After reading the Glaze and Parks (2012) and Maruschak & Parks (2012) reports there was a lot of useful information regarding correctional population and probation and parole. One important conclusion that can be drawn from these reports are:
The community supervision population (including probationers and parolees, down 1.5%) and the incarcerated population (including local jail inmates and federal and state prisoners, down 1.3%) decreased at about the same rate in 2011. (Glaze and Parks 2012, p. 1) Both the correctional population and community supervision (probation and parole) dropped for three years in a row. Another conclusion that can be drawn from the reports are that the decrease in probation and the decline in correctional population
…show more content…
About 81,800 fewer offenders were on probation at the end of 2011, accounting for most (83%) of the decline in the correctional population during the year. (p. 4). The final conclusion I can draw from the reports are about the (re)incarceration rates of probationers and parolees. While reading about this third conclusion I learned that both the (re)incarcerated rates of probationers and parolees decreased. According to Maruschak and Parks (2012):
The rate of incarceration among probationers at risk of failing during the year decreased slightly from 2010 to 2011. In 2011, 5.5% of probationers at risk of failing were incarcerated, the same level as 2000, but down from 5.7% in 2010. (p. 6) Maruschak and Parks (2012) also stated:
During 2011, an estimated 12% of all parolees who were at risk of reincarceration were incarcerated. This was down from 13% reincarcerated in 2010, and 16% during 2000. (p. 9) Meaning that the rate of reincarceration of parolees were on a constant decline for
…show more content…
As stated in the textbook Corrections in the Community (2011), “A jail holds persons detained pending adjunction and/or persons committed after adjunction for sentences of 1 year or less” (Latessa & Smith (2011) p. 7) Other functions jails may serves are holding mentally ill people, probationers and parolees pending hearings, witnesses that are detained and people charged with contempt, federal prisoners waiting for pick up, and holdbacks. The stages of the criminal justice process these offenders may be in is the Entry into the system, the prosecution and pretrial services, adjudication, and sentencing and corrections. Sentencing guidelines impacted community corrections by helping with the consistency of criminal penalties, helping with sentencing decisions, and the guidelines influenced the sentence
The tension between rehabilitation and punishment has been increasing dramatically. This is because there have been sharp rises in the prison population and repeat offender rates. When one area is over emphasized in relation to the other, there is the possibility that imbalances will occur. Over the course of time, these issues can create challenges that will impact the criminal justice system and society at large. (Gadek, 2010) (Clear, 2011) (Gatotch, 2011)
Community corrections is continually changing and has been for the past one hundred years. From the early to mid-twentieth century onward it has used three major models, the medical model, community model, and the crime control model. The major turning point for the American community corrections system that led to corrections as we know it today was in 1974 when What Works? - Questions and Answers About Prison Reform by Martinson was published. The system changed practically overnight across the nation. The notion of rehabilitating offenders was dismissed and a more punitive “lock them up and throw away the key” mentality took over. Presently the corrections system is still working in the crime control model, but professionals are trying to restructure how we deal with criminal offenders during and after incarceration. The difficulty in the restructuring is finding the balance between punishing criminal offenders proportionate to their crime, but also rehabilitating them to be productive members of society once they are released so that they do not recidivate.
“The Prison and Probation Service has two main goals: To contribute to the reduction of criminality, and to work to increase safety in society. To achieve these goals we work with sentenced persons in order to improve their possibilities of living a life without committing new crimes.” (Linstrom and Leijonram)
Corrections have existed throughout society for many years and continued to change and evolve in the United States reflecting society’s values and ideals throughout the centuries. In the criminal justice system, corrections exist in more than one form. Not only do corrections refer to jails and prison systems but they also pertain to community-based programs, such as probation, parole, halfway houses, and treatment facilities. Past, present, and future trends in regard to the development and operation of institutional and community-based corrections vary between states but corrections have grown immensely since the early 1800s and have continued to expand
AB 109 has other inadvertent consequences for parole and probation. Both probation and parole violators will serve their sentence in a county jail if their probation or parole is revoked. Although the state parole population is declining, county probation caseloads are increasing. The CDCR seriously underestimated how many “non-non-nons” would go to each county after six months (Owen & Mobley, 2012, p. 48). County probation officers are currently supervising AB 109 inmates in significant numbers despite that rehabilitative programs and services are lacking.
Current trends show that incarceration numbers continue to grow higher each year. The United States rate of incarceration is the leading nation in rates of incarceration. Other countries have much lower percentages than the U.S. does. There a implications because of inmates reentering the prison system within three years after being released. In 1994 51.8% of inmates that had been released were back in the prison system (U.S. prison populations: Trends and implications, n.d.). Other implications
Due to the increase of correctional populations that continue to exceed its’ capacity, correctional alternatives were created. Correctional alternatives were to alleviate both prison crowding and the threat to public safety posed by serious offenders (Flores, Holsinger, Latessa, Lowenkamp, & Makarios, 2010). Rehabilitation in the 1970s was a variable correctional goal however by the 1980s intermediate sanctions developed . Intermediate sanctions consist of house arrest, electronic monitoring, boot camps, day reporting centers, intensive supervision probation or parole, community service, fines, and curfews (Tonry, 1990). These sanctions offer community based punishments that focus on deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution (Tonry, 1990).
At any given time, there are approximately 2 million American citizens incarcerated and nearly 700,000 inmates returning to their communities each year. (Petitt & Western, 2004; Western, 2001). Since most prisoners are eventually released, mass incarceration has in turn produced a steep rise in the number of individuals reentering society and undergoing the process of social and economic reintegration. (Travis, 2005). During the period between 1982 and 2007, the number of Americans incarcerated in jails and prisons increased by 274% (Pew Center on the States, 2009). In addition to the increase of the individuals incarcerated, there is an even larger amount of individuals under community supervision, with a recent study finding that one in every 48 American adults are either on probation or parole on any given day (Glaze & Bonczar, 2011). Recent statistics show that the percentage of parolees re-incarcerated after release currently stands at 32% (Maruschak and Parks, 2012).
The issue is intermediate sanctions and community corrections within the correctional practices. The two classic forms of punishment/supervision for crimes in the United States are imprisonment and probation. Imprisonment is extremely expensive, often too harsh for both the offender and his/her family based on the crime committed, and tends to be far less effective than hoped in rehabilitating the offender. Probation is used far more frequently than imprisonment but is problematic because many repeat offenders have already unsuccessfully undergone prior probation and there is a lack of supervision due to the heavy caseloads of probation department caseworkers. Faced with the great expense, extreme nature and ineffectiveness of imprisonment vs. the ineffectiveness and lack of supervision in probation, lawmakers have struggled to fill the gap between those two classic law enforcement measures with
Mass incarceration not only takes a toll on adults but on children as well. Along with the men, women are also being incarcerated, in the last ten years the rates of women being put behind bars has increased. According to Court Services and Offender Supervision
The growth in the number of incarcerated individuals is in contrast to evidence that shows increased incarceration is not the solution to the community safety challenge in America. The apparent disregard for alternative correctional methods has necessitated a complete overhaul of the American penal system.
Both jail and prison offer some type of early released programs, in this case probation and parole will briefly be discussed. Probation is a prison sentence that is suspended on the condition that the offender follow certain prescribed rules and commit no further crime (Seiter, 2008). Parole is similar to probation except that it is after a period of incarceration, which involved determinate and indeterminate sentencing (Seiter, 2008). The other types of prison sentencing include mandatory minimums, three-strike laws, and truth-in-sentencing (Wilson, 2001). The only difference is that a parole board allows convicts to serve the remainder of their term in society under supervision and strict limitations (Wilson, 2001). In summary both jails and prisons should strive to provide as much educational, health, and counseling opportunities as possible to reduce the likelihood of recidivism. Second, funding for the jail and prison systems will be briefly discussed.
The growth of incarceration in the United States Prison grew over the last four decades. The trend is historically unprecedented and is unique to the world. The majority of those incarcerated come from disadvantaged populations and comprises of main minorities below the age of forty. The communities have the number of people engaging in crime, drug abuse, alcohol addiction, physical and mental illness and lack of employment. The African Americans and Hispanics form the largest prison population compared to the non-Hispanic whites. The high incarceration has the huge impact on the American society since its inception in the 1960s and 1970s. The changed political environment led to policy changes. All levels of the government altered
Nearly six decades later, six states had passed laws regarding probation. By 1910, “thirty-two more states had passed legislation establishing juvenile probation” (Probation Historical Roots, 2013). Twenty years later, forty-nine out of fifty states had a juvenile probation law (Probation Historical Roots, 2013). Today, as defined by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, “probation refers to adult offenders whom courts place on supervision in the community through a probation agency, generally in lieu of incarceration” (Community Corrections (Probation and Parole),
The court system, the corrections system and law enforcement authorities have to work as partners to make this a reality. Time in jail is appropriate for violent offenders; however, less serious offenders who commit non-violent crimes are better served by community based corrections program such as parole and probation. Money needs to be redirected as an investment into public safety by allocating enough dollars for both the prison system and the community-based corrections system. Community-corrections is guided by the viewpoint that it is a partnership between social services and law enforcement (The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2009). The “1 in 31” report by The Pew Charitable Trust set up this framework for an effective corrections system in the 21st century: 1) sort offenders by risk to public safety, 2) base intervention programs on science, 3) harness technology, 4) impose swift and certain sanctions, 5) create incentives for success and, 6) measure progress. States that have implemented policies that reflect these guidelines include Arizona, Kansas, Hawaii, Florida and many