History and Philosophy of Probation: From Rehabilitation to Reform

1. Chapter 5 Probation and Probationers: History, Philosophy, Goals, and Functions

2. Introduction • Probation is unique to the United States and its origins date to the 1830s • Prosecutors have several pretrial options when low level, nonserious types of offenders commit crimes • Two of the options that do not involve charges to the defendant are pretrial diversion and alternativedispute resolution

3. Probation and Probationers: History, Philosophy, Goals, and Functions Probation defined • Probation is releasing convicted offenders into the community under a conditional suspended sentence, avoiding imprisonment, showing good behaviour, under the supervision of a probation officer • It is derived from the latin word probatio which means a period of trial and forgiveness • Those who prove themselves during the trial period by complying with the conditions are given forgiveness and released

4. History of Probation in the United States Judicial reprieves and releases on an offender’s recognizance • During the late 1700s and early 1800s. English judges exercised their discretion in numerous case by giving judicialreprieves • Judicial reprieves basically suspended the incarcerative sentence • These were demonstrations of judicial leniency, especially where defendants had no priors • Judges in Massachusetts during the 1800s used discretionary power to suspend sentences as well

5. History of Probation in the United States John Augustus, the father of probation in the United States • Probation in the United States was conceived in 1841 by a cobbler and philanthropist named John Augustus • Augustus attempted to rehabilitate alcoholics by supervising them and guaranteeing their appearance in court • Augustus attracted several other philanthropists to volunteer to perform similar probation services for juveniles as well as adults

6. History of Probation in the United States The ideal-real dilemma: philosophies in conflict • Probation was a true correctional innovation in 1841 • Before Augustus’ work convicted offenders were either fined, imprisoned or both • Between 1790 and 1817, sentences in the United states had to be served in their entirety • Currently, the get tough movement is pressing for a return to sentencing policies that were practiced in the early 1800s

7. History of Probation in the United States Public reaction to probation • Many citizens believe that probation means coddling offenders and causes them to not take seriously their punishment • In 1841 Augustus was criticized by the press and by jailers, as their income was based on the numbers of prisoners held in jails • Augustus’ philanthropy indirectly decreased profiteering among jailers • Today, probation operates very differently from the way it was originally conducted in 1841 • Technological developments have spawned several different kinds of offender management systems

8. The Philosophy of Probation • Probation in the 2000s has undergone significant changes in its conception and implementation • There are currently diverse options among experts about how probation should be reconceptualised and reorganized • The aim of probation is to give offenders an opportunity to prove themselves by remaining law abiding • Society has questioned the rehabilitative value of prisons and jails, the belief is that incarceration does not deter crime • Prisons and jails also cost taxpayers money; probation is a less costly option

9. The Philosophy of Probation The general philosophy of probation follows its pioneer • Augustus wanted to reform offenders, he wanted to rehabilitate them • Thus rehabilitation continues to be a strong philosophical aim of probation • The major difficulty in naming a specific philosophy of probation is that there are diverse impressions of what probation should be • Present day probation has become streamlined and bureaucratic, POs do their work in terms of client caseloads and officer/client ratios

10. Models for Dealing With Criminal Offenders The treatment or medical model • This model considers criminal behavior as an illness to be remedied • Probation permits rehabilitation to occur through treatment programs and therapeutic services not readily available in prisons or jails • Critics, however, believe that the flaw with the treatment model is that offenders are treated as objects • But selectively applying probation to some offenders leads to more fundamental criticisms regarding inequitable treatment

11. Models for Dealing With Criminal Offenders The rehabilitation model • Closely resembles the treatment model • This model stresses rehabilitation and reform • Rehabilitation was a major correctional objective when the Federal Bureau of Prisons formed in 1930 • Prison rioting in federal prisons in the 1950s and 1960s led officials to consider rehabilitation as ineffective • 1970’s Rising crime rates and recidivism have also led to condemnation of rehabilitation

12. Models for Dealing With Criminal Offenders The Justice or Due Process model • Not intended to replace the rehabilitative model but to enhance it • The justice model applied to probation stresses fair and equitable treatment • In recent years, probation practices have been influenced by the justice model through the imposition of more equitable sentences • A main reason citizens oppose the use of probation is that they do not define probation as punishment

13. Models for Dealing With Criminal Offenders The Just-Deserts model • This model emphasizes equating punishment with the severity of the crime • In other words, offenders should get what they deserve • Retribution, therefore is an important component • For probationers, this means that supervision levels are adjusted to fit the seriousness of the offenses • Public pressure for applying the just-deserts model in judicial sentencing, including greater severity of penalties, has stimulated the get tough movement

14. Models for Dealing With Criminal Offenders The community model • Sometimes called the reintegration model, the community model stresses offender adaptation to the community • The primary strengths of the community model are that offenders are able to re-establish associations with their families and have the opportunity to work at jobs • The community model uses citizen involvement in offender reintegration • Important community officials may be members of boards of directors of community-based services • With community support, offenders have a better chance of adapting to community life

15. Functions of Probation Crime control • Stems from the fact that probationers are often supervised closely by their POs • Precisely how much crime control occurs as a result of probation, however, is unknown • Standard probation probably offers little by way of crime control • Requiring probationers to comply with certain conditions succeeds to some extent as a method of crime control

16. Functions of Probation Community reintegration • One obvious benefit to offenders is that they avoid the criminogenic environment of incarceration • Offenders on probation usually maintain jobs, live with and support their families, and engage in vocational training or other educational programs

17. Functions of Probation Rehabilitation • It is difficult to make the transition from prison life to community living, especially if incarcerated for several years • With probations, offenders remain in their communities, make restitution to victims and perform other useful services • The community reintegration function of probation is most closely associated with its rehabilitative aim

18. Functions of Probation Punishment • There are many behavioural conditions accompanying probation orders • Any violation can lead to one’s probation being revoked • Restitution to victims, public services, and fines are all part of the punishment of probation • Offenders must also sustain regular employment

19. Functions of Probation Deterrence • With standard probation there is not much of a deterrent effect, recidivism rates are higher than those for more intensively supervised intermediate programs • Although there is no national standard, a 30 percent recidivism rate has been defined by various researchers as a cutting point • The deterrent value of probation then may vary according to the standard by which deterrence is measured • Traditional programs have recidivism rates of about 65 percent

20. A Profile of Probationers The profile of probationers in the United States changes annually • In 2004, 77 percent of probationers were male • Between 1995 and 2004, the proportion of female probationers increased from 21 to 23 percent • The racial distribution of probationers hasn’t changed much during that same period • About 56 percent of probationers were White • About 30 percent of probationers were African American • About 12 percent of probationers were Hispanic

21. First Offenders and Recidivists Although Judges have wide discretion to decide probation, most probationers share the following characteristics: • Tend to be first offenders or low-risk offenders • More property offenders than violent offenders are considered for probation • More convicted females are considered for probation • Not having a history of drug or alcohol use is positive for granting probation • If there were no physical injuries or weapons used during the offense, the chance for probation is greater

22. Civil Mechanisms in Lieu of Probation • Because of large volumes of offenders being arrested, prosecutors are faced with larger numbers of cases’ • There aren’t enough courts and judges to handle this volume of cases • Two alternative solutions include: • Alternative dispute resolution • Community-based, informal, dispute settlement between offenders and their victims • Mostly targets misdemeanants • Pretrial diversion • Procedure whereby criminal defendants are diverted to either a community-based agency for treatment or assigned a counsellor for assistance

23. Pretrial Diversion Functions of pretrial diversion • To permit divertees to remain in their communities • To permit divertees the opportunity to make restitution to their victim • To help divertees avoid the stigma of criminal conviction • To assist corrections officials in reducing prison and jail overcrowding • To save the courts time, trouble, and expense of formal proceedings • To preserve the family unit and enhance family solidarity and continuity

24. Pretrial Diversion Criticisms of diversion • Diversion is too lenient on criminals • It is an inappropriate punishment and it does not effectively deal with offenders • Diversion leads to net-widening • Diversion usually excludes female offenders • Diversion solves an offenders case without the benefit of due process • Diversion assumes guilt without trial