The Perspective and Role Their Agency (Community Based Corrections- Parole/Probation) Has In Dealing with Issues in Criminal Justice
As the size and cost of running correctional institutions have grown, there has also been an increased recognition that spending in detention centers has failed to generate satisfactory results (Beckett et al., 2016). Therefore, this presented a chance to review the rationale of the nation's dependence on imprisonment and to rethink the function of community supervisions and their usefulness within the context of criminal justice. Nevertheless, it could also be a chance wasted if there are no adequate measures to strengthen community corrections' present capacity. According to Cullen et al. (2017), states and counties are instituting strategies that seek to streamline institutionalized incarcerations by implementing prison decongestion strategies, including recommending a sizable number of offenders to parole and probation agencies. However, this is done with a heightened expectation of success but often without the extra resources needed to accomplish this objective (Beckett et al., 2016). Approximately six million individuals are under the United States' criminal justice systems (Beckett et al., 2016). An estimated 2 million of these convicts are detained in local, state, and federal correctional facilities. The remaining population, which accounts for about 75 percent of the entire incarcerated populace, is under the supervision of probation or parole officers.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Agency's role in community corrections is critical. Community supervision can be a valuable response to criminal justice issues for both the offenders and communities. According to Schaefer and Williamson (2017), community-led parole programs offer an alternative to jailing adjudicated juveniles and sentenced adults. If these community corrections approaches are well managed, they can be a cost-effective method of attaining rehabilitation, penance, and public safety goals (Drake, 2018). Notably, offenders who remain in their communities avoid the adverse effects of imprisonment, possibly refining their rehabilitation outcome. Cullen et al. (2017) contend that the community's supervision allows lawbreakers to directly repay society's damages instead of being isolated from the general public. Moreover, the community corrections approach enables defendants and offenders to retain their employment and participate in treatment within their lives' natural context (Cullen et al., 2017). Drug and mental health therapy, vocational training, and behavioral corrections offered in the community have been proven to be more effective than those delivered in prison systems.
What Are the Traditional and Practical Approaches for the Agency’s (Community Based Corrections- Parole/Probation) Dealing with the Problem?
To deal with cost-related issues and congestion in the conventional correctional facilities, various traditional and practical approaches have been deployed by the criminal justice system. The escalating recidivism rates have compelled strategies such as the suspension of a more restricting sentence for a defined period of supervision in the community. According to Schaefer and Williamson (2017), the offenders are free during this time to remain in the community, to attend a school, or continue working. For them to enjoy this freedom, they should agree to set behavioral expectations through a formal agreement with a court of law. In most cases, the offender is asked to meet regularly with the probation officer assigned to them (Schaefer & Williamson, 2017). When violated in the legally binding agreements, some provisions will lead to the suspended sentence's automatic reinstatement.
The other conventional and practical strategy used by the Agency is a court-ordered community service. The approach seeks to address the issues related to retributive justice, leaning towards a restorative procedure (Beckett et al., 2016). Probation officers are tasked with supervising offenders to complete the mandatory hours set aside for this exercise. In this domain, offenders can offer unpaid labor in private and public organizations such as children's homes, hospitals, and food banks (Schaefer & Williamson, 2017). Supervised community service clarifies the nature and degree of harm caused by the offender on the community, consequently reducing the institutional incarceration burden.
Why Is/Has There Been A Reluctance To Change Approaches/Strategies?
Stakeholders in the criminal justice systems have been hesitant in changing the traditional approaches of community-based corrections programs mainly because of the cost factor. According to Drake (2018), there have always been contentious perspectives regarding these approaches' cost-effectiveness. Some believe that parole and probation are a cheaper way of administering justice (Drake, 2018). Statistics from the Administrative Office of the U.S courts suggest that the annual cost of incarcerating federal prisoners during pre-trial and after conviction is considerably higher than the cost involved in community supervision efforts (Drake, 2018). Prisons are a costly approach to address crime-related issues since it does not institute a reallocation of wealth. Worth noting is that when an offender is imprisoned, the public incurs a cost for their stay in prison (Drake, 2018). On the other side, critics of community supervision claim additional hidden costs, such as creating rehabilitation centers should inform sentencing decisions (Drake, 2018). Because of this contentious debate, change in these approaches has been impeded.
There is a lack of enthusiasm in changing these approaches because there is a general perception that probation and parole could be counterproductive. Individuals under community supervision, legal scholars, and former probation and parole officers appreciate that community correction initiatives often set offenders up to fail (Schaefer & Williamson, 2017). Individuals are obliged to comply with a wide range of harsh and sometimes vague regulations to continue enjoying their restricted freedom. Some of the rules require people under supervision to pay hefty fines, attend frequent meetings with correctional officers without fail and provide information to their supervisors any time they want to relocate of change employment (Beckett et al., 2016). Given that some of these requirements are outrageously harsh, there has been a slow uptake of reforms in the existing strategies.
What Motivations Would Be Required To Affect A Different Approach Or Strategy (Other That Direction From A Higher Jurisdictional Authority)?
For a different approach to be implemented, the relevant stakeholders should be motivated by the need to use a lean management strategy in justifying the costs of correctional measures. One way would be to refocus their resources on moderated and high-risk offenders under community supervision. As Drake (2018) affirms, there is a consensus, validated by a robust body of evidence, which suggests that financial and human resources should be focused on parolees at a moderate to high risk of recidivism. He observes that since this demographic is more likely to benefit from these programs, more resources should be concentrated here. Hence, it will be easier to make the necessary changes to the current traditional community-based corrections interventions through such efforts.
An excellent public perception regarding probation and parole programs' effectiveness can be an incentive to effect changes in community corrections approaches. There is a general assessment that anything less than imprisonment is not sufficient to deter criminal behavior (Beckett et al., 2016). However, changes can be made to conventional efforts if the public is furnished with adequate and compelling evidence that shows the effectiveness of community supervision. Such an endeavor can be accomplished by defining success in terms of lessened recidivism rates and improved reintegration in communities among the offenders under supervision. As Cullen et al. (2017) assert, this will drive the Agency to change its practices to hold individuals under supervision accountable and consequently decrease future victimization. As policymakers in the criminal justice system strive to restructure community-based corrections approaches, they must consider a decrease in reoffending rates as their priority objective and measure their effectiveness against these benchmarks.
References
Beckett, K., Reosti, A., & Knaphus, E. (2016). The end of an era? Understanding the contradictions of criminal justice reform. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 664 (1), 238-259.
Cullen, F. T., Jonson, C. L., & Mears, D. P. (2017). Reinventing community corrections. Crime and Justice , 46 (1), 27-93.
Drake, E. K. (2018). The monetary benefits and costs of community supervision. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice , 34 (1), 47-68.
Schaefer, L., & Williamson, H. (2017). Probation and parole case management as opportunity-reduction supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation , 56 (7), 452-472.
