How Probation and Parole Impacted the Criminal Justice System
Generally speaking, both probation and parole are vital to juvenile and criminal justice in the U.S. This is because they provide numerous services that are crucial to the efficient and effective function of every aspect of the criminal justice system. In other words, parole and probation are paramount to the effective operation of law enforcement, sentencing, and the release of criminals from incarceration into the community (Harker & Worrall, 2011). It is vital to note that these sanctions are popular because of their role in supervising criminals in the society. Despite playing the role of supervising offenders, these community correction agencies further carry out investigations to support parole and judicial decision-making, handle secure and residential custodial facilities, as well as supply free labor to local firms via programs of community service.
Ideally, both probation and parole are forms of community supervision. For the most part, probation is normally imposed for first or second time offenders. Also, it is set for individuals involved in lesser crimes. The main significance of this sanction is that the offender is allowed to stay in the community, while at the same time being supervised by a probation officer. Parole, on the other hand, refers to release from prison by a paroling authority. The function of societal supervision is highly accountable for the amount of the correctional individuals in the U.S. In fact, in 2003, nearly 4.8 million individuals were on parole and probation, in comparison to roughly 2.1 million individuals in prison.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Paparozzi & Demichele (2008), note that probation and parole have greatly contributed in the reduction of offender recidivism. Offender recidivism, in essence, is relapse into criminal activities or behavior. Probation and Parole programs have decreased offender recidivism by adhering to particular principles for efficient intervention. First, they provide intensive service to high-risk instead of low-risk criminals. Second, they assure that services and programs adhere to the tenets of social as well as behavioral learning theory. Third, they insist on reinforcers that are positive instead of detrimental or punishment-based sanctions (Paparozzi & Demichele, 2008). Fourth, they employ supervisors, staff, and managers who have the knowledge, skills, and value sets supportive of criminal rehabilitation. Lastly, such programs establish strategies of relapse prevention and criminal coping skills.
In addition, probation and parole yields advantages for the courts, community and defendants who come before the courts. Markedly, supervision supplies a cost-saving flipside to prison or jail. Further, supervision enhances public safety and the lives of criminals better. It greatly reduces victimization of offenders.
Future Changes That I would implement to Enhance This System
Use of needs and risk assessments
The utilization of needs and risk assessments of criminals when probation is set is important. Generally, these assessments are formal examinations, normally depending on data from interviews, reviews of case files, and questionnaires of the criminal history of the offender as well as the causes of criminal behavior (Achieving Better Outcomes for Adult Probation, 2009). Risk assessments are essential for they provide an accurate and consistent approach to differentiating which criminals present a high risk to the well-being of the society. Thus, such offenders should get closer supervision if released into the community (Kim, et al., 2013). Moreover, because of the lack of adequate resources, such assessments will aid the departments of probation in determining which criminals to prioritize for rehabilitation services.
Supervision caseloads that are manageable
Presently, we lack a national standard of how many offenders should be on the caseload of a probation officer. Nonetheless, recent research indicates that increased levels of supervision attained by establishing minimal probation officer caseloads is a pivotal to effective probation. Admittedly, lower caseloads is beneficial as it allows probation officers to have more contact with their criminals; hence making it easier for probation officers to efficiently discover violations of probation. In a similar fashion, regular contacts of probation can act as a hindrance for probationers because of heightened risk of being caught when they engage in new criminal activities or violation of their probation conditions (Smith, Schweitzer, Labrecque, & Latessa, 2012). Also, treatment-oriented programs should closely accompany intensive supervision in order to effectively reduce recidivism.
Should this System be abolished? Why or Why not?
Ordinarily, probation and parole are set as a flipside to incarceration. For this reason, the system should not be abolished as it is significant in reducing the high rates of incarceration. Therefore, the criminal justice system should expand on the utilization of community supervision since taking back criminals to the community will markedly decrease overreliance on imprisonment.
Proponents of the abolition of probation and parole argue that abolishing such community supervisions will decrease the rate of crimes. However, research indicates that the abolition of parole was tried in the decade of the 1970s but it failed to generate tougher sentencing or decrease crime rates (Phelps & Curry, 2017). Also, a number of states who tried to abolish parole have in fact reinstated parole. Therefore, probation and parole should not be abolished. Rather, strict supervision on probationers and parolees should be emphasized to make the programs more effective.
Conclusion
In conclusion, both probation and parole are forms of community supervision that are vital to the criminal justice system. They provide a cost-saving alternative to imprisonment and greatly reduce victimization of offenders. As mentioned earlier, changes such as needs and risk assessment as well as focusing on the supervision of caseloads that are manageable should be implemented to enhance this system. Overall, probation and parole should not be abolished as they reduce the high rates of incarceration.
References
Achieving Better Outcomes for Adult Probation. (2009, May 29). Retrieved from http://www.lao.ca.gov/2009/crim/Probation/probation_052909.aspx
Harker, H., & Worrall, A. (2011). From ‘community corrections to ‘probation and parole’ in Western Australia. Probation Journal, 58 (4), 364-371. doi:10.1177/0264550511421517
Kim, B., Matz, A. K., Gerber, J., Beto, D. R., & Lambert, E. (2013). Facilitating police-probation/parole partnerships. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 36 (4), 752-767. doi:10.1108/pijpsm-03-2013-0036
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. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2311.2008. 00522.x
Phelps, M. S., & Curry, C. (2017). Supervision in the Community: Probation and Parole. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice . doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.013.239
Smith, P., Schweitzer, M., Labrecque, R. M., & Latessa, E. J. (2012). Improving probation officers supervision skills: An evaluation of the EPICS model. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35 (2), 189-199. doi:10.1080/0735648x.2012.674826
