The Parole and Probation in the United States

Introduction

This paper intends to look into the past and present condition of the parole and probation in the United States. A part of the criminal justice system is the possible relapse of rehabilitated offenders after they have been released from custody based on parole. This is a pressing issue in the country considering the increase of those in probation. This issue is going to be discussed in the later part of the study. The discussion in this context is going to be based on parole and probation’s impact on society.

 

Status of Parole and Probation in the United States

 

Based on the work of Glaze and Palla (2004) both the population under probation and parole increased significantly in 2003. On the probation population, it had a 1.2% growth in 2003. Although this indicates that there is still an increase in the population under probation, it still have appositive aspect on it considering that the said increase is less than half of the trend of 2.9% increase every year since 1995.

 

 

On the other hand, the country’s parole population similarly increased by 3.1%. This denotes that there were a considerable number of individuals under custody who have been able to rehabilitate through the correctional system provided by the government. This figure is considerably especial since, similar to the probation mark; it is almost twice the average growth. Normally, the growth is 1.7% yearly since 1995.  

 

Discussion

 

Many elected officers in addition to the public, have traditionally been indecisive in their support for conventional probation and parole agendas. (Doble et al, 1991) Similarly, the account of probation and parole is full of debate on the subject of the degree to which it is as important to crime prevention, justice and public safety as are other elements of the criminal justice system. (Dickey and Smith, 1998) Without a doubt, even the probation and parole vocation itself has frequently undergone internal philosophical partitions about its mission and function. (Clear and Rumgay, 1992)

 

Throughout the 90s, there was a substantial and understandable boost in professional partnerships involving probation and parole agencies and other criminal justice system elements. This significant development in the direction of criminal justice system inclusion and teamwork is, all together, vital to the success of the vocation and a possible foundation for concealing the identity and function. To preserve its professional identity as a practical public security agenda, probation and parole have to cleave to and advertise its involvements to justice, crime deterrence and public protection. These outcomes are appreciated by the public and, if highlighted by means of policies and practices, will guarantee probation and parole's due position in the spectrum of criminal justice services that are financed by both public and private entities. Devoid of the theoretical limitations granted by a results-motivated vision for particular results, the dynamics of governments and politics, instead of scientific proof and strong theory, build the certainty of the performance of probation and parole. Furthermore, in the brand new world of collaborative partnerships, probation and parole is merely as about to acquire the identity of its partners as to preserve its own professional identity as equivalent associates and not an auxiliary or worse considered utility within the criminal justice system.

 

Furthermore, probation and parole is a substance of severe importance; it interrelates with issues of life, death, damage and charge to the public. (Rhine and Paparozzi, 1999) Eventually, the worth of probation and parole services will have need of the solidification of the connection involving policies, programs and practices, in addition to the operationalization of result variables that are pertinent to public policy. (Rhine and Paparozzi, 1999) For the previous forty years, probation and parole has endured many, and ostensibly complex, frequency of professional practices. Predominantly, the practice has been strengthened by a collection of theoretical models. Ever since the earlier parts of the 60s to the present, there have been several distinguishable philosophies. These include offender rehabilitation which was evident in the later part of the 60s to the middle part of the 70s. Another is offender punishment and justice for the injured parties. This is prevalent in the middle part of the 70s and in the earlier part of the 80s. A third kind is intermediate measures, punishments and treatment involvements. This was practiced during the middle part of the 80s up until the later part of the 90s. A more current theory is community participation, interagency teamwork and offender re-entry.

 

Despite expansive conformity from professional insiders, in addition to those external the profession on the subject of the weight of generating valued results, there has been strong practitioner clash relating to the actual institution of strategies, programs and practices whose task, objectives and purposes guarantee that necessary assumptions concerning value to be considered before agendas are planned and executed. (Dickey and Smith, 1998)

 

In reaction to demands for verifiable value, probation and parole organizations have in recent years come to believe a couple of insightful alterations in the manner that they institute programs and confirm policies and practices for offender management. One is to establish best practices in evidence-based outcomes whenever feasible. Another is to create user-friendly information for lawmakers that give emphasis to outcome over process. The acceptance of the terms of best practices and results has positioned the profession at the verge of what can be best characterized as a business paradigm. However, rather than guaranteeing utmost total shareholder value, as is the condition in thriving companies, probation and parole professionals are summoned to guarantee utmost total taxpayer value.

 

There has been far-reaching research carried out at the domestic and global levels that has recognized correctional agendas that lessen offender recidivism. (Gendreau, 1996) In spite of this far-reaching and mounting organization of knowledge, and it’s tremendously positive public protection connotations, a lot of elected officials and the public continue to be aggravated with probation and parole at the domestic level. Possibly, this frustration is drawn from the letdown of domestic practitioners to offer understandable evaluative information with reference to the agendas. The nonattendance of understandable and believable program assessment information institutes the basis for ideologically determined, as contrasting to the more favored evidence-found courses of action, agendas and practices.

 

Certainly, a vigorous professional admiration for research confirmation would bring about the formulation of policies and practices that would reiterate offender rehabilitation as the favored plan for acquiring long-standing public protection. Such a confirmation may even serve up to dispel the contentions as to the effectiveness of rehabilitative in opposition to punishment plans for acquiring public safety. The assertion of rehabilitation in this context has need of a continuing expression of the positive connection involving rehabilitation-founded offender management and individual offender recidivism tolls. Devoid of a practical involvement of offender rehabilitation to public security, the issue of utmost total taxpayer value continues to be unrequited.

 

For the reason that probation and parole is concentrating on best practices and results, the public protection advantages of offender rehabilitation strategies are receiving a re-evaluation. The proof is obvious; if notice is given to the kind and quality of solid, reasonable and responsible rehabilitation services to offenders, there will be a reduction in their re-arrest frequency. (Gendreau, 1996) Firm advocates of a rehabilitation schedule are fast to indicate recent public opinion developments sustaining alternatives to imprisonment. Nevertheless, a more evenhanded understanding of the developments in public opinion in this context points out that even as a preponderance of the American public espouses the employment of alternatives for specific kinds of offenders, they still desire firm and responsible alternatives that bear punishment-founded outcomes for offender disobedience. (Harlow et al., 1995) That is to say, the public desires, to some extent, vengeful justice.   

 

Probation and parole's answer to the punishment schema was to some extent steep. Beginning in the 1980s, the area struggled to spruce up and repackage its laws, programs and practices in means that were considered to be in agreement with the existing punishment program. (Harlow et al, 1995) In brief, it was deemed that amplified employment of disciplinary practices would do what rehabilitation measures could not carry out. This means it could not boost public protection and in so doing make the most of the total taxpayer value. The whole variety of intermediate penalties and punishment agendas is evidence to the profession's shift clear of offender rehabilitation. The central rule features of these programs incorporated such practices as thorough surveillance by means of improved offender contacts; firm offender responsibility; concentration on negative outcomes for disobedience with regulations to the leaving out of positive returns for displaying suitable actions; and dutiful attempts to offer medical services to probationers and parolees.

 

These ground-breaking and supposed public protection probation and parole schemes appeared to take pleasure in the support from outer and inner stakeholders. Program reputation, nonetheless, was more a purpose of philosophy than empirical detail (Rhine and Paparozzi, 1999) And, at the same time as the program plans mollified the vengeful justice attitudes of much of the people, their program assessment results unquestionably recognized that such programs possesses no influence on individual offender recidivism and it has a unconstructive influence. Moreover, the augmented costs of these focused punishment-motivated measures created no public safety advantage.

 

Conclusion

 

All through the recent past, probation and parole has perceived the launch of partnerships with law enforcement agencies, civic organizations, social service providers and similar organizations. These partnerships, dissimilar to the previous iterations of them in the intermediary phase, are proper partnerships in the context that the shared influence of probation and parole professionals is not passive to other criminal justice associates.

 

In the up-and-coming collaborative diagram, probation and parole is frequently leaned on for management for attending to crime as a community-founded social dilemma. Taking into account the foundational community-founded derivations of probation and parole, it is very fitting that the profession guide and notify discussions in relation to best practices in this context. Probation and parole has provided new connotation to the ideas of assembling human and social capital in high-crime regions.

 

References

 

Clear, T.R. and J. Rumgay. (1992) Divided by a common language: British and American probation cultures. Federal Probation. 3(1):3-11.

Dickey, W. and M. Smith. (1998) Rethinking probation. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs Publication.

Doble, J., S. Immerwahr and A. Richardson. (1991) Punishing criminals: The people of Delaware consider the options. New York: The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation.

Gendreau, P. (1996) Offender rehabilitation: What we know and what needs to be done. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 23:144-161.

Glaze, L., and Palla, S. (2004) Probation and Parole in the United States, 2003. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Available at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ppus03.pdf . [Accessed 23/03/06]

Harlow, R.E., J.M. Darley and P.H. Robinson. (1995) The severity of intermediate penal sanctions: A psychophysical scaling approach for obtaining community perceptions. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 11(1):71-95.

Rhine, E. and M. Paparozzi. (1999) Reinventing probation and parole: A matter of consequence. Corrections Management Quarterly, 3(2):47-52.

 

http://researchkorner.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-parole-and-probation-in-united.html