Community Corrections: Probation and Intermediate Sanctions

Chapter 4

Community Correction Assumptions

Offenders’ criminal records/current offenses are not serious enough to warrant incarceration.

Community supervision is cheaper than incarceration.

Recidivism rates are no higher than those in prison. Ex-inmates require support and supervision as they

rebuild their lives.

Probation

The History and Development of Probation John Augustus

Boston Police Court 1841 Benefit of clergy

Protection under the authority of the church Judicial reprieve recognizance

Suspension of a sentence for good behavior

Probation

Recognizance Boston Municipal Court Judge Peter Oxenbridge

Thatcher was the originator of this practice Implied supervision of the court Sum of money, surety Forfeit by nonperformance Humanizing criminal law and mitigating harshness

Discussion Question

Discuss if the current probation system is similar to the ideology of Augustus, or has time changed the overall goals of the system set forth by this pioneer.

Probation

The History and Development of Probation The modernization of probation

Social work role (support services) Law enforcement role (control and surveillance) Medical model (rehabilitation) Reintegration model (assessed clients) Risk management (surveillance and control)

Intermediate Sanctions

Rationale Instead of probation Instead of prison

Most sanctions in Western democracies do not involve imprisonment

Prison is ineffective Tailor punishment to offender’s situation

Discussion Question

What if ALL first time, non-violent offenders were given intermediate sanctions as a sentence regardless of race, age, gender or other demographics? The only rule is the crime must be a misdemeanor or a non-violent felony. What effect would this have on the criminal justice system and corrections?

Intermediate Sanctions

© Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Intermediate Sanctions

Problems with Intermediate Sanctions Selecting agencies—have staff and experience

to design programs Selecting offenders—crime and criminal

considered Net widening—social control

Wider nets, stronger nets, different nets

Intermediate Sanctions

Varieties of Intermediate Sanctions Judiciary

Pretrial diversion—targets drug offenders Fines Forfeiture—seized property Community service & restitution—free labor and a

a sum of money for victim

Intermediate Sanctions

Varieties of Intermediate Sanctions Sanctions administered in the community

Day reporting (treatment) centers Probation/restitution centers Intensive supervision probation Home confinement Electronic monitoring

Discussion Question

What if the United States began fining people for drug possession? For instance, first time offenders would face a minimum of $1,000 or 30 days in jail (their choice). Second time offenders would face a $5,000 fine or 90 days in jail. Third time offenders would face 1 year in prison or a $50,000 fine. Would this approach work? Explain.

Intermediate Sanctions

Varieties of Intermediate Sanctions

Sanctions administered in institutions and the community

Shock incarceration

Boot camp

Intermediate Sanctions

Making Intermediate Sanctions Work Sentencing issues

Principle of interchangeability

Selection of offenders The target group—less costly than prison, effective

alternative to probation Problems of bias—race, gender, age

Surveillance and control

Discussion Question

What if programs such as Scared Straight and other programs based on the in-your-face tough approach used a more educational and rehabilitation approach with teens and young adults? Would this approach be more effective? Explain.

The New Correctional Professional

Three Major Shifts in the Working Environment Nongovernment organizations emerged to

administer community corrections programs Increased emphasis on accountability and

reduction in discretion Principles of criminal justice more important

than professional relationships with clients

Community Corrections Legislation

Reducing the Reliance on Prison Evaluation of Community Corrections

Legislation Three aims

Reduce rate and number of people sent to correctional facilities

Reduce tax revenues spent on corrections Reduce prison populations

The Future of CommunityCorrections

Three Recurring Problems Tendency to increase level of corrections

Need to increase community support for community corrections

Purpose must be clarified

Justice reinvestment Community assistance to rebuild crime-prevention

programs