The notion of the correction system has been in existence for a long time. Under this system, there are various forms of programs that do not expect the criminal to be jailed. The programs enhance the offender to stay out of the prison although they remain at close monitoring. In that, the latest and the most prominent programs are parole and probation. Therefore, both programs permit a majority of offenders to carry out their normal activities in the community unless otherwise directed by the judge, parole or probation officer (Viglione & Taxman, 2015). Notably, this type of sentencing is given to criminals who are convicted of non-violent crimes and are not believed that they can run away. Thus, probation and parole can be viewed as the most natural ways of addressing the various issues witnessed in prison such as overcrowding of inmates.
Both probation and parole are believed to be the oldest programs in the entire correction system. They were created with an objective of handling the issue of non-violent criminals. Before the development of these programs, nonviolent lawbreakers would be kept in the same confinement with other offenders. Consequently, this was not being just to the minor offenders and it was not helpful to the workers in prison. Therefore, these notions attributed to the development and evolution of probation and parole so that they can mitigate the sternness of punishments (Phelps & Curry, 2017). The actual intent of probation and parole was not merely meant for imprisoning these individuals, but they were developed so that they can rehabilitate the offenders while still in the care of their community.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In as much as there were similar practices of practices of probation around 437 BC, John August is believed to be the core founding father of probation. August was an average everyday individual. Nevertheless, his intents with the formation of probation were attributed to the behavioral improvements. He held that if the system allowed the offender to remain within the confinement of the community, there could be the probability of having a second chance. Subsequently, by offering supervision and support from the probation staff, then there could be high chances of the officer attaining the objective of providing help to the offender hence becoming law abiding citizen.
On the other hand, parole was initially applied in Ireland and Australia. It was viewed as a reward for prisoners who were seen to be obedient and had best behaviors while in prison. This program was recognized as a privilege provided to prisoners who were qualifying for parole. In that, this carried out after the offender has received a maximum or minimum sentence, and after that, they could be examined by the parole board which was responsible for making decisions on whether to put them on parole after performing an extensive hearing (Viglione & Taxman, 2015). Similarly, just like the probation, parole also was directed towards carrying out rehabilitation for the prisoners by allowing them back into the community and close monitoring.
The core element that the lead to the development of correction systems was the aspect of alleviating the severity of punishment. Probation and parole are the elements that provide prisoners in the current prison systems the motivation to want to be better people in the community. In that, the current systems are attributed by the understanding that when a defendant is presented with an opportunity of being back in the society, he or she can bring benefits to the community, to the defendant and the government (Phelps & Curry, 2017). Releasing a defendant out on parole or probation would be less expensive as well as reducing the number of prisoners hence solving the issue of overcrowding. This element is considered to be of benefit due to the high costs of accommodating offenders in a correctional facility since the government has to supply the inmates clothing, food, and other needs.
In the past, the correctional practice was controlled by the rehabilitative perspective in the 1960s. During this era, community supervision officers play the role of transforming the criminals. Much devotion has been focused on the offender and not the crime with the motive of averting future criminalities. Both parole and probation officers have considerable discretion and the power to exploit coercive methods if considered necessary to enhance the rehabilitation process (Viglione & Taxman, 2015). The two programs are designed in a way that parolees and probationers ensure that the suggested interventions are being enacted. Nonetheless, the courts put constraints and supervision based on the crimes of the offender. For instance, if one is a drug addict, he or she is enrolled in a rehabilitation program to help them get cleaned.
To sum up, in my perception, both probation and parole are efficacious programs in the community, in the sense that they help to protect the society from further crime by the offender. This is achieved from the report of investigation that is conducted to ascertain whether or not the individual is a risk to society. If an individual is considered to be dangerous in the community, then he or she is sentenced to more severe repercussions. However, if the offender is confirmed not be a risk to society, they are then sent on probation. Moreover, these programs help offenders who are transferred back into the community to learn how to manage what happens since they are labeled as an offender. Therefore, parole and probation officers help these individuals get employment or even continue their education or enrolling them in rehab.
References
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.
Viglione, J., & Taxman, F. S. (2015). Probation and parole. In B. L. Cutler, P. A. Zapf, B. L. Cutler, P. A. Zapf (Eds.) , APA handbook of forensic psychology, Vol. 2: Criminal investigation, adjudication, and sentencing outcomes (pp. 363-383). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. Doi: 10.1037/14462-013.
