Probation and parole are forms of community supervision that were initially created to decrease the prison population in the US. In the early 1800s, prisons became overcrowded, and governors were forced to randomly release offenders to make room for new convicts (Horwitz & Rosaen, 2013). In order to address this problem, Alexander Maconochie and Sir Walter Crofton created an early parole system in 1840 (Horwitz & Rosaen, 2013). The father of probation is considered to be John Augustus, who released over 1,800 people even though they were guilty of minor crimes (Horwitz & Rosaen, 2013). Today, community supervision has slightly different incentives. While parole and probation still allow controlling the prison population, community supervision is also used to lower the expenses of law enforcement and provide the offenders with improved opportunities to rehabilitate (Horwitz & Rosaen, 2013). In other words, the growth of community supervision can be explained by shifting from punishment to rehabilitation of offenders.
The cost of incarceration is a considerable burden to the federal and state budgets. According to the National Institute of Corrections (NIC, 2018), the annual prison budget in North Carolina was $23 billion in 2017, which is $36,219 a year per inmate. These numbers are very impressive, as the annual prison budget in one state is greater than the GDP of some of the African countries, such as Chad and Niger. This implies that the cost needs to be considered when determining sanctions for offenders. Community supervision should be promoted for minor offenses, as it is considerably cheaper than incarceration. Probation and parole seem to be a valid strategies to address the problem of spending too much money on prisons.
Who Receives Probation?
The pre-sentence investigation (PSI) report and the risk-needs assessment (RNA) are extremely important for determining who is eligible for probation. Before the trial, PSI created by the probation officers becomes the central document for determining the future sentence. PSI includes information on the seriousness of the crime, risks for recidivism, living circumstances, sentencing options, and sentence recommendations (Cengage, 2020). According to Cengage (2020), the judges follow the recommendations provided by the probation officers in PSI from 65% to 95% of the time, as PSI is often the only source of reliable information the judge has. The decision-making process for parole release is similar to that of the probation; however, there are some additions. Apart from reviewing RNA and PSI, the parole board also considers the behavior of the convict during incarceration (Cengage, 2020). While hearing the parole case, the board considers the nature of the crime, prior convictions, violence, and firearm ownership. Moreover, the board reviews how well the parolee demonstrated his or her rehabilitation, a willingness to accept responsibility, and self-understanding (Cengage, 2020).
I believe that the current probation decision-making process is fair but can be improved. The current process is based upon the assessment of the nature of the crime, the defendant’s situation in terms of living arrangement, employment, and family, and risk of recidivism (Cengage, 2020). The criteria seem appropriate, and the fact that investigation is done by the probation officer is also adequate, as the judge does not have enough time to inquire about such things during the trial. However, I believe that another version of PSI can be optionally provided by an independent committee. I think that if a judge has two opinions, it will reduce the biases of the decision-making process.
Challenges to Reintegration
Parolees and other formerly incarcerated individuals face considerable challenges when reentering society. These challenges contribute to stress and recidivism. On the micro level, these individuals have problems with obtaining the job due to objective and subjective reasons. On the one hand, parolees are often unwanted by employers due to prejudice (Reardon, 2016). On the other hand, former inmates often have limited education and experience to find a suitable job (Reardon, 2016). However, parolees still need to pay supervision fees and maintain employment (Reardon, 2016). On the mezzo level, parolees suffer from the inability to reenter and maintain functional relationships with family, friends, and community (Reardon, 2016). Finally, parolees have legal restrictions unrelated to the original crime, such as remaining in the same geographic area, inability to possess firearms, and prohibition of drinking alcohol and visiting bars (Reardon, 2016). One of the ways to address the problems of parolees is the “ban the box” initiative.
“Ban the box” encourages employees to remove questions about prior incarceration from the initial job application form. The initiative promotes that the question about criminal background should be asked only after a conditional offer is made or during the face-to-face interview (NAACP, 2015). The initiative is helpful for parolees, especially in the communities of minority groups, as it provides a higher chance for finding a job (NAACP, 2015). However, some corporations criticize the initiative, as it complicates the hiring process and exposes organizations to crime (NAACP, 2015). However, I still believe that the initiative should be expanded as it puts a greater focus on rehabilitation of offenders rather than punishment.
References
Cengage. (2020). Probation and parole: History, goals, and decision-making.
Horwitz, J., & Rosaen, A. (2013). Incentives in state probation systems: Relation to structure and practices. Anderson Economic Group.
NAACP. (2015). Ban the box. NAACP.org. Web.
National Institute of Corrections. (2018). North Carolina 2017. NICIC. Web.
Reardon, C. (2016). Formerly incarcerated individuals and the challenges of reentry. Social Work Today, 17(6), 16.