The great debate concerns what works in integrating former convicts into the society and reducing the occurrence of recidivism. The discussion regarding the effectiveness of parole and probation in achieving these goals began in the 1970s with many studies claiming that the field of criminology has not established satisfactory techniques or reducing prison re-entry by significant amounts (Glaze and Parks, 2011). The consensus during that period was that nothing, including parole and probation, actually works in reducing offender recidivism. Some of the latest studies still support this idea or contend that these methods do not fulfill their potential, while some of them argue that probation and parole are indeed effective ways of reducing offender recidivism. This paper compares and contrasts two scholarly articles that are focused on this subject.
According to Paparozzi and DeMichele (2008), probation and parole have contributed to a significant reduction in the rate of recidivism. These authors state that individuals who participate in these programs tend to stay longer the community before getting rearrested as compared to those who do not participate. Additionally, there is a 25% higher likelihood that an individual who does not participate in these programs will be arrested as compared to one who participates. Thus, it follows that probation and parole are effective. However, Solomon et al. (2008), argue that these programs do not live up to their maximum potential. It has been found that not all probation and parole programs are based on policies and practices that help in reducing offender recidivism. While some of these programs are considerably effective, a few of them tend to result in higher rates of recidivism.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
One of the most pertinent issues that arise concerning the effectiveness of probation and parole is the absence of alternative outcome measures (Herberman and Bonczar, 2014). Using recidivism as the primary measure of a program’s effectiveness fails to demonstrate the many objectives and aims of probation and parole, including the preparation of pre-sentence investigations, monitoring community service, and collecting fines and fees.
References
Glaze, L. E., & Parks, E. (2011). Correctional populations in the United States, 2011. Population , 6 (7), 8.
Herberman, E. J., & Bonczar, T. P. (2014). Probation and parole in the United States, 2013. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ248029 .
Paparozzi, M., & DeMichele, M. (2008). Probation and Parole: Overworked, Misunderstood, and Under ‐ Appreciated: But Why? The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice , 47 (3), 275-296.
Solomon, A. L., Osborne, J. W., LoBuglio, S. F., Mellow, J., & Mukamal, D. (2008). Life after lockup: Improving reentry from jail to the community.
