Download presentation source

Chapter 14
Alternatives:
Community Corrections
Irwin/McGraw-Hill
© The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2000
C14-S1
Figure 14.1
Increase in Probationers and
Parolees, 1960-1997
3,500,000
Probation
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
Parole
500,000
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
1980
0
Year
Irwin/McGraw-Hill
Source:
Adapted from Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1997. p. 464.
© The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2000
C14-S2
Table 14.1
Probation versus Parole
Probation
Parole
A convict is sentenced to a period of
probation in lieu of prison.
A prisoner is released from prison and
placed on parole.
Probation is a front-end measure.
Parole is a tail-end measure.
The court imposes the sentence of
probation.
A parole board grants release on
parole.
The court retains jurisdiction.
A parole board retains jurisdiction.
A probation officer is an officer of
the court and is employed by a
county or district government.
A parole officer is a state officer
employed by the state government.
Probation is an alternative sentence
for less serious cases.
Originally serious offenders earn parole
through good conduct in prison.
Eligibility depends on a favorable
PSI report.
Eligibility depends on successful service
of a specific part of the prison sentence.
Irwin/McGraw-Hill
© The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2000
C14-S3
Table 14.2
Significant Developments in Parole
Year
Events
1840
Alexander Maconochie devises mark system for release of prisoners
in Australian penal colony, a forerunner of parole.
Sir Walter Crofton in Ireland establishes system under which
prisoners can earn conditional freedom.
New York State legislature passes enabling legislation and establishes
indeterminate sentencing.
American Prison Association endorses expanded use of parole.
Parole release adopted at Elmira Reformatory, New York.
Wickersham Commission criticizes laxity in use of early parole.
Last state passes enabling legislation for parole.
Parole comes under attack as inconsistent with just-deserts model of
sanctions. Twenty-nine states and the federal government abolish
parole altogether or modify it severely by guidelines.
Abolition and modifications have not created a decline in the number
of parolees.
1853
1869
1870
1876
1931
1944
1980s
1993
Irwin/McGraw-Hill
© The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2000
C14-S4
Figure 14.3
Inmate Perceptions of the Difficulty
of Probation Conditions
20 hours/week employment
Pay $100 fine
10 hours/week community service
1 unannounced alcohol test/week;
no positives
House arrest with 10 P.M. curfew
1 unannounced drug test/week;
no positives
Make 1-2 visits/week to
probation office
1-2 unannounced home
visits/week by prob. officer
Attend weekly outpatient
alcohol/drug program
Pay victim restitution
Pay $500 fine
Pay $20/week supervision fee
House arrest with 24 hr.
electronic monitoring
Overall rating
1
2
3
4
5
Not difficult
Relatively easy
About 50/50
Somewhat difficult
Very difficult
(90% chance I
(75% chance I
chance I
(25% chance I
(10% chance I
could do it)
could do it)
could do it
could do it)
could do it)
Source: Joan Petersilia and Elizabeth Piper Deschenes, “What Punishes? Inmates Rank the Severity
of Prison versus Intermediate Sanctions,” In Joan Petersilia, ed., Community Corrections: Probation,
Irwin/McGraw-Hill
© The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2000
Parole,
and Intermediate Sanctions (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 149-159.