country was looking for Dru Sjodin,” Dorgan said. The case was particularly troubling here and in neighboring Minnesota, where Rodriguez lived. The convicted rapist hadbeen released even though he had been classified as a Level 3 offender, meaning he had the highest risk of committing another sex crime. Both states have since moved to crack down on sex offenders. In North Dakota, the new parole unit is partnered with an expanded sex offender program at the state psychiatric hospital in Jamestown for the most serious sexual predators, who are recommended for civil commitment after their release. The number of people civilly committed has doubled to 23 in less than a year. In Minnesota, two separate commissions have been working on new sentencing guidelines since the Sjodin case. One plan would double the maximum sentences for sex crimes and impose a life term on any repeat sex offender. It also would set up a board to review the cases of inmates who have served their minimum sentences.

More restrictions may be on the way. When North Dakota lawmakers convene their next session, they will face a list of proposals from a task force launched by Gov. John Hoeven. Among them are life sentences without parole for gross sexual offenses that result in death, and supervised probation for all other felony sex offenses. The panel also is seeking a stronger method of tracking sex offenders, using global positioning devices that could alert authorities to an offender’s location at all times, said Duane Houdek, an attorney for Hoeven. Although North Dakota’s crime rate remains low, getting tough on sex offenders will help preserve that security, said state Rep. Lois Delmore. “It means we’re not just assuming that we’re in North Dakota and everyone’s healthy and happy and things like this can’t happen,” she said. For the latest in crime and justice news, visit the Talk Justice news feed at http://www.crimenews.info.

Source: “N.D. Is Tougher on Sex Offenders after Abduction Last Year: New Parole Unit Keeps Tight Guard,” Associated Press, November 21, 2004. © Copyright Associated Press. All rights reserved. Distributed by

Valeo IP. Valeo Clearance Lincense 3.5721.4501570-109704. as of January 1, 2005, were on probation. Not shown is that the number of offenders supervised yearly on probation has increased from slightly more than 1 million in 1980 to over 4 million today—almost a 300% increase.12 Even violent offenders stand about a one in five chance of receiving a probationary term, as Figure 12–2 shows. A Bureau of Justice Statistics study of felony sentences found that 5% of people convicted of homicide were placed on probation, as were 21% of convicted sex offenders.13 Twelve percent of convicted robbers and 30% of those committing aggravated assault were similarly sentenced to probation rather than active prison time. In one example, 47-year-old Carrie Mote of Vernon, Connecticut, was sentenced to probation for shooting her fiancé in the chest with a .38-caliber handgun after he called off their wedding.14 Mote, who faced a maximum of 20 years in prison, claimed to be suffering from diminished psychological capacity at the time of the shooting because of the emotional stress brought on by the canceled wedding.
■

Lecture Note Referring to Figure 12–1, describe the percentages of individuals under the various types of correctional supervision in the United States. Ask why probation is such a commonly used alternative.

FIGURE 12–1
Parole 11% Jail 10% Probation 59%
ISBN: 0-536-09974-X

Offenders under correctional supervision in the United States, by type of supervision.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Correctional Surveys.

Prison 20%

Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the Twenty-First Century, Ninth Edition, by Frank Schmalleger. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc.

456

PA R T 4

Corrections

FIGURE 12–2
Percentage of convicted felony offenders receiving probation, by type of crime.
Source: Jodi M. Brown and Patrick A. Langan, Felony Sentences in the United States, 1996 (Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999).

40

35

30

25
■

Lecture Note Examine Figure 12–2. Ask the class to discuss the merits of granting probation to violent offenders. Explain that probation may result when the prosecutor’s evidence is especially weak or when a plea bargain is accepted in lieu of a jury trial.

Percentage

20

15

10

5

0 es es es es im im im im Cr Cr Cr Cr rF Ot he el on ie s

nt

ug

ty

le

er

Dr

Vi o

op

Type of Crime

At the beginning of 2005, a total of 4,151,125 adults were on probation throughout the nation.15 Individual states, however, make greater or lesser use of probation. North Dakota authorities, with the smallest probationary population, supervise only 3,687 people, while Texas reports 428,773 offenders on probation. On a per capita basis, New Hampshire has the lowest rate of probation (431 for every 100,000 residents), while Massachusetts has the highest (3,301 for every 100,000 residents). The national average is 1,884 for every 100,000 residents. Sixty percent of the more than 2.2 million adults discharged from probation in 2004 had successfully met the conditions of their supervision. Approximately 15% of those discharged from supervision, however, were incarcerated because of a rule violation or because they committed a new offense. Another 4% absconded, and 10% had their probation sentence revoked without being ordered to serve time.16 See more statistics describing community corrections at Library Extra 12–1 at cjtoday.com.

Probation Conditions probation revocation
A court order taking away a convicted offender’s probationary status and usually withdrawing the conditional freedom associated with that status in response to a violation of the conditions of probation.

Those sentenced to probation must agree to abide by court-mandated conditions of probation. A violation of conditions can lead to probation revocation. Conditions are of two types: general and specific. General conditions apply to all probationers in a given jurisdiction and usually require that the probationer obey all laws, maintain employment, remain within the jurisdiction of the court, possess no firearms, allow the probation officer to visit at home or at work, and so forth. As a general condition of probation, many probationers are also required to pay a fine to the court, usually in a series of installments, that is designed to reimburse victims for damages and to pay lawyers’ fees and other court costs. Special conditions may be mandated by a judge who feels that the probationer is in need of particular guidance or control. Depending on the nature of the offense, a judge may require that the offender surrender his or her driver’s license; submit at reasonable times to warrantless and unannounced searches by a probation officer; supply breath, urine, or blood samples as needed for drug or alcohol testing; complete a specified number of hours of community service; or pass the general equivalency diploma (GED) test within a specified time. The judge may also dictate

W ea

Pr

po

ns

ISBN: 0-536-09974-X

Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the Twenty-First Century, Ninth Edition, by Frank Schmalleger. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc.

Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections

CHAPTER 12

457

Patrick Collier, with his fiancée, Sandy Fabian. Collier was one of five winners in a McDonald’s giveaway in 2001. Shortly after winning $1 million, he was arrested and charged with aggravated battery against his 29year-old fiancée. Collier was released on bail but was soon back in jail, charged with violating probation.
AP Wide World Photos

special conditions tailored to the probationer’s situation. Such individualized conditions may prohibit the offender from associating with named others (a codefendant, for example), they may require that the probationer be at home after dark, or they may demand that the offender complete a particular treatment program within a set time.

The Federal Probation System
The federal probation system is nearly 80 years old.17 In 1916 in the Killets case,18 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal judges did not have the authority to suspend sentences and to order probation. After a vigorous campaign by the National Probation Association, Congress passed the National Probation Act in 1925, authorizing the use of probation in federal courts. The bill came just in time to save a burgeoning federal prison system from serious overcrowding. The prostitution-fighting Mann Act, Prohibition legislation, and the growth of organized crime all led to increased arrests and a dramatic growth in the number of federal probationers in the early years of the system. Although the 1925 act authorized one probation officer per federal judge, it allocated only $25,000 for officers’ salaries. As a consequence, only eight officers were hired to serve 132 judges, and the system came to rely heavily on voluntary probation officers. Some sources indicate that as many as 40,000 probationers were under the supervision of volunteers at the peak of the system.19 By 1930, however, Congress provided adequate funding, and a corps of salaried professionals began to provide probation services to the U.S. courts. Today, approximately 4,000 federal probation officers are employed through the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC).20 Federal probation officers have statutory authority to arrest probationers for a violation. Under existing policy, however, they are encouraged to obtain an arrest warrant from a court, and the warrant is to be executed by the U.S. Marshals Service. Most federal probation officers may carry a firearm for defensive purposes while on duty. Before doing so, however, they must complete rigorous training and certification requirements, provide objective justification for doing so, and be approved to do so on an individual basis. Some federal districts do not allow any probation officers to carry firearms in the performance of their official duties; these include the Eastern and Western districts of Wisconsin, Eastern Virginia, Eastern Virgin Islands, Middle Tennessee, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Central California.21

Texas has one of the toughest parole policies in the country with the most violent offenders serving 50 percent of their sentences in actual time and capital offenders sentenced to life serving 40 years of actual time before parole consideration.
—Tony Fabelo, Executive Director of the Texas Criminal Justice Policy Council

■

ISBN: 0-536-09974-X

Lecture Note Explain parole as supervised early release from prison. Tell the class that, as with probation, offenders who violate the terms of parole may be returned to prison to complete the remaining portion of their sentence.

Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the Twenty-First Century, Ninth Edition, by Frank Schmalleger. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc.

458

PA R T 4

Corrections

MULTICULTURALISM AND DIVERSITY

Culturally Skilled Probation Officers
A recent article in the journal Federal Probation describes the characteristics of “good therapeutic relationships” in probation work and says that “one of the major impediments to building an effective relationship may be found in crosscultural barriers.” According to the article, probation officers who work with immigrants, or with those whose cultures differ substantially from that of mainstream America, must realize that a client’s culture has to be taken into consideration. Doing so can make officers far more effective as both counselors and supervisors. That’s because differences in culture can lead to difficulties in developing the rapport that is necessary to build a helping relationship between an offender and a probation officer. Consequently, effective probation officers work to understand the values, norms, lifestyles, roles, and methods of communicating that characterize their clients. Culturally skilled probation officers, says the article, are aware and sensitive to their own cultural heritage, and they value and respect differences so long as they do not lead to continued law violation. Culturally skilled officers are also aware of their own preconceived notions, biases, prejudicial attitudes, feelings, and beliefs. They avoid stereotyping and labeling. Skilled officers are comfortable with the cultural differences that exist between themselves and their clients, and they are comfortable referring clients to someone who may be better qualified to help. Developing multicultural awareness is the first step to becoming culturally skilled, says the article. Developing awareness is an ongoing process—one that culminates in the ability to understand a client’s worldview, or cultural empathy.

According to the article, developing cultural empathy involves six steps, as follows:
■

■

■

■

■

■

The counselor must understand and accept the context of family and community for clients from different cultural backgrounds (especially important in working with Hispanic clients where relationships within the extended family are highly valued). Counselors should incorporate indigenous healing practices from the client’s culture whenever they can (as might be possible when working with Native Americans). Counselors must become knowledgeable about the historical and sociopolitical background of clients (especially when clients have fled from repressive regimes in their home countries and might still fear authority figures). They must become knowledgeable of the psychosocial adjustment that must be made by clients who have moved from one environment to another (including the sense of loneliness and separation that some immigrants feel on arrival in their adopted country). They must be sensitive to the oppression, discrimination, and racism encountered by many people (for example, Kurdish people who suffered discrimination and experienced genocide under Saddam Hussein). Counselors must facilitate empowerment for those clients who feel underprivileged and devalued (for example, immigrants who may feel forced to accept menial jobs even though they worked in prestigious occupations in their native countries).

The article concludes that developing cultural awareness provides the probation officer with an effective approach that actively draws the probationer into the therapeutic relationship and which increases the likelihood of a successful outcome.

Reference: Robert A. Shearer and Patricia Ann King, “Multicultural Competencies in Probation: Issues and Challenges,” Federal Probation, Vol. 68, No. 1 (June 2004).

What Is Parole? parole The status of a convicted offender who has been conditionally released from prison by a paroling authority before the expiration of his or her sentence, is placed under the supervision of a parole agency, and is required to observe the conditions of parole.

prisoner reentry
The managed return to the community of individuals released from prison. Also called reentry.

Parole is the supervised early release of inmates from correctional confinement. It is a prisoner reentry strategy that differs from probation in both purpose and implementation. Whereas probationers generally avoid serving time in prison, parolees have already been incarcerated. Whereas probation is a sentencing option available to a judge who determines the form probation will take, parole results from an administrative decision by a legally designated paroling authority. Whereas probation is a sentencing strategy, parole is a correctional strategy whose primary purpose is to return offenders gradually to productive lives. By making early release possible, parole can also act as a stimulus for positive behavioral change. States differ as to the type of parole decision-making mechanism they use, as well as the level at which it operates. Two major models prevail: (1) Parole boards grant parole based on their judgment and assessment. The parole board’s decisions are termed discretionary parole. (2) Statutory decrees produce mandatory parole, with release dates usually set near the completion of the inmate’s prison sentence, minus time off for good behavior and other special considerations. Fifteen states have entirely abolished discretionary release from prison by a parole board for all offenders (Figure 12–3). Another five states have abolished discretionary parole for certain violent offenses or other crimes against a person. As a result of the movement away from release by parole boards, statutory release has become the most common method of release from prison.22
Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the Twenty-First Century, Ninth Edition, by Frank Schmalleger. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc.

ISBN: 0-536-09974-X

Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections

CHAPTER 12

459

no longer have parole boards have parole boards
Note: California offenders convicted of some very serious crimes, such as murder or kidnapping for ransom, continue to receive indeterminate sentences and are subject to parole board review. These offenders, however, comprise only a very small percentage of the total California prison population.
Washington Oregon Idaho Wyoming Nevada Utah California Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Colorado Kansas Missouri an Minn es ota

FIGURE 12–3
States that have eliminated parole boards.
Source: Timothy A. Hughes, Doris James Wilson, and Allen J. Beck, Trends in State Parole, 1990–2000 (Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2001).

Vermont Montana North Dakota South Dakota Nebraska

Michigan
W isc

New York

Maine

on

sin
Indiana

Iowa Illinois

iana sa s ssi ssi ppi Ala bam a

Kentuck Tennessee

y

W Vir est gin ia

Ohio

New Hampshire Massachusetts Rhode Island Connecticut Pennsylvania New Jersey Delaware Maryland Virginia North Carolina South Carolina

Ark

Georgia

Louis

Mi

Texas

Flo rid

Alaska

a

Hawaii

States that do not have parole boards can still have substantial parole populations. For example, California, one of the states that no longer uses parole boards for release decisions, has the largest population of parolees in the country.23 Although it does not have a parole board, California does have a Board of Prison Terms, which determines when the state’s most serious offenders are ready for release from prison. These offenders, however, make up only a very small percentage of the state’s prison population. Parole was a much-heralded tool of nineteenth-century corrections. Its advocates had been looking for a behavioral incentive to motivate youthful offenders to reform. Parole, through its promise of earned early release, seemed the ideal innovation. The use of parole in this country began with New York’s Elmira Reformatory in 1876. Indeterminate sentences were then a key part of the rehabilitation philosophy, and they remain so today.

parole board
A state paroling authority. Most states have parole boards that decide when an incarcerated offender is ready for conditional release. Some boards also function as revocation hearing panels.

The Extent of Parole
Parolees make up one of the smallest of the correctional categories shown in Figure 12–1. The growing reluctance to use parole today seems to be due to the realization that correctional routines have generally been ineffective at producing any substantial reformation among many offenders before their release back into the community. The abandonment of the rehabilitation goal, combined with a return to determinate sentencing in many jurisdictions—including the federal judicial system— has substantially reduced the amount of time the average correctional client spends on parole. Although discretionary parole releases are far less common than they used to be, about 25% of inmates who are freed from prison are still paroled by a paroling authority such as a parole board.24 States operating under determinate sentencing guidelines, however, often require that inmates serve a short period of time, such as 90 days, on reentry parole—a form of mandatory release. Mandatory parole releases have increased 91% since 1990,25 even though they typically involve either a very small amount of time on parole or no time at all. As a result, determinate sentencing schemes have changed the face of parole in America, resulting in a dramatic reduction in the average time spent under postprison supervision, but having little impact on the actual number of released inmates who experience some form of parole. At the beginning of 2005, approximately 765,350 people were on parole throughout the United States.26 As with probation, states vary considerably in the use they make of parole, influenced as they are by the legislative requirements of sentencing schemes. For example, on
Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the Twenty-First Century, Ninth Edition, by Frank Schmalleger. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc.

ISBN: 0-536-09974-X

We in law enforcement need to recognize that when we locked these guys up, they didn’t go away forever. Now, they’re coming back, released from prisons and jail systems that our elected officials can’t afford to grow anymore. We have to find a way to make sure these people succeed while maintaining the decline in violent crime.
—Chief Dean Esserman, Providence (Rhode Island) Police Departmentii

460

PA R T 4

Corrections

parole (probation) violation
An act or a failure to act by a parolee (or probationer) that does not conform to the conditions of his or her parole (or probation).

January 1, 2005, Maine, a state that is phasing out parole, reported only 32 people under parole supervision (the lowest of all the states) and Washington had only 120. California (the highest of all) had a parole population in excess of 110,000, and Texas officials were busy supervising more than 102,000 parolees. The per capita rate at which parole is used varies, as well. Only 3 out of every 100,000 Maine residents are on parole, whereas 1,198 out of every 100,000 District of Columbia residents are on parole. The national average is 347 per 100,000.27 Nationwide, approximately 46% of parolees successfully complete parole, while about 26% are returned to prison for parole violations, and another 11% go back to prison for new offenses during their parole period. (Others may be transferred to new jurisdictions, abscond and not be caught, or die—bringing the total to 100%.)28 Learn more about trends in parole via Library Extra 12–2 at cjtoday.com.

Parole Conditions conditions of parole (probation)
The general and special limits imposed on an offender who is released on parole (or probation). General conditions tend to be fixed by state statute, while special conditions are mandated by the sentencing authority (court or board) and take into consideration the background of the offender and the circumstances of the offense.

parole revocation
The administrative action of a paroling authority removing a person from parole status in response to a violation of lawfully required conditions of parole, including the prohibition against committing a new offense, and usually resulting in a return to prison.

In those jurisdictions that retain discretionary parole, the conditions of parole remain very similar to the conditions agreed to by probationers. General conditions of parole usually include agreement not to leave the state as well as to obey extradition requests from other jurisdictions. Parolees must also periodically report to parole officers, and parole officers may visit parolees at their homes and places of business, often arriving unannounced. The successful and continued employment of parolees is one of the major concerns of parole boards and their officers, and studies have found that successful employment is a major factor in reducing the likelihood of repeat offenses.29 Hence, the importance of continued employment is typically stressed on parole agreement forms, with the condition that failure to find employment within 30 days may result in parole revocation. As with probationers, parolees who are working can be ordered to pay fines and penalties. A provision for making restitution payments is also frequently included as a condition of parole. As with probation, special parole conditions may be added by the judge and might require the parolee to pay a “parole supervisory fee” (often around $15 to $20 per month). A relatively new innovation, the parole supervisory fee shifts some of the expense of community corrections to the offender.

Federal Parole
Federal parole decisions are made by the U.S. Parole Commission, which uses hearing examiners to visit federal prisons. Examiners typically ask inmates to describe why, in their opinion, they are ready for parole. The inmate’s job readiness, home plans, past record, accomplishments while in prison, good behavior, and previous experiences on probation or parole form the basis for the examiners’ report to the parole commission. The 1984 Comprehensive Crime Control Act, which mandated federal fixed sentencing and abolished parole for offenses committed after November 1, 1978, began a planned phaseout of the U.S. Parole Commission. Under the act, the commission was to be abolished by 1992. Various federal legislation has since extended the life of the commission. Visit the commission’s website via Web Extra 12–2 at cjtoday.com. Read a detailed history of the federal parole system at Library Extra 12–3.

restitution
A court requirement that an alleged or convicted offender pay money or provide services to the victim of the crime or provide services to the community.
■

Probation and Parole:The Pluses and Minuses
Advantages of Probation and Parole
Probation is used to meet the needs of offenders who require some correctional supervision short of imprisonment while providing a reasonable degree of security to the community. Parole fulfills a similar purpose for offenders released from prison. Both probation and parole provide a number of advantages over imprisonment, including these:
■
ISBN: 0-536-09974-X

Lecture Note Describe probation and parole revocation. Explain that, in most cases, revocation orders can be issued only after a hearing in front of a neutral body and that certain procedures must be followed.

Lower cost. Imprisonment is expensive. Incarcerating a single offender in Georgia, for example, costs approximately $39,501 per year, while the cost of intensive probation is as little as $1,321 per probationer.30 The expense of imprisonment in some other states may be more than three times as high as it is in Georgia.
Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the Twenty-First Century, Ninth Edition, by Frank Schmalleger. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc.

Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections

CHAPTER 12

461

■

Increased employment. Few people in prison have the opportunity for productive employment. Work-release programs, correctional industries, and inmate labor programs operate in most states, but they usually provide only low-paying jobs and require few skills. At best, such programs include only a small portion of the inmates in any given facility. Probation and parole, on the other hand, make it possible for offenders under correctional supervision to work full-time at jobs in the “free” economy. Offenders can contribute to their own and their families’ support, stimulate the local economy by spending their wages, and support the government through the taxes they pay. Restitution. Offenders who are able to work are candidates for court-ordered restitution. Society’s interest in restitution may be better served by a probationary sentence or parole than by imprisonment. Restitution payments to victims may help restore their standard of living and personal confidence while teaching the offender responsibility. Community support. The decision to release a prisoner on parole or to sentence a convicted offender to probation is often partially based on considerations of family and other social ties. Such decisions are made in the belief that offenders will be more subject to control in the community if they participate in a web of positive social relationships. An advantage of both probation and parole is that they allow the offender to continue personal and social relationships. Probation avoids splitting up families, while parole may reunite family members separated from each other by a prison sentence. Reduced risk of criminal socialization. Criminal values permeate prisons; prison has been called a “school in crime.” Probation insulates adjudicated offenders, at least to some degree, from these kinds of values. Parole, by virtue of the fact that it follows time served in prison, is less successful than probation in reducing the risk of criminal socialization. Increased use of community services. Probationers and parolees can take advantage of services offered through the community, including psychological therapy, substance abuse counseling, financial services, support groups, church outreach programs, and social services. While a few similar opportunities may be available in prison, the community environment itself can enhance the effectiveness of treatment programs by reducing the stigmatization of the offender and by allowing the offender to participate in a more “normal” environment. Increased opportunity for rehabilitation. Probation and parole can both be useful behavioral management tools. They reward cooperative offenders with freedom and allow for the opportunity to shape the behavior of offenders who may be difficult to reach through other programs.

■

Lecture Note List and discuss each of the advantages of probation and parole, such as lower costs versus imprisonment, the opportunity for restitution, and the reduced risk of criminal socialization. Thematic Question How well do the terms imposed on probationers and parolees serve the rights of individuals? How well do they serve the needs of the community? What issues or needs are not addressed but should be? Lecture Note List and discuss the disadvantages of probation and parole, including the relatively low degree of punishment inherent in both options. Ask students to decide whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and how such a decision might be reached in individual circumstances.

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

Disadvantages of Probation and Parole
Any honest appraisal of probation and parole must recognize that they share a number of strategic drawbacks, such as these:
■

Relative lack of punishment. The “just deserts” model of criminal sentencing insists that punishment should be a central theme of the justice process. While rehabilitation and treatment are recognized as worthwhile goals, the model suggests that punishment serves both society’s need for protection and the victim’s need for revenge. Many view probation, however, as practically no punishment at all and it is coming under increasing criticism as a sentencing strategy. Parole is likewise accused of unhinging the scales of justice because (1) it releases some offenders early, even when they have been convicted of serious crimes, while some relatively minor offenders remain in prison, and (2) it is dishonest because it does not require completion of the offender’s entire sentence behind bars. Increased risk to the community. Probation and parole are strategies designed to deal with convicted criminal offenders. The release into the community of such offenders increases the risk that they will commit additional offenses. Community supervision can never be so complete as to eliminate such a possibility, and evaluations of parole have pointed out that an accurate assessment of offender dangerousness is beyond our present capability.31 Increased social costs. Some offenders placed on probation and parole will effectively and responsibly discharge their obligations. Others, however, will become social liabilities. In addition to the increased risk of new crimes, probation and parole increase the chance that added expenses will accrue to the community in the form of child support, welfare costs, housing expenses, legal aid, indigent health care, and the like.
The abolition of parole has been tried and has failed on a spectacular scale. . . . The absence of parole means that offenders simply walk out the door of prison at the end of a predetermined period of time, no questions asked.
—American Probation and Parole Association and the Association of Paroling Authorities International

■

ISBN: 0-536-09974-X

■

Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the Twenty-First Century, Ninth Edition, by Frank Schmalleger. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc.

462

PA R T 4

Corrections

The Legal Environment
■

Thematic Question Do communities have the right to be informed when exconvicts are released from prison? Do victims? How can we as a society balance the community’s right to selfprotection with individuals’ right to live where they choose, even in the case of ex-convicts? Lecture Note Explain that courts have not held probation and parole officers to the same standards as police officers in the gathering of evidence. Discuss the fact that probation and parole officers may turn incriminating statements made by clients over to prosecutors and that officers may enter a client’s home without a warrant.

■

revocation hearing
A hearing held before a legally constituted hearing body (such as a parole board) to determine whether a parolee or probationer has violated the conditions and requirements of his or her parole or probation.
■

Thematic Question This textbook emphasizes the divergent orientations represented by individualrights advocates and publicorder advocates. In your opinion, which of the two perspectives would be most likely to favor the use of parole as a sentencing option? Which would favor probation? Why? ■ Thematic Question Consider the diverse sentencing goals identified in Chapter 11. Which of the goals identified there are most likely to be met through the use of probation? Which through parole? Why?

Ten especially significant U.S. Supreme Court decisions provide the legal framework for probation and parole supervision. Among those cases, that of Griffin v. Wisconsin (1987)32 may be the most significant. In Griffin, the Supreme Court ruled that probation officers may conduct searches of a probationer’s residence without either a search warrant or probable cause. According to the Court, “A probationer’s home, like anyone else’s, is protected by the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that searches be ‘reasonable.’” However, “[a] State’s operation of a probation system . . . presents ‘special needs’ beyond normal law enforcement that may justify departures from the usual warrant and probable cause requirements.” Probation, the Court concluded, is similar to imprisonment because it is a “form of criminal sanction imposed upon an offender after a determination of guilt.” Similarly, in the 1998 case of Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott,33 the Court declined to extend the exclusionary rule to apply to searches by parole officers, even where such searches yield evidence of parole violations. In the words of the Court, “[T]he Court has repeatedly declined to extend the [exclusionary] rule to proceedings other than criminal trials. . . . The social costs of allowing convicted criminals who violate their parole to remain at large are particularly high . . . and are compounded by the fact that parolees . . . are more likely to commit future crimes than are average citizens.” In 2001, the case of U.S. v. Knights34 expanded the search authority normally reserved for probation and parole officers to police officers under certain circumstances. Mark James Knights was a California probationer who had signed a standard state probation form agreeing to waive his constitutional protection against warrantless searches as a condition of his probation. The form did not limit such searches to probation officers but instead required that Knights submit to a search at any time, with or without a search or arrest warrant or reasonable cause, by any probation or law enforcement officer. When Knights came under suspicion of setting a fire that caused $1.5 million in damages, police officers searched his home without a warrant. The search uncovered evidence that implicated Knights in the arson. A federal district court granted a motion by Knights’ attorneys to suppress the evidence because the search was for police investigatory purposes, rather than for probationary purposes. The Ninth Circuit Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, however, and held that the warrantless search of Knights’ residence, “supported by reasonable suspicion and authorized by a probation condition, satisfied the Fourth Amendment . . . as nothing in Knights’ probation condition limits searches to those with a ‘probationary purpose.’” Other court cases focus on the conduct of parole or probation revocation hearings. Revocation is a common procedure. Annually, about 26% of adults on parole and 25% of those on probation throughout the United States have their conditional release revoked.35 The supervising officer may request that probation or parole be revoked if a client has violated the conditions of community release or has committed a new crime. The most frequent violations for which revocation occurs are (1) failure to report as required to a probation or parole officer, (2) failure to participate in a stipulated treatment program, and (3) alcohol or drug abuse while under supervision.36 Revocation hearings may result in an order that a probationer’s suspended sentence be made “active” or that a parolee return to prison to complete his sentence in confinement. In a 1935 decision (Escoe v. Zerbst 37) that has since been greatly modified, the U.S. Supreme Court held that probation “comes as an act of grace to one convicted of a crime” and that the revocation of probation without hearing or notice to the probationer is acceptable practice. In 1967, however, in the case of Mempa v. Rhay,38 the Warren Court changed direction and declared that both notice and a hearing were required. The Court also held that the probationer should have the opportunity for representation by counsel before a deferred prison sentence could be imposed.39 Two of the most widely cited cases affecting parolees and probationers are Morrissey v. Brewer (1972)40 and Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973).41 In Morrissey, the Court declared a need for procedural safeguards in revocation hearings involving parolees. After Morrissey, revocation proceedings would require that (1) the parolee be given written notice specifying the alleged violation; (2) evidence of the violation be disclosed; (3) a neutral and detached body constitute the hearing authority; (4) the parolee have the chance to appear and offer a defense, including testimony, documents, and witnesses; (5) the parolee have the right to cross-examine witnesses; and (6) a written statement be provided to the parolee at the conclusion of the hearing that includes the hearing body’s decision, the testimony considered, and reasons for revoking parole, if such occurs.42 In 1973, the Court extended the procedural safeguards of Morrissey to probationers in Gagnon v. Scarpelli. Citing its own decision a year earlier in Morrissey v. Brewer, the Supreme Court ruled that probationers, because they face a substantial loss of liberty, were entitled to two hearings: (1) a preliminary hearing to determine whether there is “probable cause to believe that
Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the Twenty-First Century, Ninth Edition, by Frank Schmalleger. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc.

ISBN: 0-536-09974-X

Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections

CHAPTER 12

463

he has committed a violation of his parole” and (2) “a somewhat more comprehensive hearing prior to the making of the final revocation decision.” The Court also ruled that probation revocation hearings were to be held “under the conditions specified in Morrissey v. Brewer.” In Gagnon and later cases, however, the Court reasserted that probation and parole revocation hearings were not a stage in the criminal prosecution process, but a simple adjunct to it, even though they might result in substantial loss of liberty. The difference is a crucial one, for it permits hearing boards and judicial review officers to function, at least to some degree, outside of the adversarial context of the trial court and with lessened attention to the rights of the criminally accused guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court extended the rationale found in Morrissey and Gagnon to inmates set free from prison under early-release programs. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that “an inmate who has been released under a program to relieve prison crowding cannot be reincarcerated without getting a chance to show at a hearing that he has met the conditions of the program and is entitled to remain free.”43 In 1979, the case of Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates44 established that parole boards do not have to specify the evidence used in deciding to deny parole. The Greenholtz case focused on a Nebraska statute that required that inmates denied parole be provided with reasons for the denial. The Court held that reasons for parole denial might be provided in the interest of helping inmates prepare themselves for future review but that to require the disclosure of evidence used in the review hearing would turn the process into an adversarial proceeding. The 1983 Supreme Court case of Bearden v. Georgia45 established that probation could not be revoked for failure to pay a fine and make restitution if it could not be shown that the defendant was responsible for the failure. The Court also held that alternative forms of punishment must be considered by the hearing authority and must be shown to be inadequate before the defendant can be incarcerated. The Supreme Court decision stated that “[i]f the State determines a fine or restitution to be the appropriate and adequate penalty for the crime, it may not thereafter imprison a person solely because he lacked the resources to pay it.”46 The Court held that if a defendant lacks the capacity to pay a fine or make restitution, then the hearing authority must consider any viable alternatives to incarceration before imposing a prison sentence. Finally, a probationer’s incriminating statements to a probation officer may be used as evidence if the probationer does not specifically claim a right against self-incrimination, according to Minnesota v. Murphy (1984).47 According to the Court, the burden of invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination lies with the probationer. An important legal issue today surrounds the potential liability of probation officers and parole boards for the criminal actions of offenders they supervise or whom they have released. Some courts have held that officers are generally immune from suit because they are performing a judicial function on behalf of the state.48 Other courts, however, have indicated that parole board members who do not carefully consider mandated criteria for judging parole eligibility could be liable for injurious actions committed by parolees.49 In general, however, most experts agree that

WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
The CD-ROM scenario for Chapter 12 is built around a real-life case that involved a warrantless search of a parolee’s place of residence by parole officers. Firearms were found at the parolee’s home, and he was arrested, based in part on that evidence. Work through the scenario using the CD-ROM found in your textbook to learn more about warrantless searches by probation and parole officers.

■

Thematic Question Is it appropriate for an offender to be given certain procedural considerations in probation or parole hearings that must nevertheless stop short of introducing an adversarial element into the proceedings? Explain. Thematic Question What competing needs and rights must parole boards weigh? Whose rights or needs should be given the greatest consideration?

■

ISBN: 0-536-09974-X

Angel Coronado, 20, rushing through the door of the Huntsville (Texas) Prison Unit after being released due to overcrowding. Coronado, who has been in trouble nearly half his life, had spent nearly two years in a 6- by 10-foot cell by himself. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that “an inmate who has been released under a program to relieve prison crowding cannot be reincarcerated without getting a chance to show at a hearing that he has met the conditions [of his release] and is entitled to remain free.”
Todd Bigelow Photography

Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the Twenty-First Century, Ninth Edition, by Frank Schmalleger. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc.

464

PA R T 4

Corrections

A probation officer’s job can involve a wide variety of duties. Here, Georgia probation officers prepare to excavate a site at the Tri-State Crematory in Noble, Georgia, in 2002. Officials found the remains of hundreds of corpses on the crematory’s 16-acre grounds. The crematory’s operator, Ray Brent Marsh, was charged with 787 felony counts that include theft by deception, abuse of a corpse, and burial service fraud. He was also charged with 47 counts of making false statements to authorities.
AP Wide World Photos

A critical assessment of probation must begin by placing its ailments within the more encompassing and deeper crisis of legitimacy affecting the entire system of justice.
—Reinventing Probation Council ■

parole board members cannot be successfully sued unless release decisions are made in a grossly negligent or wantonly reckless manner.50 Discretionary decisions of individual probation and parole officers that result in harm to members of the public, however, may be more actionable under civil law, especially where their decisions were not reviewed by judicial authority.51

The Job of Probation and Parole Officers
The tasks performed by probation and parole officers are often quite similar. Some jurisdictions combine the roles of both into one job. This section describes the duties of probation and parole officers, whether separate or performed by the same individuals. Probation/parole work consists primarily of four functions: (1) presentence investigations, (2) other intake procedures, (3) needs assessment and diagnosis, and (4) client supervision. Where probation is a possibility, intake procedures may include a presentence investigation, which examines the offender’s background to provide the sentencing judge with facts needed to make an informed sentencing decision. Intake procedures may also involve a dispute-settlement process during which the probation officer works with the defendant and the victim to resolve the complaint before sentencing. Intake duties tend to be more common for juvenile offenders than they are for adults, but all officers may eventually have to recommend to the judge the best sentencing alternative for a particular case. Diagnosis, the psychological inventorying of the probation or parole client, may be done either formally with written tests administered by certified psychologists or through informal arrangements, which typically depend on the observational skills of the officer. Needs assessment, another area of officer responsibility, extends beyond the psychological needs of the client to a cataloging of the services necessary for a successful experience on probation or parole. Supervision of sentenced probationers or released parolees is the most active stage of the probation/parole process, involving months (and sometimes years) of periodic meetings between the officer and the client and an ongoing assessment of the success of the probation/parole endeavor in each case. All probation and parole officers must keep confidential the details of the presentence investigation, including psychological tests, needs assessment, conversations between the officer and the client, and so on. On the other hand, courts have generally held that communications between
Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the Twenty-First Century, Ninth Edition, by Frank Schmalleger. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc.

Lecture Note Tell the class that members of parole boards have generally been immune to lawsuits arising from “bad” release decisions. Ask students whether they think parole decision makers should be held personally liable for the decisions they make. Lecture Note Describe the job of a probation or parole officer in terms of both its difficulties and its rewards. Ask students if they would consider careers in the field of probation and parole. Discuss their choices.

■

ISBN: 0-536-09974-X

CJ CAREERS

PROBATION OFFICER
Name: Jesse J. Gomes Position: U.S. Probation Officer City: Boston, Massachusetts College Attended: Northeastern University Year Hired: 2000

I chose a career in probation because it puts me in a position to address issues from both law enforcement and human service perspectives. To work in probation is to quite literally “serve and protect” by serving a population that requires positive intervention while protecting the public from those individuals who choose not to comply. Working for U.S. Probation was the culmination of seven years of case management and offender supervision experience. I started my career as a case manager at a prerelease and intermediate sanctions program in Boston and was then hired as a probation officer for the state of Massachusetts. Federal probation was the next logical step in my career path.
U.S. probation officers must remain informed and flexible because the nature of the work is ever changing. In general, officers must have strong written and oral skills, be tied into a comprehensive network of treatment and service providers, be able to communicate effectively with a wide array of people, and have a working understanding of applicable laws. Because treatment methodologies, crime, and the laws themselves are all fluid to some extent, officers must be willing and able to implement these changes or anticipate their effects on probationers. When you do your job well, people’s lives are actually improved. That may mean helping an addict establish sobriety, obtaining housing for a homeless person, or ensuring that a dangerous offender is adequately supervised or, if necessary, removed from the community. Much is said about improving people’s lives, but in reality that’s rarer and more difficult than we would like it to be. But when actual change does occur, it makes up for the many disappointments. criminal justice, penology, correctional administration, social work, sociology, public administration, or psychology) will qualify an applicant for immediate employment at the GS-5 level, provided that at least 32 semester hours or 48 quarter hours were taken in one or more of the accepted fields of study. One year of graduate study qualifies applicants for appointment at the GS-7 level, while a master’s degree in an appropriate field or a law degree may qualify the applicant for advanced placement.

OTHER REQUIREMENTS
Applicants must be younger than 37 years of age at the time of hiring and must be in excellent physical health. A full field background investigation by the FBI and preemployment drug testing are also required.

SALARY
Appointees are typically hired at federal pay grade GS-5 or GS-7, depending on education and prior work history.

TYPICAL POSITIONS
A U.S. probation officer has a wide range of duties and responsibilities, including supervising offenders, conducting presentence investigations, and preparing presentence reports. Tasks involve interviewing offenders and their families, investigating offenses, determining prior record and financial status of offenders, and contacting law enforcement agencies, attorneys, and victims of crimes.

BENEFITS
U.S. probation and pretrial services officers are included in the federal hazardous-duty law enforcement classification and are covered by liberal federal health and life insurance programs. A comprehensive retirement program is available to all federal employees.

DIRECT INQUIRIES TO:
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts Personnel Office Washington, D.C. 20544 Phone: (202)273–1297 Website: http://www.uscourts.gov For additional information on employment opportunities in the criminal justice field, view the careers portion of the CD-ROM included with this book.

EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS
To qualify for the position of probation officer at the GS-5 level, an applicant must possess a bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university and must have a minimum of two years of general work experience. General experience must have been acquired after obtaining the bachelor’s degree and cannot include experience as a police, custodial, or security officer unless the work involved criminal investigative experience. In lieu of general experience, a bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university in an accepted field of study (including criminology,
Source: Administrative Office of the United States Courts.

ISBN: 0-536-09974-X

465
Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the Twenty-First Century, Ninth Edition, by Frank Schmalleger. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc.

466

PA R T 4

Corrections

the officer and the client are not privileged, as they might be between a doctor and a patient or between a social worker and his or her client.52 Hence officers can share with the appropriate authorities any incriminating evidence that a client relates.
Log on to ResearchNavigator .com, and choose “Criminal Justice” under ContentSelect’s Academic Journal Database. Enter the word “probation” in the search box, and click “Go.” Select three articles that you find especially interesting from the results page. (Choose full-text articles rather than abstracts whenever possible.) Perform the search again, this time using the word “parole.” Select another three articles from the search results. Write a summary of each of the six articles you’ve identified, including complete source information—that is, article title, author (if available), date of publication, and source. Submit what you have written to your instructor if asked to do so. Note: This feature is available only if your instructor has chosen the Research Navigator option available with a new textbook.

The Challenges of the Job
One of the biggest challenges that probation and parole officers face is the need to balance two conflicting sets of duties—one of which is to provide quasi–social work services and the other is to handle custodial responsibilities. In effect, two inconsistent models of the officer’s role coexist. The social work model stresses an officer’s service role and views probationers and parolees as clients. In this model, officers are caregivers whose goals are to accurately assess the needs of their clients and to match clients with community resources such as job placement, indigent medical care, family therapy, and psychological and substance-abuse counseling. The social work model depicts probation/parole as a “helping profession” wherein officers assist their clients in meeting the conditions imposed on them by their sentence. The other model for officers is correctional. In this model, probation and parole clients are “wards” whom officers are expected to control. This model emphasizes community protection, which officers are supposed to achieve through careful and close supervision. Custodial supervision means that officers will periodically visit their charges at work and at home, often arriving unannounced. It also means that they must be willing to report clients for new offenses and for violations of the conditions of their release. Most officers, by virtue of their personalities and experiences, identify more with one model than with the other. They consider themselves primarily caregivers or correctional officers. Regardless of the emphasis that each individual officer stresses, however, the demands of the job are bound to generate role conflict at one time or another. A second challenge of probation and parole work is large caseloads. Back in 1973, the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice recommended that probation and parole caseloads average around 35 clients per officer.53 However, caseloads of 250 clients are common in some jurisdictions today. Large caseloads combined with limited training and the time constraints imposed by administrative demands culminate in stopgap supervisory measures. “Postcard probation,” in which clients mail in a letter or card once a month to report on their whereabouts and circumstances, is an example of one stopgap measure that harried agencies with large caseloads use to keep track of their wards. Another difficulty with probation and parole work is the frequent lack of opportunity for career mobility within the profession. Probation and parole officers are generally assigned to small agencies serving limited geographic areas, under the leadership of one or two chief probation officers. Unless retirement or death claims a supervisor, there is little chance for other officers to advance. Learn more about working as a probation or parole officer at the American Probation and Parole Association’s website via Web Extra 12–3 at cjtoday.com.

caseload
The number of probation or parole clients assigned to one probation or parole officer for supervision.

Intermediate Sanctions intermediate sanctions
The use of split sentencing, shock probation or parole, shock incarceration, community service, intensive supervision, or home confinement in lieu of other, more traditional, sanctions, such as imprisonment and fines.
■

Lecture Note Explain that intermediate sanctions resulted from the desire to improve the effectiveness of rehabilitative efforts.

Significant new sentencing options have become available during the past few decades. Many such options are called intermediate sanctions because they employ sentencing alternatives that fall somewhere between outright imprisonment and simple probationary release back into the community. They are also sometimes termed alternative sentencing strategies. Michael J. Russell, former director of the National Institute of Justice, says that “intermediate punishments are intended to provide prosecutors, judges, and corrections officials with sentencing options that permit them to apply appropriate punishments to convicted offenders while not being constrained by the traditional choice between prison and probation. Rather than substituting for prison or probation, however, these sanctions, which include intensive supervision, house arrest with electronic monitoring (also referred to as remote location monitoring), and shock incarceration—programs that stress a highly structured and regimented routine, considerable physical work and exercise, and at times intensive substance abuse treatment—bridge the gap between those options and provide innovative ways to ensure swift and certain punishment.”54 A number of citizen groups and special-interest organizations are working to widen the use of sentencing alternatives. One organization of special note is the Sentencing Project. The Sentencing Project, based in Washington, D.C., is dedicated to promoting a greater use of alternatives to incarceration. It provides technical assistance to public defenders, court officials, and other community organizations.
Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the Twenty-First Century, Ninth Edition, by Frank Schmalleger. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc.

ISBN: 0-536-09974-X

Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections

CHAPTER 12

467

The Sentencing Project and other groups like it have contributed to the development of more than 100 locally based alternative sentencing service programs. Most alternative sentencing services work in conjunction with defense attorneys to develop written sentencing plans. Such plans are basically well-considered citizen suggestions as to appropriate sentencing in a given instance. Plans are often quite detailed and may include letters of support from employers, family members, the defendant, and even victims. Sentencing plans may be used in plea bargaining sessions or may be presented to judges following trial and conviction. More than a decade ago, for example, lawyers for country-and-western singer Willie Nelson successfully proposed to tax court officials an alternative option that allowed the singer to pay huge past tax liabilities by performing in concerts for that purpose. Lacking such an alternative, the tax court might have seized Nelson’s property or even ordered the singer to be confined to a federal facility. The basic philosophy behind intermediate sanctions is this: When judges are offered wellplanned alternatives to imprisonment, the likelihood of a prison sentence is reduced. An analysis of alternative sentencing plans like those sponsored by the Sentencing Project shows that judges accept them in up to 80% of the cases in which they are recommended and that as many as two-thirds of offenders who receive intermediate sentences successfully complete them.55 Intermediate sanctions have three distinct advantages: (1) They are less expensive to operate per offender than imprisonment; (2) they are “socially cost-effective” because they keep the offender in the community, thus avoiding both the breakup of the family and the stigmatization that accompanies imprisonment; and (3) they provide flexibility in terms of resources, time of involvement, and place of service.56 Some of these new sentencing options are described in the paragraphs that follow.

■

Class Activity Invite a probation or parole officer to speak with the class either in person or through virtual conferencing. Have students prepare questions in advance to ask the speaker about the use of alternative sentencing options in the local area and about the rewards and difficulties associated with his or her job. Thematic Question Contrast the intermediate sentencing options described in this chapter with the goals of sentencing identified in Chapter 11. Which option is most likely to achieve each goal? Why?

■

Split Sentencing
In jurisdictions where split sentences are an option, judges may impose a combination of a brief period of imprisonment and probation. Defendants who are given split sentences are often ordered to serve time in a local jail rather than in a long-term confinement facility. Ninety days in jail, followed by two years of supervised probation, is a typical split sentence. Split sentences are frequently given to minor drug offenders and serve notice that continued law violations may result in imprisonment for much longer periods. split sentence
A sentence explicitly requiring the convicted offender to serve a period of confinement in a local, state, or federal facility, followed by a period of probation.

Shock Probation and Shock Parole
Shock probation strongly resembles split sentencing. The offender serves a relatively short period of time in custody (usually in a prison rather than a jail) and is released on probation by court order. The difference is that shock probation clients must apply for probationary release from confinement and cannot be certain of the judge’s decision. In shock probation, the court in effect makes a resentencing decision. Probation is only a statutory possibility and often little more than an aspiration for the offender as imprisonment begins. If probationary release is ordered, it may well come as a “shock” to the offender. The hope is that the unexpected reprieve will cause the offender to steer clear of future criminal involvement. Shock probation was begun in Ohio in 196557 and is used today in about half of the United States.58 Shock probation lowers the cost of confinement, maintains community and family ties, and may be an effective rehabilitative tool.59 Similar to shock probation is shock parole. Whereas shock probation is ordered by judicial authority, shock parole is an administrative decision made by a paroling authority. Parole boards or their representatives may order an inmate’s early release, hoping that the brief exposure to prison has reoriented the offender’s life in a positive direction. shock probation
The practice of sentencing offenders to prison, allowing them to apply for probationary release, and enacting such release in surprise fashion. Offenders who receive shock probation may not be aware that they will be released on probation and may expect to spend a much longer time behind bars.

Shock Incarceration
Shock incarceration programs, which became popular during the 1990s, utilize military-style “boot camp” prison settings to provide highly regimented environments involving strict discipline, physical training, and hard labor.60 Shock incarceration programs are designed primarily for young first offenders and are of short duration, generally lasting for only 90 to 180 days. Offenders who successfully complete these programs are typically returned to the community under some form of supervision. Program “failures” may be moved into the general prison population for longer terms of confinement. Georgia established the first shock incarceration program in 1983.61 Following Georgia’s lead, more than 30 other states began their own programs.62 About half of the states provide for voluntary entry into the program. A few allow inmates to decide when and whether they want to quit. Although
Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the Twenty-First Century, Ninth Edition, by Frank Schmalleger. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc.

shock incarceration
A sentencing option that makes use of “boot camp”–type prisons to impress on convicted offenders the realities of prison life.

ISBN: 0-536-09974-X

468

PA R T 4

Corrections

■

Lecture Note Discuss the new sentencing options described in this chapter. Ask why the interest in shock incarceration, “boot camp” prisons, and house arrest is so high. Have the class name the types of offenders and offenses on which shock incarceration programs might have the most effect. Thematic Question Discuss the value of each of the intermediate sanctions described in this chapter. Which of these options are, in your opinion, the most fair? Why? mixed sentence
A sentence that requires that a convicted offender serve weekends (or other specified periods of time) in a confinement facility (usually a jail) while undergoing probationary supervision in the community.

■

most states allow judges to place offenders into these programs, some delegate that authority to corrections officials. Two states, Louisiana and Texas, give judges and corrections personnel joint authority in the decision-making process.63 Some states, including Massachusetts, accept female inmates into boot camp settings. The Massachusetts program, which first accepted women in 1993, requires inmates to spend nearly four months undergoing the rigors of training. The federal government also operates shock incarceration programs. One of the most comprehensive studies to date of boot camp prison programs focused on eight states: Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, New York, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. The report found that boot camp programs have been popular because “they are . . . perceived as being tough on crime” and “have been enthusiastically embraced as a viable correctional option.”64 The report concluded, however, that “the impact of boot camp programs on offender recidivism is at best negligible.” More limited studies, such as one that focused on shock incarceration in New York State, have found that boot camp programs can be effective money savers. The research indicates that such programs save money in two ways: “first by reducing expenditures for care and custody” (since the intense programs reduce time spent in custody, and participation in them is the only way New York inmates can be released from prison before their minimum parole eligibility dates) and “second, by avoiding capital costs for new prison construction.”65 A 1995 study of Oregon’s Summit boot camp program reached a similar conclusion. Although they did not study recidivism, the Oregon researchers found that “the Summit boot camp program is a cost-effective means of reducing prison overcrowding by treating and releasing specially selected inmates earlier than their court-determined minimum period of incarceration.” 66

Mixed Sentencing and Community Service
Some mixed sentences require that offenders serve weekends in jail and receive probation supervision during the week. Other types of mixed sentencing require offenders to participate in treatment or community service programs while on probation. Community service programs be-

A New Mexico boot camp staff member conducts a push-up drill with young offenders. Boot camps use military-style discipline in an attempt to lessen the chance for recidivism among young and first-time offenders.
AP Wide World Photos

ISBN: 0-536-09974-X Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the Twenty-First Century, Ninth Edition, by Frank Schmalleger. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc.

Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections

CHAPTER 12

469

ETHICS AND PROFESSIONALISM

American Probation and Parole Association Code of Ethics
■

■

■

■

■ ■

I will render professional service to the justice system and the community at large in effecting the social adjustment of the offender. I will uphold the law with dignity, displaying an awareness of my responsibility to offenders while recognizing the right of the public to be safeguarded from criminal activity. I will strive to be objective in the performance of my duties, recognizing the inalienable right of all persons, appreciating the inherent worth of the individual, and respecting those confidences which can be reposed in me. I will conduct my personal life with decorum, neither accepting nor granting favors in connection with my office. I will cooperate with my co-workers and related agencies and will continually strive to improve my professional competence through the seeking and sharing of knowledge and understanding.

■

■

■

I will distinguish clearly, in public, between my statements and actions as an individual and as a representative of my profession. I will encourage policy, procedures and personnel practices, which will enable others to conduct themselves in accordance with the values, goals and objectives of the American Probation and Parole Association. I recognize my office as a symbol of public faith and I accept it as a public trust to be held as long as I am true to the ethics of the American Probation and Parole Association. I will constantly strive to achieve these objectives and ideals, dedicating myself to my chosen profession. THINKING ABOUT ETHICS

1. Which of the ethical principles enumerated here might also apply to correctional officers working in prisons and jails? 2. Which might apply to law enforcement officers? 3. Which might apply to prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys?

Source: American Probation and Parole Association. Reprinted with permission.

gan in Minnesota in 1972 with the Minnesota Restitution Program, which gave property offenders the opportunity to work and turn over part of their pay as restitution to their victims.67 Courts throughout the nation quickly adopted the idea and began to build restitution orders into suspended-sentence agreements. Community service is more an adjunct to, rather than a type of, correctional sentence. Community service is compatible with most other forms of innovation in probation and parole. Even with home confinement (discussed below), offenders can be sentenced to community service activities that are performed in the home or at a job site during the hours they are permitted to be away from their homes. Washing police cars, cleaning school buses, refurbishing public facilities, and assisting in local government offices are typical forms of community service. Some authors have linked the development of community service sentences to the notion that work and service to others are good for the spirit.68 Community service participants are usually minor criminals, drunk drivers, and youthful offenders. One problem with community service sentences is that authorities rarely agree on what they are supposed to accomplish. Most people admit that offenders who work in the community are able to reduce the costs of their own supervision. There is little agreement, however, on whether such sentences reduce recidivism, act as a deterrent, or serve to rehabilitate offenders.

community service
A sentencing alternative that requires offenders to spend at least part of their time working for a community agency.

Probation and parole services are characteristically poorly staffed and often poorly administered.
—President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice

Intensive Supervision
Intensive probation supervision (IPS) has been described as the “strictest form of probation for adults in the United States.”69 IPS is designed to achieve control in a community setting over offenders who would otherwise go to prison. Some states have extended intensive supervision to parolees, allowing the early release of some who would otherwise serve longer prison terms. Georgia was the first state to implement IPS, beginning its program in 1982. The Georgia program involves a minimum of five face-to-face contacts between the probationer and the supervising officer per week, mandatory curfew, required employment, a weekly check of local arrest records, routine and unannounced alcohol and drug testing, 132 hours of community service, and automatic notification of probation officers via the State Crime Information Network when an IPS client is arrested.70 The caseloads of probation officers involved in IPS are much lower than the national average. Georgia officers work as a team, with one probation officer and two surveillance officers supervising about 40 probationers.71
Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the Twenty-First Century, Ninth Edition, by Frank Schmalleger. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc.

intensive probation supervision (IPS)
A form of probation supervision involving frequent face-to-face contact between the probationer and the probation officer.

ISBN: 0-536-09974-X

470

PA R T 4

Corrections

Electronic supervision in action. Boxing’s most notorious middleweight, 38-year-old Tony “El Torito” Ayala, conceals an electronic ankle bracelet under his left sock as he spars during a workout at a gym in San Antonio before a scheduled fight. In 2001, the fighter pleaded guilty to burglary and was sentenced to 90 days in jail and ten years’ probation. Ayala had previously served 16 years in a New Jersey prison on a 1983 rape conviction.
AP Wide World Photos

■

Lecture Note Discuss home confinement as a sentencing option with built-in inequities. Explain how some offenders are better able to afford the courtordered costs associated with this alternative and how some homes are obviously more comfortable “prisons” than others.

A study published in 2000 shows that IPS programs can be effective at reducing recidivism, especially if the programs are well planned and fully implemented.72 The study, which examined programs in California’s Contra Costa and Ventura Counties, found that the programs worked because, among other things, they used team approaches in their supervision activities and had clear missions and goals.

Home Confinement and Remote Location Monitoring home confinement
House arrest. Individuals ordered confined to their homes are sometimes monitored electronically to ensure they do not leave during the hours of confinement. Absence from the home during working hours is often permitted.

remote location monitoring
A supervision strategy that uses electronic technology to track offenders sentenced to house arrest or those who have been ordered to limit their movements while completing a sentence involving probation or parole.

Home confinement, also referred to as house arrest, can be defined as “a sentence imposed by the court in which offenders are legally ordered to remain confined in their own residences.”73 Home confinement usually makes use of a system of remote location monitoring. Remote location monitoring is typically performed via a computerized system of electronic bracelets. Participants wear a waterproof, shock-resistant transmitting device around the ankle 24 hours a day. The transmitter continuously emits a radio-frequency signal, which is detected by a receiving unit connected to the home telephone. Older systems use random telephone calls that require the offender to insert a computer chip worn in a wristband into a specially installed modem in the home, verifying his or her presence. Some use voice recognition technology and require the offender to verify his or her presence in the home by answering computerized calls. Modern electronic monitoring systems alert the officer when a participant leaves a specific location or tampers with the electronic monitoring equipment, and some systems even make it possible to record the time a supervised person enters or leaves the home. Much of the electronic monitoring equipment in use today only indicates when participants enter or leave the equipment’s range—not where they have gone or how far they have traveled. Newer satellite-supported systems, however, are capable of continuously monitoring an offender’s location and tracking him as he moves from place to place (Figure 12–4). Satellite-based systems can alert the officer when participants venture into geographically excluded locations or when they fail to present themselves at required locations at specific times.74 Most remotely monitored offenders on home confinement may leave home only to go to their jobs, attend to medical emergencies, or buy household essentials. Because of the strict limits it imposes on offender movements, house arrest has been cited as offering a valuable alternative to prison for offenders with special needs. Pregnant women, geriatric convicts, offenders with special handicaps, seriously or terminally ill offenders, and mentally retarded persons may all be better supervised through home confinement than traditional incarceration.
Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the Twenty-First Century, Ninth Edition, by Frank Schmalleger. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc.

ISBN: 0-536-09974-X

Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections

CHAPTER 12

471

FIGURE 12–4
Remote location monitoring—how it works.
Source: iSECUREtrac Corporation, 5022 South 114th Street, Omaha, NE 68137; phone: (866)537–0022. Copyright © 2005 iSECUREtrac Corporation. All rights reserved. Used with permission.

Agency Connected Via Internet Access

Passive PTU uses phone lines

Servers located at secure and redundant co-location facitlity

RF Monitoring at Home
The ankle bracelet transmitter communicates with the charging station within RF range

PTU Transmitter tracNET24-Active PTU uses cell towers

Monitoring Center

GPS TRACKING at Work and in the Community
PTU stores location every 10 seconds

One of the best-known people to recently be placed under house arrest using a remote location monitoring system was 63-year-old Martha Stewart, former CEO of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. Stewart served five months in prison for insider stock transactions, and was ordered to serve an additional five months under house arrest at her Bedford, New York, estate.75 She was allowed daily commutes totaling 48 hours weekly to her office in New York City, 40 miles away.76 The Community Justice Assistance Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice runs one of the most ambitious home confinement programs in the country. In 1997, 89,095 adults (3.5% of the state’s probationers) were being electronically monitored on probation.77 By 2002, parole offices throughout the state adopted electronic monitoring, and 700 electronic monitoring units were available for parolees.78 The electronic monitoring of offenders has increased across the nation. A survey by the National Institute of Justice in 1987, as the use of electronic monitoring was just beginning, showed only 826 offenders being monitored electronically nationwide.79 By 2000, however, more than 16,000 defendants and offenders under the supervision of U.S. probation and pretrial services officers were on home confinement—most under electronic monitoring programs.80 In 1999, South Carolina’s Probation and Parole Department began using satellites to track felons recently freed from state prisons. The satellite-tracking plan, which makes use of 21 satellites in the Global Positioning System (GPS), allows the agency’s officers to track every move made by convicts wearing electronic bracelets.81 The system, which also notifies law enforcement officers when a bracelet-wearing offender leaves his assigned area, can electronically alert anyone holding a restraint order whenever the offender comes within two miles of them. The home confinement program in the federal court system has three components, or levels of restriction.82 Curfew requires program participants to remain at home every day during certain times, usually in the evening. With home detention, the participant remains at home at all times except for preapproved and scheduled absences, such as for work, school, treatment, church,
Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the Twenty-First Century, Ninth Edition, by Frank Schmalleger. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc.

The number of people under criminal justice supervision in this country has reached a record high. As a result, the sentencing policies driving that number, and the field of corrections, where the consequences are felt, have acquired an unprecedented salience. It is a salience defined more by issues of magnitude, complexity, and expense than by any consensus about future directions.
—Julie E. Samuels, Acting Director, National Institute of Justiceiii

ISBN: 0-536-09974-X

472

PA R T 4

Corrections

Officials of the New Jersey State Parole Board conduct a parole hearing at their central office in Trenton using videoconferencing technology. Prior to implementation of the technology, board members had to travel between the state’s 14 correctional institutions to hear cases. Reviewing the case are board members Thomas Haff and John Paitakes (right).
Courtesy of the New Jersey State Parole Board

attorney’s appointments, court appearances, and other court-ordered obligations. Home incarceration, the highest level of restriction, calls for 24-hour-a-day “lockdown” at home, except for medical appointments, court appearances, and other activities that the court specifically approves. Many states and the federal government view house arrest as a cost-effective response to the high cost of imprisonment. Georgia, for example, estimates that home confinement costs approximately $1,130 per year per supervised probationer and $2,190 per supervised parolee. 83 Incarceration costs are much higher, running around $18,100 per year per Georgia inmate, with another $43,756 needed to build each cell.84 Advocates of house arrest argue that it is also socially cost-effective,85 because it substantially decreases the opportunity for the kinds of negative socialization that occur in prison. Opponents, however, have pointed out that house arrest may endanger the public and that it may provide little or no actual punishment. Critics of Martha Stewart’s home confinement, for example, complained that the sentence was more of a reward than a punishment. Stewart’s home, a 153-acre multimillion-dollar mansion with guest quarters, lacks few amenities, and the conditions imposed on Stewart allowed her to entertain colleagues, neighbors, friends, and relatives—as long as they didn’t have criminal records.

The Future of Probation and Parole
Probation and parole have essentially shifted from legitimate correctional options in their own right to temporary diversionary strategies that we are using while we are trying to figure out how to get tough on crime, [pay] no new taxes, and not pay for any prisons at all, or to pay as little as we can, or pass it off to another generation.
—Dr. Charles M. Friel, Sam Houston State University

Parole was widely criticized during the 1980s and 1990s by citizen groups who claimed that it unfairly reduces prison sentences imposed on serious offenders. Official attacks on parole came from some powerful corners. Senator Edward Kennedy called for the abolition of parole, as did former Attorney General Griffin Bell and former U.S. Bureau of Prisons Director Norman Carlson.86 Academics chimed in, alleging that parole programs can provide no assurance that criminals will not commit further crimes. The media joined the fray, condemning parole for its lack of curbing recidivism and highlighting the so-called revolving prison door as representative of the failure of parole. These criticisms are not without warrant. In 2003, for example, more than 625,000 former prisoners were released into society—most of them on some form of supervised release.87 Parole violators, however, account for more than half of prison admissions in California (67%), Utah (55%), and Montana and Louisiana (both 53%). Seventy percent of parole violators in prison were arrested or were convicted of a new offense while on parole.88 Many of these offenses involve drugs. Prisoners have also challenged the fairness of parole, saying it is sometimes arbitrarily granted and creates an undue amount of uncertainty and frustration in the lives of inmates. Parolees have complained about the unpredictable nature of the parole experience, citing their powerlessness in the parole contract. Against the pressure of attacks like these, parole advocates struggled to clarify and communicate the value of supervised release in the correctional process. As more and more states moved toward the elimination of parole, advocates called for moderation. A 1995 report by the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA), for example, concluded that states that have eliminated parole “have jeopardized public safety and wasted tax dollars.” The researchers wrote, “Getting rid of parole dismantles an accountable system of releasing prisoners back into the community and replaces it with a system that bases release decisions solely on whether a prison term has been completed.”89 Some jurisdictions responded by creating a different kind of reentry system—one that uses reentry courts and tasks judges to serve the role of reentry managers.90 Under this model, senCriminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the Twenty-First Century, Ninth Edition, by Frank Schmalleger. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc.

ISBN: 0-536-09974-X

Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections

CHAPTER 12

473

tencing judges oversee an offender’s sentence from the time of conviction and imprisonment through release into the community under supervision. In 2000, for example, the state of Delaware launched a reentry court pilot project that employs active judicial oversight of offenders during a period of supervised release. The program includes the use of graduated sanctions for violations of release conditions, a broad array of supportive services with community involvement, and positive judicial reinforcement of successful completion of reentry court goals. Learn more about the Delaware reentry court project at Web Extra 12–4 at cjtoday.com. Read about the ideas behind the reentry court movement at Library Extra 12–4.

Reinventing Parole
By the close of the twentieth century, criticisms of parole had begun to wane, and a number of recent reports have been supportive of well-considered offender reentry and postrelease supervision programs. In 2005, for example, the Re-Entry Policy Council, a bipartisan assembly of almost 100 leading elected officials, policymakers, correctional leaders, and practitioners from community-based organizations around the country, released a report on offender reentry entitled Charting the Safe and Successful Return of Prisoners to the Community. The 500-page report pointed out that virtually every person incarcerated in a jail in this country, as well as 97% of those incarcerated in prisons, will eventually be released back into society. This, said the report, results in nearly 650,000 people being released from prisons, and more than 7 million different individuals being released from jails throughout the United States each year—many of them without any form of postrelease supervision.91 As the report pointed out, almost two out of every three people released from prison are rearrested within three years of their release.92 Report authors noted that while the number of people reentering society has increased fourfold in the past 20 years, and spending on corrections has increased nearly sevenfold in the past two decades, the likelihood of a former prisoner succeeding in the community upon release has not improved. A host of complex issues create barriers to successful reentry. Three-quarters of those released from prison and jail, for example, have a history of substance abuse; two-thirds have no high school diploma; nearly half of those leaving jail earn less than $600 per month immediately prior to their incarceration, and they leave jail with significantly diminished opportunities for employment. Moreover, said the report, more than a third of jail inmates are saddled with a physical or mental disability, and the rate of serious mental illness among released inmates is at least three times higher than the rate of mental illness among the general population.93 According to the report, “the multi-faceted—and costly—needs of people returning to their families and communities require a re-inventing of reentry akin to the reinvention of welfare in the 90s.” It requires, the report continued, “a multi-system, collaborative approach that takes into account all aspects of [the] problem.” In other words, “the problems faced by re-entering adults are not merely the problems of corrections or community corrections, but also of public health workers, housing providers, state legislators, workforce development staff, and others.” To guide states and local jurisdictions in the creation of successful offender reentry programs, the report provides 35 policy statements, each of which is supported by a series of research highlights. The report is available in its entirety at cjtoday.com as Library Extra 12–5. A 24-page summary is available as Library Extra 12–6. A second report dealing with the problems of reentry, this one by the Governor’s Commission on Criminal Justice Innovation in Massachusetts, was released in 2004.94 Although the report covered areas of the justice system other than reentry and postrelease supervision, a number of its recommendations focused on creating a seamless continuum of services for offenders leaving jail or prison and increasing the chances of success for offenders leaving incarceration and returning to the community. The commission noted that of the 20,000 offenders released from prison each year in Massachusetts, only 57% of those returning to the community from medium- and maximumsecurity facilities receive any kind of postrelease supervision.95 Effective prisoner reentry and postrelease supervision, said the commission, depend on an integrated corrections continuum beginning with sentencing and ending with community reintegration. According to the commission, “a successful re-entry and post-release supervision strategy requires the examination of all aspects of the corrections continuum, including sentencing, classification, prerelease programs, release practices and post-release supervision.” The commission’s recommendations include the following96:
■

By writing parole boards out of the release decision, our sentencing reforms over the past 25 years have eliminated a valuable role they played, namely overseeing the process of preparing prisoners for reentry.
—Jeremy Travis, President, John Jay College of Criminal Justiceiv

ISBN: 0-536-09974-X

I understand that people want violent criminals locked up. We all do. But not every inmate is violent. We must look to supervised probation, to education. We must overcome the fear and think this out.
—Former Louisiana Governor Edwin Edwards

The state legislature should enact laws requiring some form of mandatory supervision for everyone who is released from incarceration, with longer-term mandatory supervision for those offenders who meet criteria focused on potential danger to the community.

Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the Twenty-First Century, Ninth Edition, by Frank Schmalleger. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc.

474

PA R T 4

Corrections

The overarching goal of reentry, in my view, is to have returned to our midst an individual who has discharged his legal obligation to society by serving his sentence and has demonstrated an ability to live by society’s rules.
—Jeremy Travis, President, John Jay College of Criminal Justice

■ ■

Parole eligibility should be made available to more prisoners, and intermediate sanctions should be applied, where appropriate. A standardized offender assessment process should be established to gather and share information that enables effective placement and programming at every step of the criminal justice process, from arraignment to commitment to release and community reentry. Reentry planning should begin early in the period of incarceration. Collaboration among the reentry stakeholders (police, probation/parole agencies, charitable organizations, and businesses) at the state, local, county, and community levels must be increased. Job training should be increased, and work must be done to remove obstacles to obtaining employment and housing for released offenders. Better access to treatment for drug- and alcohol-addicted offenders should be available. Tax incentives should be created to encourage the expansion of employment opportunities for those inmates returning to the community who agree to remain in close connection with an organized community-based reentry program.

■ ■ ■ ■ ■

The report concluded by noting that Massachusetts spends about $43,000 per year to incarcerate an offender, while probation and parole supervision costs the state $520 and $4,000, respectively. “These statistics” said the report, “suggest the need for creative sentencing options that utilize less restrictive settings combined with quality post-incarceration supervision as remedies for an everburgeoning correctional budget.” The full commission report is available as Library Extra 12–7 at cjtoday.com.

Reinventing Probation
Although probation has generally fared better than parole, it too has its critics. The primary purpose of probation has always been rehabilitation. Probation is a powerful rehabilitative tool because, at least in theory, it allows the resources of a community to be focused on the offender. Unfortunately for advocates of probation, however, the rehabilitative ideal is far less popular today than it has been in the past. The contemporary demand for “just deserts” appears to have reduced society’s tolerance for even relatively minor offenders. Also, because it has been too frequently and inappropriately used with repeat or relatively serious offenders, the image of probation has been tarnished. Probation advocates have been forced to admit that it is not a very powerful deterrent because it is far less punishing than a term of imprisonment. In a series of reports issued in 1999 and 2000, the Reinventing Probation Council, a project of New York’s Manhattan Institute, called for the “reinvention of probation.”97 Probation is currently in the midst of a crisis, said the council, because probationers are not being held to even simple

David Duke, the former Ku Klux Klan leader whose case raised eyebrows when he was released on federal parole in 2004. Duke, who served a year in federal prison on fraud charges, was released to a halfway house in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and met the work requirements of his release by performing duties for the “white civil rights group” that he heads.
AP Wide World Photos
ISBN: 0-536-09974-X Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the Twenty-First Century, Ninth Edition, by Frank Schmalleger. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc.

Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections

CHAPTER 12

475

CJ FUTURES

Probation Kiosks: High-Tech Supervision
In 1997, probation authorities in New York City began experimenting with the use of “probation kiosks” designed to lower probation officer caseloads. Fifteen electronic kiosks, similar in design to automated teller machines, were soon scattered throughout the city. They allow probationers to check in with probation officers by placing their palms on a specially designed surface and by answering questions presented on a flashing screen. The kiosks identify probationers by the shape and size of their hands, which were previously scanned into the system. Probationers are then prompted to press “yes” or “no” in response to questions like these: “Have you moved recently?” “Have you been arrested again?” “Do you need to see a probation officer?” Meetings with officers can be scheduled directly from the kiosk. Probation officers use a computer to monitor data sent from the kiosks and can zero in on individual probationers who are having problems, prompting more personal attention. By the time the system is fully operational, as many as 30,000 “low-risk” probationers—about one-third of New York City’s total—will report through kiosks. Kiosks have already yielded positive results, according to New York City probation officer Genée Bogans. Before the kiosks, says Bogans, she was swamped by the administrative details required to track the 250 offenders in her caseload. Kiosks allow her to track nonviolent, older offenders with a minimum of time and effort, and she now focuses most of her attention on the relatively few violent youths who are also part of her caseload, meeting with them and their families twice weekly in small group sessions. Bogans even goes to family funerals and graduations, making youthful offenders feel like they are

getting special attention. “But it can be done only when you have 30 cases as opposed to 200,” says Bogans. New York’s use of kiosks is being watched closely by other probation and parole agencies around the country as they face swelling caseloads and shrinking budgets. Some jurisdictions, like Marion County, Indiana, have installed similar machines. Under its Expedited Caseload Program, Marion County (home to the city of Indianapolis) reports lowering the number of hours required of its probation officers for caseload supervision. “Since its inception,” say county officials, the Expedited Caseload Program (which accepts offenders convicted of nonviolent and less serious crimes) “has taken more than 650 cases that would have otherwise gone to the regular probation caseloads. This is a savings of between 15 and 20 cases per casework officer over a two month period.” The most recently available statistics show that about 4 million probationers were monitored through kiosks in 2001. Other jurisdictions have taken different steps to automate their probation systems. Denver and Seattle, for example, are using 900-numbers through which probationers can report. Critics charge that without personal supervision, probationers are more likely to reoffend—an assertion that is essentially untested. Other opponents say kiosks, 900-numbers, and similar reporting initiatives are far removed from meaningful “punishment” and that offenders deserve stricter treatment. Supporters, on the other hand, say that kiosks and 900-numbers will soon become more commonplace. “New York City had no choice; it had to do something like that,” says Todd Clear, professor of criminal justice at New York’s John Jay College. Clear assisted the city in restructuring its probation program. “No one wants probationers reporting to kiosks, but the alternative was even more unthinkable—a system in which nobody receives quality service,” said Clear.

References: Marion Superior Court Probation Department, “Operation: Probationer Accountability.” Web posted at http://www.indygov.org/probation/report/1998/4gh.htm; Isabelle de Pommereau, “N.Y.C. Probation Officers to Get High-Tech Helper,” Christian Science Monitor, February 8, 1997; Deborah J. Myers, “Take Your Order? Check Probation? Kiosk Use Grows,” Boulder County Business Report. Web posted at http://www.bcbr.com/display.phtml? VI P2101&Section News&Page 2; and the Rice County (Minnesota) website, at http://www.co.rice.mn.us.

standards of behavior and because the field of probation lacks leadership. According to the council, “probation will be reinvented when the probation profession places public safety first, and works with and in the community.” Read the council’s full reports at Library Extras 12–8 and 12–9 at cjtoday.com. In an intriguing American Society of Criminology task force report on community corrections, Joan Petersilia notes that the “get tough on criminals” attitude that swept the nation during the 1990s resulted in increased funding for prisons but left in its wake stagnating budgetary allotments for probation and parole services.98 This result has been especially unfortunate, Petersilia says, because “it has been continually shown that there is a ‘highly significant statistical relationship between the extent to which probationers received needed services and the success of probation.’ . . . As services have dwindled,” she says, “recidivism rates have climbed.” Some jurisdictions spend only a few hundred dollars per year on each probation or parole client, even though successful treatment in therapeutic settings is generally acknowledged to cost nearly $15,000 per person per year. The investment of such sums in the treatment of correctional clients, argues Petersilia, is potentially worthwhile because diverting probationers and parolees from
Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the Twenty-First Century, Ninth Edition, by Frank Schmalleger. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc.

ISBN: 0-536-09974-X

Probation will change when those who run probation departments are held accountable for achieving—or failing to achieve—specific outcomes.
—Reinventing Probation Council

476

PA R T 4

Corrections

A PowerPoint presentation that supports this chapter is available from your Prentice Hall representative.

lives of continued crime will save society even more money in terms of the costs of crime and the expenses associated with eventual imprisonment. The solution to the crisis that now exists in community corrections, says Petersilia, is to “first regain the public’s trust that probation and parole can be meaningful, credible sanctions.” She concludes, “Once we have that in place, we need to create a public climate to support a reinvestment in community corrections. Good community corrections cost money, and we should be honest about that.”99

SUMMARY

Probation, simply put, is a sentence of imprisonment that is suspended. Parole, in contrast, is the conditional early release of a convicted offender from prison. Both probation and parole impose conditions on offenders, requiring them to obey the law, meet with probation or parole officers, hold a job, and the like. Failure to abide by the conditions of probation or parole can result in rearrest and imprisonment. Viewed historically, probation and parole are two of the most recent major innovations in the correctional field. Both provide opportunities for the reintegration of offenders into the community through the use of resources not readily available in institutional settings. Unfortunately, however, increased freedom for criminal offenders also means some degree of increased risk for other members of society. As a consequence, contemporary “get tough” attitudes have resulted in a decreased use of probation and parole in many jurisdictions—and increased imprisonment. Until and unless we solve the problems of inaccurate risk assessment, increased recidivism, and inadequate supervision, probation and parole will continue to be viewed with suspicion by a public that has become intolerant of crime and criminal offenders.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. How do probation and parole differ? How are they alike? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each? 2. Describe the significant court cases that have had an impact on the practice of probation and parole. 3. What is the function of the federal probation system? How did it come into being? 4. What do probation and parole officers do? What role do probation officers play in the sentencing of convicted offenders? 5. What are intermediate sanctions? How do they differ from more traditional forms of sentencing? What advantages (if any) do they have over more traditional forms of sentencing? 6. How are probation and parole changing? What does the future hold for them? Do you agree with those who are trying to eliminate parole? Explain your position.

WEB QUEST

Use the Cybrary (http://www.cybrary.info) to search the World Wide Web to learn as much as you can about the future of probation and parole. In particular, you might want to focus on the use of satellite technology to monitor offenders placed on probation, the use of home confinement, or public and media attitudes toward probation and parole. Also gather studies on the future of probation and parole. Group your findings under headings (for example, “Innovative Options,” “Alternative Sanctions,” “Probation in My Home State,” and “The Future of Probation and Parole”). Also visit the American Probation and Parole Association at http://www.appa-net.org. (The organization is listed in the Cybrary.) What is the mission of the APPA? What are its goals and objectives? What organizations are affiliated with it? How many of them have websites? Submit your findings to your instructor if asked to do so. To complete this Web Quest online, go to the Web Quest module in Chapter 12 of the Criminal Justice Today Companion Website at cjtoday.com.
Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the Twenty-First Century, Ninth Edition, by Frank Schmalleger. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc.

ISBN: 0-536-09974-X

Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections

CHAPTER 12

477

i. Jeremy Travis, But They All Come Back: Rethinking Prisoner Reentry (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 2000), p. 2. ii. Re-Entry Policy Council, Report of the ReEntry Policy Council: Charting the Safe and Successful Return of Prisoners to the Community—Report Preview (New York: Council of State Governments, 2005), p. 4. iii. From the “Director’s Message” in Dora Schriro, “Correcting Corrections: Missouri’s Parallel Universe,” Sentencing and Corrections Issues for the 21st Century: Papers from the Executive Session on Sentencing and Corrections, No. 8 (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 2000). iv. Jeremy Travis, “Thoughts on the Future of Parole,” remarks delivered at the Vera Institute of Justice, May 22, 2002, speech transcript, p. 3.

(Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999). 14. “Woman Gets Probation for Shooting Fiancé,” Associated Press wire service, April 16, 1992, p. 9A. 15. Glaze and Palla, Probation and Parole in the United States, 2004. 16. Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Probation and Parole Statistics.” Web posted at http:// www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pandp.htm (accessed January 10, 2003). 17. This section owes much to Sanford Bates, “The Establishment and Early Years of the Federal Probation System,” Federal Probation (June 1987), pp. 4–9. 18. Ex parte United States, 242 U.S. 27 (1916). 19. Bates, “The Establishment and Early Years of the Federal Probation System,” p. 6. 20. Brian A. Reaves and Timothy C. Hart, Federal Law Enforcement Officers, 2000 (Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002), p. 4. 21. See Reaves and Hart, Federal Law Enforcement Officers, 2000, p. 4, from which some of the wording in this paragraph has been adapted. 22. Adapted from Timothy A. Hughes, Doris James Wilson, and Allen J. Beck, Trends in State Parole, 1990–2000 (Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2001), p. 1. 23. Ibid. 24. Ibid. 25. Ibid. 26. Probation and Parole in the United States, 2004, p. 1. 27. Ibid., p. 6. 28. Ibid. 29. “The Effectiveness of Felony Probation: Results from an Eastern State,” Justice Quarterly (December 1991), pp. 525–543. 30. State of Georgia, Board of Pardons and Paroles, “Adult Offender Sanction Costs for Fiscal Year 2001.” Web posted at http://www.pap.state.ga .us/otisweb/corrcost.html (accessed March 1, 2002). 31. See Andrew von Hirsch and Kathleen J. Hanrahan, Abolish Parole? (Washington, DC: Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, 1978). 32. Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 107 S.Ct. 3164 (1987). 33. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 (1998). 34. U.S. v. Knights, U.S. Supreme Court, 534 U.S. 112 (2001). 35. Probation and Parole in the United States, 2004 . 36. Robyn L. Cohen, Probation and Parole Violators in State Prison, 1991 (Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1995).

NOTES

1. State of the Union, 2004. 2. Quotes in Criminal Justice Newsletter, January 19, 1993, p. 1. 3. Details for this story come from “Records: Smith Told His Brother,” The Herald Tribune, June 3, 2004. 4. Details for this story come from “State Prosecutors: ‘Jessica Lunsford Was Raped, Buried Alive,’” Associated Press, April 20, 2005. 5. Details for this story come from “Suspected Murderer of Thirteen-Year-Old Sarah Lunde May Face Death Penalty,” Gwinnett Daily Online, no date. Web posted at http://www .gwinnettdailyonline.com/GDP/archive/ articleDF4B74DF8C254FB184D3525E074FF0A 6.asp (accessed July 5, 2005). 6. James M. Byrne, Probation, National Institute of Justice Crime File Series Study Guide (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 1988), p. 1. 7. Alexander B. Smith and Louis Berlin, Introduction to Probation and Parole (St. Paul, MN: West, 1976), p. 75. 8. John Augustus, First Probation Officer: John Augustus’ Original Report on His Labors— 1852 (Montclair, NJ: Patterson-Smith, 1972). 9. Smith and Berlin, Introduction to Probation and Parole, p. 77. 10. Ibid., p. 80. 11. George C. Killinger, Hazel B. Kerper, and Paul F. Cromwell, Jr., Probation and Parole in the Criminal Justice System (St. Paul, MN: West, 1976), p. 25. 12. Lauren E. Glaze and Seri Palla, Probation and Parole in the United States, 2004 (Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2005). 13. Jodi M. Brown and Patrick A. Langan, Felony Sentences in the United States, 1996

ISBN: 0-536-09974-X

Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the Twenty-First Century, Ninth Edition, by Frank Schmalleger. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc.

478

PA R T 4

Corrections

37. Escoe v. Zerbst, 295 U.S. 490 (1935). 38. Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128 (1967). 39. A deferred sentence involves postponement of the sentencing decision, which may be made at a later time following an automatic review of the defendant’s behavior in the interim. A suspended sentence requires no review unless the probationer violates the law or the conditions of probation. Both may result in imprisonment. 40. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972). 41. Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973). 42. Smith and Berlin, Introduction to Probation and Parole, p. 143. 43. See Linda Greenhouse, New York Times wire service, March 18, 1997 (no headline). The case is Young v. Harper, 520 U.S. 143 (1997). 44. Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 U.S. 1 (1979). 45. Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 103 S.Ct. 2064, 76 L.Ed.2d 221 (1983). 46. Ibid. 47. Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (1984). 48. Harlow v. Clatterbuick, 30 CrL. 2364 (VA S.Ct. 1986); Santangelo v. State, 426 N.Y.S.2d 931 (1980); Welch v. State, 424 N.Y.S.2d 774 (1980); and Thompson v. County of Alameda, 614 P.2d 728 (1980). 49. Tarter v. State of New York, 38 CrL. 2364 (NY S.Ct. 1986); Grimm v. Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles, 115 Arizona 260, 564 P.2d 1227 (1977); and Payton v. U.S., 636 F.2d 132 (5th Cir. 1981). 50. Rolando del Carmen, Potential Liabilities of Probation and Parole Officers (Cincinnati, OH: Anderson, 1986), p. 89. 51. See, for example, Semler v. Psychiatric Institute, 538 F.2d 121 (4th Cir. 1976). 52. Minnesota v. Murphy (1984). 53. National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Task Force Report: Corrections (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973). 54. From the introduction to James Austin, Michael Jones, and Melissa Bolyard, The Growing Use of Jail Boot Camps: The Current State of the Art (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 1993), p. 1. 55. Sentencing Project, Changing the Terms of Sentencing: Defense Counsel and Alternative Sentencing Services (Washington, DC: Sentencing Project, no date). 56. Joan Petersilia, Expanding Options for Criminal Sentencing (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1987). 57. Ohio Revised Code, Section 2946.06.1 (July 1965). 58. Lawrence Greenfield, Probation and Parole, 1984 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986).

59. Harry Allen et al., Probation and Parole in America (New York: Free Press, 1985), p. 88. 60. For a good overview of such programs, especially as they apply to juvenile corrections, see Doris Layton MacKenzie et al., A National Study Comparing the Environments of Boot Camps with Traditional Facilities for Juvenile Offenders (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 2001). 61. Doris Layton MacKenzie and Deanna Bellew Ballow, “Shock Incarceration Programs in State Correctional Jurisdictions—An Update,” NIJ Reports (May/June 1989), pp. 9–10. 62. “Shock Incarceration Marks a Decade of Expansion,” Corrections Compendium (September 1996), pp. 10–28. 63. MacKenzie and Ballow, “Shock Incarceration Programs in State Correctional Jurisdictions.” 64. National Institute of Justice, Multisite Evaluation of Shock Incarceration (Washington, DC: NIJ, 1995). 65. Cherie L. Clark, David W. Aziz, and Doris L. MacKenzie, Shock Incarceration in New York: Focus on Treatment (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 1994), p. 8. 66. “Oregon Boot Camp Is Saving the State Money, Study Finds,” Criminal Justice Newsletter, May 1, 1995, pp. 5–6. 67. Douglas C. McDonald, Restitution and Community Service, National Institute of Justice Crime File Series Study Guide (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 1988). 68. Richard J. Maher and Henry E. Dufour, “Experimenting with Community Service: A Punitive Alternative to Imprisonment,” Federal Probation (September 1987), pp. 22–27. 69. James P. Levine, Michael C. Musheno, and Dennis J. Palumbo, Criminal Justice in America: Law in Action (New York: John Wiley, 1986), p. 549. 70. Billie S. Erwin and Lawrence A. Bennett, “New Dimensions in Probation: Georgia’s Experience with Intensive Probation Supervision,” National Institute of Justice, Research in Brief (1987). 71. Probation Division, State of Georgia, “Intensive and Specialized Probation Supervision.” Web posted at http://www.dcor.state.ga.us/ ProbationDivision/html/ProbationDivision .html (accessed March 2, 2002). 72. Crystal A. Garcia, “Using Palmer’s Global Approach to Evaluate Intensive Supervision Programs: Implications for Practice,” Corrections Management Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 4 (2000), pp. 60–69. 73. Joan Petersilia, House Arrest, National Institute of Justice Crime File Series Study Guide (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 1988). 74. Darren Gowen, “Remote Location Monitoring: A Supervision Strategy to Enhance Risk Control,” Federal Probation, Vol. 65, No. 2, p. 39.
ISBN: 0-536-09974-X

Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the Twenty-First Century, Ninth Edition, by Frank Schmalleger. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc.

Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections

CHAPTER 12

479

75. An additional year and seven months of supervised confinement was to follow. 76. See “Martha Stewart Starts Home Confinement,” Associated Press, March 3, 2005. Web posted at http://moneycentral.msn .com/content/invest/extra/P111258.asp (accessed April 26, 2005). 77. Electronic Monitoring, TDCJ-CJAD Agency Brief (Austin, TX: Texas Department of Criminal Justice, March 1999). 78. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Parole Division, Specialized Programs. Web posted at http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/parole/ parole-spclpgms.htm (accessed September 20, 2002). 79. Marc Renzema and David T. Skelton, The Use of Electronic Monitoring by Criminal Justice Agencies, 1989 (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 1990). 80. U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services, Court and Community (Washington, DC: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 2000). 81. “Satellites Tracking People on Parole,” Associated Press wire service, April 13, 1999. 82. U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services, “Home Confinement.” Web posted at http://www .uscourts.gov/misc/cchome.pdf (accessed March 22, 2002). 83. State of Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles, “Adult Offender Sanction Costs for Fiscal Year 2001.” Web posted at http://www.pap.state .ga.us/otisweb/corrcost.html (accessed September 20, 2002). 84. Construction costs are for cells classified as “medium security.” 85. BI Home Escort: Electronic Monitoring System, advertising brochure (Boulder, CO: BI Inc., no date). 86. James A. Inciardi, Criminal Justice, 2nd ed. (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1987), p. 664. 87. Neely Tucker, “Study Warns of Rising Tide of Released Inmates,” Washington Post, May 21, 2003, p. A1. 88. BJS, “Forty-Two Percent of State Parole Discharges Were Successful.” 89. American Probation and Parole Association and the Association of Paroling Authorities International, Abolishing Parole: Why the Emperor Has No Clothes (Lexington, KY: APPA, 1995).

90. See, for example, Jeremy Travis, But They All Come Back: Rethinking Prisoner Reentry (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 2000). 91. Much of this information is taken from ReEntry Policy Council, Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council: Charting the Safe and Successful Return of Prisoners to the Community—Executive Summary (New York: Council of State Governments, 2005). Web posted at http://www.reentrypolicy.org/ executive-summary.html (accessed July 10, 2005). 92. Patrick A. Langan and David J. Levin, National Recidivism Study of Released Prisoners: Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994 (Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002); and Does Parole Work? Analyzing the Impact of Postprison Supervision on Rearrest Outcomes (Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2005). 93. Esther Griswold, Jessica Pearson, and Lanae Davis, Testing a Modification Process for Incarcerated Parents (Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research), pp. 11–12. 94. Governor’s Commission on Criminal Justice Innovation, Final Report (Boston: The Commission, 2004). 95. Boston Bar Association Task Force on Parole and Community Reintegration, Parole Practices in Massachusetts and Their Effect on Community Reintegration, 2002. 96. Ibid., pp. 4, 14. 97. Reinventing Probation Council, ”Broken Windows” Probation: The Next Step in Fighting Crime (New York: Manhattan Institute, 1999); and Reinventing Probation Council, Transforming Probation through Leadership: The “Broken Windows” Model (New York: Center for Civic Innovation at the Manhattan Institute, 2000), from which some of the quoted material in these paragraphs comes. 98. Joan Petersilia, “A Crime Control Rationale for Reinvesting in Community Corrections,” in Critical Criminal Justice Issues: Task Force Reports from the American Society of Criminology (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 1997). 99. For more about the future of probation and parole, see Joan Petersilia, Reforming Probation and Parole in the Twenty-First Century (Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association, 2002).

ISBN: 0-536-09974-X Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the Twenty-First Century, Ninth Edition, by Frank Schmalleger. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc.