Probation and Parole: Good or Bad Alternatives to Incarceration Essay

The crime problem is ever before the eyes of the society, and the financial and human costs of attempts to deal with it are the focus of much attention not only from the criminal justice system; it is of hot interest in the media, during public and parliamentary debates (Tonry â€Å"Punishment Policies† 6). Political lead ¬ers, no less than ordinary citizens, are concerned about the hardship and jeopardy that prison life inflicts on criminal offenders, yet they are justifi ¬ably fearful of the consequences for society if criminals are not incarcerated (Geerken & Hayes 552). This ambivalence pervades the central question that the probation/parole system seeks to answer: how can prisoners be released to supervised liv ¬ing in the community without endangering society? As permanent reformation of criminal justice system is on in the U. S. , reformers’ passions and persistence continue unabated. In every state and the federal system, calls are made for sentencing guidelines, mandatory penalties, and â€Å"three-strikes† laws; for more use of community penalties; for crime reduction through deterrence and incapacitation; and for crime reduction through treatment and prevention (Tonry â€Å"Sentencing Matters† 103). Such focus on the issue of alternatives to imprisonment of offenders signifies great importance of the question of efficacy of existing parole/probation system. The purpose of this study is to explore the extent to which parole and probation resolve the problem of declining crime rates and accomplish two-fold task: ensuring smooth adjustment of ex-prisoner/convict to society, while at the same time protecting society. Toward this end we will consider the essence of parole and probation, examine how their effectiveness is evaluated, analyze statistics on the recidivism rates for those on probation and parole, explore factors influencing such rates, and make a conclusion. According to estimations, any given year during last few decades about 4 million offenders in the U. S. are on state or federal probation or parole (Roberts & Stalans 34). It means they are liberated from prison and allowed to stay under surveillance among the rest of the society while they accommodate to life in the free community. Probation and parole are similar in being substitutes for impris ¬onment. Probation offers full-fledged diversion, especially for offenders not previously exposed to incarceration, while parole short ¬ens the exposure to imprisonment (Petersilia 566). Probation is a treatment program in which final action in an adjudicated offender’s case is suspended, so that he remains at liberty, subject to conditions imposed by or for a court, under supervision and guidance of a probation worker. The word â€Å"probation† derives from Latin, its root meaning being â€Å"a period of proving or trial† (Tonry â€Å"Punishment Policies† 7). Probation program is designed to facilitate the social readjustment of offenders. The program rests upon the court’s power to suspend sentence. The probation period is served in the community rather than in a correctional institution. Should the probationer seriously breaches the conditions imposed, probation may be revoked, in which case the court will invoke the appropriate penalty (Petersilia 567). The word â€Å"parole† stems from French, meaning â€Å"promise†. Probably the term was first used in a correctional context in 1847, by Samuel G. Howe, the Boston penal reformer (Champion 163). Like probation, parole is a treatment program. But the parolee, unlike the probationer, has served part of a term in a correctional institution. His release is conditional, contingent upon satisfactory behavior. He is under supervision and treatment by a person trained in parole work (Petersilia 563). Both approaches are less costly to administer than the prisons because full surveillance and provision of basic needs for life are not necessary and be ¬cause human services in the community as those accessible to all residents can become available. To differing degrees, the two approaches contribute to preserving family ties, when such ties exist, and enable willing offenders to provide economic support for dependents (Tonry â€Å"Punishment Policies† 9). The return of convicted offenders to the community under supervision is authorized with some degree of official optimism that the selected individuals will undertake positive behavioral change either because of their self-correction or the influence of benign community forces (Geerken & Hayes 554). A common gauge of probation/parole effectiveness is recidivism of parolees and probationers (Allen 5). Some of them are returned to prison or changed to a different treatment program, depending upon whether they violate conditions of their probation/parole or commit new crimes and are convicted of them. With the rapid growth of community corrections, a greater variety of treatment programs exist to accommodate clients’ needs. Thus, for instance, eligible parolees may be permitted to participate in work or educational release options. Other parolees may be allowed weekend visits with their families. Yet others may be placed in halfway houses where they can readjust to community living from the more highly regimented prison environment (Champion 169). Statistics shows that in the U. S. around 2,000 community correctional programs are functioning, and a number of them are sponsored by the state. Many of the states’ probation and parole agencies currently experience an excessive caseload. For instance, in California and New York often the caseload per one agency officer amounts to 400 clients, although in countryside it is about 25 clients (Petersilia 574). This, unsurprisingly, leads to lowering efficacy of probation/parole programs. Thus, according to various estimations, just no more than 62% of parolees and probationers successfully accomplish their probation/parole period. Empirical studies demonstrate that two thirds of them perpetrate new offences within the period of three years after their sentence completing (Allen 4). Moreover, those on probation/parole often commit grave crimes such as murders; many are under court orders to undergo a course of medical treatment for their alcohol/drug addiction. About 300 thousand probationers are registered in the list of probation/parole agencies as absconders which means, actually, they are just hiding and ignore criminal justice system (Petersilia 571). Scholars exploring the topic of probation/parole effectiveness on the basis of empirical evidence often admit that parole surveillance has been shown to produce an unsatis ¬factory human relationship without proven effect (Tonry â€Å"Sentencing Matters† 132). Thus, as they argue, parole revocation, influenced by bureaucratic considerations, is an unfair process. Parole assistance, impaired by its linkage with surveillance and revocation, may do some good, but there is little evidence to this effect (Champion 173). But because release, surveillance, and assistance are late interventions in a person’s criminal history, parole can be only partially blamed or credited for outcomes – principally the degree of recidivism – that have a complex of causes (Roberts & Stalans 42). So, it is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of probation and parole by themselves. Nevertheless, any evaluation must begin by reviewing the goals of probation and parole. The first and most frequently cited of both are to protect society and to help the person committed offence as it was mentioned above. This means protecting society from crime and helping the probationer/parolee toward a crime-free life, in short, to reduce criminal behavior. No one could quarrel with this goal, but efforts to achieve it are based on the theories of incapacitation and rehabilitation, with their consequent difficulties and costs: preventive incarceration of prisoners who might not return to crime and the errors, waste motion, and false hopes of treatment programs (Geerken & Hayes 551). It is evident, that the most effective community protection is that which results from change within the offender, so that he/she no longer wants to aggress against society. But statistics cited above confirms how difficult is to implement those theories into practice to achieve such inner transformation of ex-offender. In his tough and straight-out article George Allen, governor of Virginia, regards pretty high recidivism rates in the U. S. as a direct result of light sentencing policy and application of probation and parole programs (5). Surveys of public opinion demonstrate that majority in the society agree with such view. Thus, four out of five Americans acknowledge that they would be more likely to vote for a political candidate who advocated harsher sentencing (Roberts & Stalans 31). Allen argues that â€Å"3 out of every 4 violent crimes – murder, armed robbery, rape, assault – are [†¦] committed by repeat offenders†, that is why his administration abolished parole, established the principle of â€Å"truth-in-sentencing†, and amplified by a factor of five the amount of time that violent criminals in fact stay in prison (4). Allen advocates that the only perfect crime-prevention method is incarceration, and argues that measures undertaken by his administration resulted in noticeable decline in all categories of recidivism in Virginia, which for the period of 10 years could prevent about 26 thousand violent offences and save more than $2. 7 billion indirect costs for the state (6). So, as our study revealed, the issue of effectiveness of probation/parole system and its assessment is a very complex one, especially controversial question being effectiveness of existing treatment programs within this system. Approximately two-thirds of all criminal offenders are recidivists. Parole boards are not perfect in their decision-making, and frequently, offenders are released short of serving their full sentences only to commit new crimes within months of being paroled. Much uncertainty of purpose and practice in the decision-making of probation departments and parole boards, waste motion in supervision of probationers/parolees, injus ¬tice in methods of revoking parole, and inadequacy in the provision of community rehabilitative assistance are the issues to be resolved by policy makers in criminal justice system. Hence, advocates of harsher sentencing seem to have some rationality when they argue that violent offenders have to know that the state will not tolerate their crimes, and they will stay in jail for full sentence terms. They ascertain that would be the surer way to protect the citizens from community’s most dangerous members. But, at the same time, effectiveness of existing probation and parole treatment programs could be enhanced which would raise positive results of them in lowering recidivism rates. The measures to improve probation/parole system could include provision of adequate funding (which allow developing comprehensive community-based rehabilitation and intervention programs), ensuring effective management (e. g. educing caseload per probation/parole officer), and elaboration of reliable instruments for assessment of offenders’ risk and needs during decision-making on probation and parole releases. Finally, it seems that if community would be much more involved in helping ex-offenders to adjust to their life at liberty, they would be less willing to commit further crimes. If above-listed would be attained, probation/parole system would undertake the functions of assessment, diagnosis, monitoring, and quality control of interventions while currently it plays the role of just alternative punishment.