The Impact of Probation as an Alternative Sentence Term Paper

Introduction

Any person committing the offense is subject to sentence regardless of his or her age, gender, health, and faith amongst other parameters. However, based on these varying parameters, there exist various sentence alternatives ranging from drug treatments alternative to prison, faith-based rehabilitation programs, pay-for-your-prison stay, and probation amongst others. It is worth noting that each has its impacts on the corresponding stakeholders.

The paper focuses on the latter: probation. Probation can be regarded as the act of testing someone’s ability or behavior. When a court of law gives a probation order, the offender is authorized to abide by some conditions set by the courtyard. Studies have revealed various impacts of giving probation as an alternative sentence to an offender. For example, during the probation period, the offender is ordered to abide by the orders given by the probation officer.

The probation officer is in charge of supervising the offender. Several conditions may be put forth by the court of law to monitor the offender under probation. Petersilia (2011, p.50) points out how the offender may be ordered to refrain from drug and substance abuse, firearms, or ordered to abide by a set personal curfew. In addition, in some instances, the offender is sanctioned to remain in a particular area of residence for easy monitoring. In other cases, he or she has to remain employed in a particular organization within a particular known area. Moreover, the offender may be endorsed to keep off victims. A good example of such a case is a man who was involved in domestic violence.

He may be advised not to visit his wife and children whose rights he violated until the court of law approves him. In extreme cases where the offender violated a particular helpless group like raping a child or an old grandmother, he or she may be ordered to keep off from them. In many incidences of legal probation, offenders are sanctioned not to interact with other known criminals who may incite them into repeating the same crime or committing a bigger one.

To track the offenders, technologically developed nations fit the offender with a monitor referred to as an electronic tag. This tag acts as a tracking device that can identify where the offender is at all times. The probation officers keep on monitoring the whereabouts of the offenders to know when they get out of the mandated jurisdiction. With this hint, the paper seeks to discuss the impact of probation as an alternative sentence from the perspective of various stakeholders namely offenders, judges, and victims, just to name but a few.

Impacts of Probation

Probation has been practiced over the years. The impact of probation has been felt by the offenders, judges, and philanthropists who have fought for the enactment of probation Acts. For example, John Augustus who was a philanthropist struggled to rehabilitate criminals instead of having them jailed. He developed the idea of probation to where it is today. Various impacts of probation have been witnessed since 1841 when probation began.

Broderick (1990, p.104) posits that nations and states that have practiced legal probation over the years have realized various benefits. The positive impacts of probation have benefitted the offenders themselves, the victim of the offense, and the society. However, it is worth noting that there are also negative impacts of probation.

Impacts of Probation on the Offender

The major target of probation is to change the behavior of the offender. The founding father of probation (Mr. John Augustus) initiated the whole idea by seeking the release of one offender into his hands. Augustus followed the probation granted to this one offender by reforming him. After he succeeded in changing the behavior of this offender before his actual date of trial, the process of probation became wide acceptable after 1852. Out of probation, most of the offenders who committed low-risk crimes can access incarceration alternatives. Petersilia (2011, p.50) confirms that offenders who are granted probation can spend time with their families.

Probation provides an opportunity for the offender to continue providing love, care, and attention to his or her family members. The gap that is created between an offender and his or her family by imprisonment is eliminated through probation. Offenders can still stay with their families while they serve their probation. In several instances, when offenders are imprisoned for many years, their families collapse. In fact, in most cases, the other partner in the family becomes adulterous in the case where the offender was married. Such a move may end up in divorce or strained relations in the family. Children of the imprisoned offender also face difficulties in their upbringing.

One parent may not bring up the children in a similar way that could have happened if both parents worked together. Children lack either maternal or paternal love. Such suffering of children is eliminated through probation sentence. Children who are innocent on their side can experience total love from their parents regardless of whether they are offenders or not. Such offenders are rehabilitated through social services.

According to Curdy (2005, p.8), they gain various skills through life skill lessons that are offered in the process of probation. Cooper (2005, p.121) also adds that offenders who are addicts of drugs and substance abuse also benefit through the treatment program meant to rehabilitate them. When they are rehabilitated from drug and substance abuse, their likelihood to commit another crime is reduced. Rehabilitation and treatment can also reduce the predisposition of the offender to commit another crime.

Recidivism reduces due to decreased exposure of the offender to other drug abusers and even peddlers through close monitoring. Cooper (2005, p.122) asserts that, with time, the rate of drug and substance abuse in society may consequently decrease. Probation is therefore very beneficial to the individual offenders. By the end of the probation period, the offender is slowly delivered from becoming a career criminal. Probation, therefore, saves the society and the country huge sums of money that could have been paid in the form of tax. Curdy (2005, p.7) points out the fact that probation enables the offender to work, earn money, and pay the amount deemed necessary for compensating the victim of the offense.

When probation is granted, family and friends of the offender who would have paid the charges are saved from the burden. Transgressors are therefore able to prove their responsibility through paying restitution fees. When they are sentenced to shock probation, the impact is also different. In this type of probation, first-timers in committing crimes are sentenced to probation after having served for some days or weeks in the incarceration program. It is expected that the offender will be shocked by the prison life after being in prison for some days and make a decision of never committing a crime again. After the shock, the offender is then put on probation. On probation, the offender is subjected to a spit sentence. Such a sentence involves the offender serving a considerable amount of time in prison before he or she is released and put on probation.

There is also intermittent sentencing where the criminal offender is ordered to spend his or her days working in society and spend his or her weekends in jail. Such kind of probation enables the offender to have enough time to work and provide for his or her family during the week and serve his or her jail term in prison. Probation will therefore enable the offenders to continue enjoying family life and to fulfill their duties to their families. The shock of repeatedly being in the prisons during the weekends stirs the lawbreaker to avoid committing another crime in the future. The fact that the name of such a person is soiled by his or her constant visit to prisons as a detainee is also deterrent enough for the offender.

Delinquents will therefore change their behavior to avoid such shame in the future. Such a change of behavior will only occur during probation. Therefore, various advantages of probation are evident to individual offenders. To begin with, the prisoner experiences domestic freedom. Offenders on probation have the opportunity to live wherever they want to be provided their stay is within the jurisdiction of probation. Such freedom is denied for those who are sentenced to normal incarceration programs. Although the offender may not be allowed to live with other offenders, criminals, or other probates, he or she can live with the ordinary society.

They live comfortably with their families. Such an environment offers a better opportunity for them to change their behavior than when they are within the confines of the prison. The other advantage of probation on the individual offender is the freedom to be in occupation. The offender is required by the terms of probation to have employment. Broderick (1990, p.105) asserts that it is out of employment that the offenders have the privilege of providing for themselves and their families without depending on any assistance from outside. Working dignifies them in their families and society. In addition, probation is advantageous to the offender because it accords the freedom of religion.

When the lawbreaker is sentenced to probation, he or she can attend religious services within the society thus nourishing his or her values. Most of the religions in the world embrace values and hence the likelihood of making the offender morally upright through religion. The transgressor can do community services in a better way when in the society than when he or she is in the confines of the prison walls. Finally, offenders have the legal freedom to meet with the probation officer occasionally, to have drug and substance abuse periodically, and to abide by laws. They also have recreational freedom where they can learn good behavior or reconcile with others and make a resolution to adopt a good lifestyle (McHenry, 2010, p.8).

Impact of Probation on the Society

The second major impact of probation is on the society from which the offender comes. Probation eliminates the cost of taking care of the offender in prison. Taxpayers who are members of society save money. The amount that could have been used in imprisoning the offender can be channeled to other projects that are more beneficial to society. The society also benefits when an offender is on probation since he or she continues working hence providing resources to society. Ironically, a transgressor who would have been a burden to the society’s economy becomes a source of revenue to it. The offender continues with employment.

Hence, he or she becomes a productive member of society. Society gains from the realized output instead of regretting imprisonment. In addition, the problem of integrating offenders after they complete their terms of imprisonment is eliminated. Probation accords an opportunity to continue coexisting with the other members of the society. The trauma that is associated with imprisonment is therefore eliminated from the life of the offender and his or her family. In most instances, when offenders are separated from their society, their families experience stigmatization.

Such stigma may affect parents to the offender who feels like they failed, or are made by other members of the society to believe that they are responsible for their children’s behavior. Probation creates a thorough way for such parents to continue living with their children. With such an opportunity, parents and friends can have ample time to advise and counsel the offending son or daughter (McHenry, 2010, p.8). If the offenders were far, society would not have a chance to counsel them.

Therefore, probation also allows society to rectify and influence the behavior of the offender. At the end of the probation period, society also finds it easier to absorb the lawbreaker than when he or she spent a considerable time in prison. Some of them may mean well for society. However, the isolation that they face from society on completion of their imprisonment term bars them from integrating freely with it. Dunbar (2006, p.51) affirms that the major purpose of prisons is to correct offenders and then reintegrate them into society as responsible and law-abiding citizens. In the studies conducted on offenders in 2009 by the United States Bureau of Justice Statistic, 30% of all the offenders who were sentenced in 2009 were not able to complete the probation term (Fraser, 2007, p.450).

Impact of Probation on the Victim

The third impact of probation is on the victim who is on the other side of the crime. Malcolm (2006, p38) argues that the courts of law may focus so much on the offender and forget or do very little to help the casualty. The victim of the offense feels the impact of the criminal act personally. For example, every step that the judicial process takes must involve the subject. The victims become the first witnesses of the crime committed by the offender.

Consequently, they are subjected to lengthy proceedings in the courts of law. Therefore, they offer insight, guidance, and any other input required during the sentencing period. When an offender is put on probation, he or she continues to pay the cost of rehabilitating the victim. The victim has his or her time wasted in courts of law especially as the prosecution gathers information concerning the offense.

Impacts of Probation on Cost and Economy of a Country

Probation influences the cost and economy of a country. Imprisonment has become a very expensive venture for most economies in the world. This case has been hyped by the increased agitation by the human rights movement for better treatment of prisoners worldwide. Fraser (2007, p.449) observes that the number of crimes and criminals in the world has also increased. For example, in the U.S, at the end of the year 2010, there were 4,055,500 offenders under probation. In the whole of that year, approximately 4,400000 people served probation terms in the U.S. These rights have come on board with exorbitant cost to the world economy.

As the better option, probation enables the state to save money. Probation is cost-effective and saves the economy money. The cost of the ordinary incarceration that has been the preference of most governments is very high. It is even higher in developing nations where there are no proper structures put in place for the incarceration processes. It is out of such comparison that probation becomes a better option. In the year 2004, the federal court of America issued a newsletter that indicated that the total cost of probation was six times less than that of incarceration. Incarceration is therefore very expensive for most economies in the world.

Fraser (2007, p.452) argues that to avoid such unnecessary spending, economies of the world should embark on maximizing the application of probation, especially for low-crime offenders. By doing so, these economies will save a lot of money- almost six times what they spend every year. Today, many countries have realized that probation is cost-effective. Hence, they have turned to apply it as a corrective measure for the offenders. With the recession that happened in the United States and Europe since 2007, most of the affected nations have turned to probation in a bid to save money. The current global economic recession that affects almost every other country in the world has negatively influenced the world economy. According to Fraser (2007, p.449), every nation must adopt probation as the first sentence for low-caliber crime before turning to the incarceration of offenders.

The larger the number of people who are sentenced to imprisonment, the more the economy is negatively affected. The number of workers available to feed their families and to pay tax and develop the nation is reduced. On the other hand, when probation is adopted as an alternative sentence, such offenders can continue working and serving the country and their families as they continue with their terms of imprisonment. Every possible move that a nation can take to ensure that its economy can save some money should be implemented.

Impact of Probation on Prison Population

The other impact of probation is control of the prison population. In most nations today, prisons are usually overpopulated. Prisons are actually holding more than they were designed to accommodate. Out of overcrowding in prisons, most of the inmates are not able to access the required services. As a result, many prisoners have ended up dying in prisons due to communicable diseases. Dunbar (2006, p.53) observes that prisoners acquire ailments like Tuberculosis from other inmates due to poor ventilation and overcrowding. According to Stoehr (2011, p.516), violence has also become rampant in prisons due to increased competition for limited resources.

Cases of brutal fights in prisons, killings of an inmate by fellow prisoners, and sexual harassments have been reported. We can therefore argue that imprisonment should be a preserve for those who have committed high degree crimes. Other offenders should be put in probation before such a step is taken on them. By doing so, the number of offenders undergoing incarceration will definitely reduce. It is also worth noting that, when prisoners are put in one jail, they influence each other Stoehr (2011, p.516). In fact, some people who go into prisons with minor crimes may end up growing into hardened criminals. As prisoners interact and share ideas in the process of undergoing the imprisonment period, they end up spoiling each other. For example, every prisoner wants to be seen as a hero for having committed the most heinous crime and then being sentenced for a small term.

When other criminals get the information, they are pulled into such acts in pursuit of becoming stars in committing criminal acts. Hardened criminals are not supposed to be placed in the same cage with fresh offenders who have been imprisoned. In fact, Cohen (2000, p.20) argues that incarceration has the ability to make an offender desire to commit the crime again. For example, if one committed a minor offense and or ended up being jailed for five years, he or she will have the drive to revenge. Such a case has repeatedly happened especially when dealing with juvenile offenders. Delinquents are exposed to hardened criminals during their imprisonment period.

For example, according to Walker and Moffat (2000, p.36), in treatment programs like the scare straight programs, prisoners believe that they will change their behavior for better through exposing the delinquent to hardened criminal. Imprisoning delinquents is likely to make them worse than they were before being imprisoned. The hardened criminals make the delinquents believe that the crime they committed is small and does not warrant their imprisonment. They are therefore made to feel inferior by inmates. Hence, they develop an urge to commit a bigger crime in revenge. Delinquents are also exposed to criminals who have been jailed for a long period.

Walker and Moffat (2000, p.36) are for the opinion that criminals train the delinquents to be hardy and to be experts in crimes so that they become famous in the society. It is out of such negative implications of imprisonment that even juvenile offenders should be put on probation sentence than being imprisoned. Dunbar (2006, p.51) affirms that, when delinquents are put on probation, they are able to maintain some of their good values. Hence, they do not become hardened criminals easily. The cost of imprisonment is also reduced largely.

Shortcomings of Probation as an alternative Sentence

There are several shortcomings of probation as an alternative sentence. One of them offenders face community stigma. Begnal (1991, p.317) observes that, when an offender is released to the society in a short time after committing a crime, the society may be uncomfortable with him or her. It is therefore difficult for him or her to be comfortable with the same society that he or she offended. For example, a man who rapes a woman or steals from the society is likely to face the wrath of the community if he is put on probation. In fact, Malcolm (2006, p.37) affirms that even the smallest crime that touches the society may make it oppose the offender and his or her reintegration into the society. Most of the members of the community may also not understand what probation is and or the reason for adopting it as an alternative to imprisonment.

The worst-case scenario happens when shock probation is adopted. The offender shares his or her life with two different environments at the same time. For example, he or she is in prison during the weekends and in the ordinary society during the weekdays. A lot of dissonance is also created in the mind of the offender. Labi (2012, p18) affirms that the society may perceive such offenders as criminals and advice people and children to avoid them.

The other disadvantage of probation is that it makes it a requirement for offenders to be in employment. However, there are few jobs on offer today. On the other hand, employers may not be very comfortable to employ a person with a criminal record. Begnal (1991, p.317) points the fact that offenders on probation are supposed to always disclose their criminal records to their employers. Employers may therefore find it better to employ another person with a clean record than welcoming an offender into their companies. Cohen (2004, p.27) argues that the offender may have the required skills, academic qualifications, and experience but fail to get the right job due to his or her criminal records.

Employers may even prefer to employ persons who are not very qualified but have clean accounts than ones with criminal backgrounds. It is out of the criminal records that the offenders carry that make them end up in low paying jobs. They are therefore likely to earn lower salaries than they would have earned if they had clean records. According to Cohen (2004, p.28), in some instances, various companies sack them immediately they learn about their sentence.

Such organizations and employers will always hide under the guise of maintaining a good corporate image. In some institutions like banks and media, image is everything. Therefore, the organizations are likely to dismiss the offenders upon learning their sentences. Sacking of an offender on grounds of other crimes that are not related to the organization may end up causing stigmatization on the offender.

The other disadvantage of probation is that the offender may not be able to abide with the tight conditions of the sentence. Cohen (2000, p.20) asserts that, when an offender is put on probation sentence, he or she is supposed to abide by various conditions such as visiting the probation officer regularly, going for alcohol and drug abuse tests, not taking alcohol, being at ones residence at a certain time, not traveling outside certain boundaries, and even not associating with certain persons. These conditions may prove tricky for some people to follow. According to Toobin (2005, p.32), it calls for great discipline for someone to abide by the conditions of the court during probation.

Offenders on probation may therefore end up going against the conditions set by the courts of law. Some offenders are alcohol and drug addicts. It may therefore be difficult for them to stop the behavior just abruptly without control (Toobin, 2005, p.32). It is for this reason that prisons become important. In some other instances, the offender is restricted from associating with some close friends and members of the society who are offenders. It may therefore be very difficult for the offender to cut business ties with such people on order of the courts.

The last disadvantage of probation is the inconsistency of monitoring the offenders. Labi (2012, p18) affirms that a lot of power to supervise an offender is vested on the parole officer. The officer supervises the offender to ensure that he or she abides by the set rules of the probation. Toobin (2005, p.32) observes that the probation officer is therefore bestowed the power to determine whether an offender is to remain in probation or is to be sent back to prison. The attitude of the parole officer towards a certain offender may therefore play a significant role in ensuring that the offender goes back to prison.

Conclusion

In conclusion, probation is an alternative incarceration. Under the probation correction program, the court puts offenders in the society and places them under the supervision of the probation officer. The offenders are required to report to the probation officers occasionally, reside in certain areas, be in employment, avoid certain people’s companies, and shun drug abuse and alcoholism. The impacts of probation are both negative and positive.

Probation influences the society, the individual offender, and the victim of the offence. The economy of the country is also affected by probation due to the high cost that probation enables it to save. There are also several shortcomings of probation for example stigmatization of the offender, employments frustrations, and tight conditions, and supervision. However, the paper realized that probation is a better alternative to incarceration.

Reference List

Begnal, K. (1991). Nikki Giovanni. Research Guide to Biography & Criticism, 5(1), 311-316.

Broderick, J. (1990). Between Prison and Probation: Intermediate Punishments in a Rational Sentencing System. Library Journal, 115 (4), 104-104.

Cohen, N. (2004). The end of the probation service. New Statesman, 133(4687), 27- 28.

Cohen, N. (2000). Let’s kill half the lawyers. New Statesman, 129(4511), 20.

Cooper, M. (2005). Sit and Spin. Atlantic Monthly, 296(5), 121-130.

Curdy, A. (2005). Probation. Poetry, 186(1), 7-8.

Dunbar, L. (2006). Jim’s Probation. Strength of Gideon & Other Stories, 3(1) 51-55.

Fraser, D. (2007). British Crime Statistics and the Need for More Prisons. Contemporary Review, 289(1687), 449-453.

Malcolm, G. (2006). No Mercy. New Yorker, 82(27), 37-38.

Labi, N. (2012). Misfortune Teller. Atlantic Monthly, 309(1), 18-19.

McHenry, R. (2010). Knowing Words. Vocabulary Review, 12(4), 1-8.

Petersilia, J. (2011). Beyond the Prison Bubble. Wilson Quarterly, 35(1), 50-55.

Stoehr, T. (2011). Street Smarts. Massachusetts Review, 52(3/4), 574-590.

Toobin, J. (2005). Sure Beats Work. New Yorker, 81(12), 32-34.

Walker, C., Moffat, A. (2000). Young offenders deserve a hearing. New Statesman, 129(4482), 36.