Introduction
Prisons in the United States are often times in an overcrowded state causing both federal and state prison systems to operate far above their capacity. In 2002, federal prisons in the U.S. were operating 33% above their capacity while state prisons operated between 1% and 17% above their rated capacity. The national rate of imprisonment in the U.S in 2003 was 482 prisoners for every 100,000 residents with some states going higher above the national average. Inmates were by this time serving longer sentences than those imprisoned in earlier years. In 1995 for example, the average duration for imprisonment was 23 months but the rate had risen up to 30 months by 2001. This increase in the length of incarceration can be attributed to changing sentencing laws such as truth-in-sentencing laws, mandatory minimum sentences and an assortment of three-strike laws that have been responsible for increasing prison terms for repeat offenders. As a result, prison overcrowding has continually posed serious challenges to correctional administrators and this has pushed state and federal law makers into looking for alternatives to incarceration so as to reduce prison population without risking public safety. Various methods of reform that have been used to reduce overcrowding include rehabilitation and community service for the non-violent offender through such alternatives as work programs, half way houses, boot camps, house arrest and drug facilities. Shorter sentences can also be given to the offenders by using probation and electronic monitoring devices (Pollock, p. 44).
Overcrowding in U.S Prisons
During the 1980s, there was a dramatic and massive increase in drug use in the U.S that subsequently led to an equally dramatic increase in the number of offenders arrested for drug related offenses. At this time, the population imprisoned for drug related offenses increased tremendously in U.S prisons, prompting Congress to swiftly react by imposing mandatory strict sentences on those caught in possession or selling certain drugs especially crack cocaine. This move would ultimately help to shape the social composition of state and federal prisons in ways that had never before been witnessed in the U.S. Yet, the tough approach on crime doubled with the war on drugs adversely affected the U.S correctional system because of the massive drug arrests. In 1981 for example, the capacity of federal and state prisons increased by about 20,000 beds while another 43,000 were under construction. Between 1982 and 1989, the number of prisoners had subsequently increased from 410,000 to 645,604 inmates. This increase necessitated the need for reforms to the correctional system; either reforms that would provide alternatives to the traditional long-term imprisonment, or government spending to the tune of billions of dollars in construction of new jails and prisons, as well as hiring more manpower to cater for the growing inmate population (Anderson, Dyson & Burns, p. 2).
By the year 1988, U.S inmate rates measured at 247 inmates for every 100,000 residents. Between 1976 and 1988, 25 to 49 persons out of every 1000 people were convicted of property crimes and imprisoned while the number of prisoners for violent crimes rose from 252 to 383 prisoners for very 100 violent crimes, reflecting a 52 % increase. Prison build up accelerated in the 1980s and continued through a modest growth to 2005. The ratio of inmates grew from 276 per 100,000 people to 494 per the same size of population. Non-violent offenders increased tremendously during this period accounting for a slight majority of the build up in state prisons. Between 1980 and 2003, the proportion of violent and property offenders declined from 59% to 51 % and 30% to 21 % respectively. Drug offenders on the other hand increased from a rate of 6% in 1980 to a rate of 21% in 2002 while public offenders also increased from 4% to 7 % during the same period. These increases were also notable in federal prisons although drug offenders increased quite highly between 1980 and 2003 and drug offenders continued to fill federal prisons. As the burden to finance and house prison facilities increased, state and federal law makers began looking for alternatives to imprisonment (Useem & Piehl, pp. 21-22, 56; McGovern & White, pp. 91-93).
Prison Reforms
As the U.S prison population reached escalating levels, the need for alternative correctional methods to replace imprisonment increased and such methods started gaining considerable popularity. Among the most recent innovations for these alternatives are supervised probation, electronic monitoring or home detention and boot camps. But though merited for their impact in certain cases, all of these alternatives have not so far made any significant impact in reducing prison overcrowding in the U.S. Instead, majority of the convicts who are diverted to into such alternative programs should have been in prison in the first place and an offender who may have been put on supervised probation for example may have ended up serving a sentence in home detention. For these alternative programs to have any impact in reducing prison overcrowding and therefore creating more room for dangerous violent offenders, they must be used as alternatives to imprisonment rather then as alternatives to probation. Alternative correctional systems should be especially used for most first-time drug offenses instead of putting the offenders to prison (Banks, pp. 96-97; Gargan, p. 565, 579).
Probation is a sentence that is used in place of imprisonment. Through probation, low-risk offenders are allowed to serve their sentences while still holding jobs, supporting their families, and generally remaining in their respective communities. They are placed under the supervision of probation officers and are required by law to comply with various conditions defining the program. For those already serving prison terms, parole officers carry out the supervision and these too must comply with various conditions within the program for a fixed duration. Probation in the U.S probably dates back to 1841; an idea conceived by the successful philanthropist and cobbler John Augustus although historical writings dating as far back as 437-422 B.C have evidence of such a practice taking place. At the time of pioneering by John Augustus, no statutes existed to label probation or even prescribe its mode of use. Augustus individually made an attempt to rehabilitate those arrested for alcohol related offenses as well as alcoholics and is famed for intervening in the case of a Boston man who was charged for being a common drunkard. He volunteered to personally supervise this offender and the judge agreed to his proposal. Three weeks later, Augustus returned with a reformed drunkard, to the impression of the judge who imposed a lesser fine of about $4.00 and suspended the 6 months jail term. Between 1841 and Augustus’ death in 1859, approximately 2000 men and women had been spared imprisonment through his intervention and supervision. His efforts attracted other philanthropic volunteers who started carrying out probation services on both juvenile offenders and adults. This had opened a new era of correctional reform in the U.S (Champion, p. 5, 18).
During the early 1900s, probation became a favorite for reformers of the great Progressive reform wave and by 1930; both the federal government as well as 36 states had introduced probation legislation. By 1940, probation had been embraced in most of rural U.S.A. Until the end of WWII, probation was mainly applied as a measure for showing leniency to minor offenders. A years passed by and imprisonment increased due to rising rate of crime, prisons became overcrowded leading to budget crunches. Increased rate of crime threatened public safety and as a result, a more intensive supervised method of probation popularly referred to as ISP was adapted. ISP is tougher than the traditional method of probation in that convicts must keep a daily contact with assigned probation officers; undergo frequent drug and alcohol testing; receive impromptu visits from officers and are also subjected to intolerance of even the most minor conditions laid down through probation. Apart from reducing prison overcrowding, ISP also aims at rehabilitating offenders, saving on prison expenditure, increasing community protection, as well as proving that probation is punishment and that it can also work in reforming an offender. By creating community harmony between offenders and the public, ISP makes probation budgets more saleable to the general public. ISP has become the most widely used and also most popular intermediate form of punishment in the U.S (Samaha 408-409, 422).
Delivery of probation services is done either through the judicial or executive branches of government. In both cases, probation agencies are responsible for overseeing that probationers comply with the conditions laid down for their supervision. Probation agencies attached to the executive are either parts of the larger state correctional system or may exist as separate systems. Those operating under the judiciary on the other hand work in direct relation with the court system. Probation is also administered through private companies that have been contracted by various courts to provide supervision for misdemeanor cases. A good example of private probation services is to found in the state of Georgia whose Department of Corrections phased out the supervision of probationers and relegated the duties to the Municipal County and Probation Council which in turn contracts private providers of probation services. Private probation companies have come in handy to assist in addressing the nation’s growing probation population. These companies are as equally effective as the public probation agencies but have an added advantage in that they have better cost-effectiveness, their officers are better paid, and they have more competitive caseloads (Hanser, pp. 184-185, p. 191, p. 210).
Administration of probation in many cases is determined by the level of seriousness of the offense whereby felony offenses may be put under the supervision of state level personnel while local governmental probation agencies deal with the supervision of misdemeanor cases. In the state of Michigan for example, the state department of correctives handles adult felony probation while local district courts on the hand administer misdemeanor probation. More than half of all probation agencies dealing with juvenile probationers are administered at local level. In the U.S, over a dozen states have split juvenile probation services with such services being administered through juvenile courts in urban centers and through state agencies in rural areas. The law does not however require all probationers to report to respective probation officers but a certain number of them are kept in administrative caseloads; undergoing periodical checking and are also required to pay a certain service fee during the probation period. By the year 2005, the U.S had a total 4,114,864 state probationers and 26,602 federal probationers. This is an indication that the use of federal probation is quite low compared to state probation (Hanser, pp. 184 – 185).
In majority of U.S probation agencies, officers spend most of their time in providing basic supervision, making sure that offenders attend counseling sessions, seek or maintain employment, as well as making sure that they abstain from alcohol and drugs among other conditions. The success of probation is highly determined by the probationer’s ability and willingness to go through probation without technical violation of laid out conditions or engaging in a new offense (Elrod & Ryder 265-267). In 2005 for example, 29 % of over 2.2 million adult probationers successfully went through probation and were released back into their respective communities. About 16% were discharged with a single incarceration, while less than 3 % of the probationers are reported to have absconded from supervision. While not all probationers who are convicted of new charges or fail to comply with supervision conditions are re-arrested and sent back to prison, approximately 6% of prisoners currently serving their terms in state prisons have been put back for technically violating conditions for their probation (Regoli, p. 426, p. 428).
Another method of punishment used as an alternative to imprisonment is electronic monitoring, also referred to as home confinement and is a system of sentencing through which offenders remain in their homes while serving a sentence instead of being put in prisons. This is an old age practice dating as far back as the reign of King Henry VIII who confined his own wife, Queen Catherine of Aragon to their home. Modern day dictators also use this type of punishment on their political enemies. Home confinement became quite popular as a method of punishment during the 1980s especially with the advocates of intermediate punishment. Most victims of home confinement have committed less serious crimes. This method of punishment has many advantages which include protecting the public by keeping the offenders away from public contact; satisfying the demand for punishment of offenders; reducing prison overcrowding and subsequent expenses of prison maintenance as well as reducing the stigma associated with imprisonment. Convicts are also allowed to enjoy continuous occupational roles and family ties, a factor that greatly help in their rehabilitation. But some of the critics of this method of punishment claim that it is a violation of the offender’s right to privacy; rights against search; self-incrimination and seizure; and is also an unusual and cruel form of punishment (May et al., pp. 513-516; Samaha, p. 423).
Electronic monitoring is perhaps the least understood but also most widely used method of intermediate sanctions. This method of sanctioning was first developed and used in the U.S. in 1968 by Ralph Schwitzgebel, who proposed the supervision of offenders using monitoring apparatus. The state of California has received credit for the first use of the electronic monitoring system and soon after, 44 states had adopted the use of it. By 1999, over 100,000 offenders in about 1,500 alternative programs were being supervised through electronic monitoring. Electronic monitoring relies upon any type of mechanism worn by an offender that helps to trace his/her whereabouts through electronic detection. Both active and passive systems of monitoring are used. Through active systems, an offender is required to answer to a monitoring cue. The offender is also supposed to answer random calls to his/her home telephone throughout the day. Most of these devices have alarms that send out immediate alarms each time an offender attempts to interfere with the connection (Hanser, p. 352).
Previously, offenders under electronic monitoring were required to wear electronic wrist or ankle bracelets but in recent years, the technology used for this form of punishment is becoming more sophisticated. Modern devices currently in use include Radio frequency (RF) tether, Global Positioning Satellite (GPS), Visual Alcohol monitoring, Secure Continuous Remote alcohol monitoring (SCRAM) and Voice Verification. A recent study conducted in Florida to assess the effectiveness of RF and GPS electronic monitoring systems by reviewing data collected between 1998 and 2002 reported that both of the systems significantly eliminated the chances of reoffending, technical violations and absconding for offenders under the sample population. Furthermore, offenders who had been convicted of more serious crimes and were put under house arrest with electronic monitoring had little likelihood of reoffending or violation than those with less serious crimes but under house arrest with no electronic monitoring. This method of alternative punishment is however not foolproof because with advanced technology, some offenders are able to remove the gadget without raising the alarm. Some critics also argue that it is a corrective system for the well-off because offenders are required to have telephones, jobs, fixed residences and the ability to meet daily supervision fees. Some people are also very much concerned about the psychological and social stresses of turning homes into surrogate jails and the reality that offenders become partners in their own electronic surveillance (National Institute of Justice, pp. 1-3; Regoli, pp. 430-431).
One of the continuing goals of correctional reforms in the U.S is rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is a sentencing goal that is directed towards creating changes in offenders in such a way that they discontinue from committing crimes. Through rehabilitation, the offender is assisted into once again becoming a law-abiding citizen through treatment and other services which are specifically designed to address the very problems that are perceived to contribute to the person’s criminality. Rehabilitation is mainly geared towards enhancing community protection by addressing the needs of criminals due to the assumption that their thoughts, actions and decisions are influenced by certain conditions or events in their lives. Potential contributors of criminal behavior are usually poor social skills, inadequate education, poverty, substance abuse, neglect and mental health among others. Punishment of offenders on its own offers little utility and through rehabilitation, sentences for offenders are designed according to an offender’s specific needs rather than exclusively on the crime committed. Rehabilitation was a very popular correctional approach throughout the 1900s but lost popularity in the 1970s. Researchers have however proved that effective treatment through rehabilitation can e achieved by carefully designing correctional strategies. Most proponents of this type of correctional method are against the uniform use of imprisonment because its punitive environment is thought to derail treatment. Non-imprisonment, community-based initiatives such as community service, drug treatment as well as intensive probation programs can be used in combination to produce better results than imprisonment (Caputo, pp. 16-17).
Community service is perhaps the most widely known but also least used form of correctional intervention. The term ‘community service’ is used to refer to work that one does in the hope of repaying a debt owed to society after being convicted of defiant offense. In most of the cases, sentencing to community service is usually done by a judge in a court of law while community supervision officers do the supervising. Most judges prefer that community service is done at not-for-profit agencies within the local jurisdiction of offenders. Examples of community services are trash pickups, doing menial labor at local public facilities as well as caring for animals at animal shelters. Information has it that this form of punishment was created for female offenders who could not meet their fines. Te economic challenges of many offenders resulted in the establishment of such services countrywide particularly as a good option for the less violent young offenders. Today, community service in the U.S is mainly used in conjunction with probation or parole with most offenders being required to complete certain number of hours of community service per month. Community service aims to both punish as well as rehabilitate offenders. In terms of rehabilitation, offenders going through community service are given the opportunity to participate in a constructive course that is also beneficial to the offender’s community. Through community service, offenders are punished by having to leave their own work so as to work in an unpaid job to pay off a criminal debt (Walgrave, Bazemore and International Network for Research on Restorative Justice for Juveniles, p. 129, p. 139, pp. 143-145; Hanser, p. 350).
Most U.S states practice both adult and juvenile community services and most offenders placed under probation are required by law to complete certain duration of community service on top of other probation conditions. Appropriate amount of time spent in community service is determined by the presiding judge. Jobless offenders may be required to make an input of as many as 40 hours of community service every week while those that are working must find time off work to complete their services. But whether this form of intermediate sanctioning is effective remains questionable. Most non-profit agencies are however delighted at the amount of assistance community service workers provide to them. After Hurricane Katrina for example, community service offenders offered tremendous help through the hours of assistance they put in local shelters clothing, feeding and meeting other emergency needs of the evacuates (Hanser, p. 350).
Conclusion
Through intermediate corrective programs, states are able to save millions of dollars every year by subjecting offenders to such programs instead of the long-term traditional imprisonment. Instead of paying exuberant costs of traditional long-term imprisonment, states have the option of furnishing less expensive short-term programs for less serious offenders. However not a single alternative program has been able to produce good results on its own and most of these programs are used in combination.
Works Cited
- Anderson, James F, Dyson Laronistine and Burns Jerald C. Boot Camps: An intermediate Sanction. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1999. 2
- Banks, Cyndi. Punishment in America: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2005. 96-97
- Caputo, Gail A. Intermediate Sanctions in Corrections. Denton, TX: University of North Texas Press, 2004. 16-17 & 96-97
- Champion, Dean J. Sentencing: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2007. 5 & 18
- Elrod, Preston and Ryder Scott R. Juvenile Justice: A Social, Historical, and Legal Perspective. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 1999. 265-267
- Gargan, John J. Handbook of State Government Administration. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1999. 565 & 579
- Hanser, Robert D. Community Corrections. SAGE Publications Inc, 2009. 184-185, 191, 210 & 350-352
- McGovern, Thomas F and White William L. Alcohol Problems in the United States: Twenty Years of Treatment Perspective. Philadelphia, PA: Haworth Press, 2003. 91-93
- May, David C., Minor Kevin I, Ruddell Rick and Matthews Betsy A. Corrections and the Criminal Justice System. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2007. 335, 513-516
- National Institute of Justice. 1999. “Keeping track of Electronic Monitoring”. National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center.
- Pollock, Joycelyn M. Prisons: Today and Tomorrow. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2005. 44
- Regoli, Robert M. Exploring Criminal Justice. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett, 2007. 426, 428 & 430-431
- Samaha, Joel. Criminal Justice. Auckland, New Zealand: Cengage Learning, 2005. 408-409 & 422-423
- Useem, Bert and Piehl Anne Morrison. Prison State: The Challenge of Mass Incarceration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008. 21-22 & 56
- Walgrave, L, Bazemore Gordon S and International Network for Research on Restorative Justice for Juveniles. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, 1999. 129-139 & 143-145