In the process of rehabilitating a convicted criminal, there are various government institutions that have been put in place to ensure that the undertaking makes the world a better place to live in. the Chief Probation Officer and the parole officer are some of the individuals who are served with the duty of guiding the felons into a compatible status where they will be in a position to lead a crime-free life after completing the time given in the sentence. Considering that the constitution is strict on the various human rights, which includes the rights of prisoners since they are still human beings, there are times when the correction officers may tend to suspend some of the rights in accordance to the set regulations. This essay aims at discussing such scenarios to highlight when and why the law may rebuke a felon for overstepping the regulations and even send the criminal behind bars.
In the Pennsylvania Board of Probations versus Scott case (1998), the court ruling intimated that hearing intended to revoke parole should not be based on the federal exclusionary rule. The bone of contention was that the accused, Keith M. Scott, was granted parole on condition that he should not possess any weapons. After a search revealed that there were weapons in Scott’s habitat, the court was consulted for its recommendations. It was noted that there was no constitutional mandate in the exclusionary rule and that its application would be quite damaging to the course of justice. In this light, their ruling serves as a guide to parole officers who may misinterpret the various conditions that are dictated on criminals who are on parole. This calls for deep consideration of the involvements of the felon who overlooks the conditions and the inevitability of their damage.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The inmate remains a responsibility of the corrections department when he is on parole. It is for that reason that the parole officer is expected to issue certain guidelines to the convict in order to streamline the parole process. It may, therefore, be stipulated in the parole regulations that the convict should refrain from interaction with any other member who is a known felon. This is a constructive move that is aimed at helping the paroled individual to stay away from individuals who may sway them into further criminal activities (Cornell Law School, n.d.). Well aware that peer influence is detrimental in the erosion of morals; the officers may stand in the way of such a convict and deny him or her the right to interact with such people.
However, there are certain debatable instances on the convicts interacting with other known felons (Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, n.d.). Family members, for example, are quite unavoidable at times and may sway the paroled individual to overlook the directive. As a parole officer, there are certain reasons that may necessitate the return of such a prisoner to jail. When the convict may be protected from illegal searches and seizures among others, the probation officer may delve deeper into the interactions of the convict with a relative who is a known criminal (Cornell Law School, n.d.). The individual on parole may, for example, act in full knowledge that the other person is a felon. When the paroled act in full knowledge, this may be taken as rebellion and the individual may be sent back to prison. On the other hand, the parole officer may investigate whether the convict on parole is the one taking the initiative to go and look for the felon who is a relative. When this happens, it may be hard to ascertain whether there is another crime in the offing and thus there is a probability that the parole officer will overlook the exclusionary rule to jail the convict.
References
Cornell Law School (n.d.). US constitution: Fourth amendment. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (n.d.). Parole – General conditions of release. Retrieved from https://www.csosa.gov/supervision/types/parole/release-conditions.aspx
Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott (1998). Facts of the case. Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1997/97-581
