Probation and Community Corrections
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PROBATION AND 15 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS The extension of probation for felonies still encounters strenuous antagonism and distrust. Most of this antagonism flows from the fear that probation will undermine the efficiency of punishment as a deterrent of crime. Formerly, severity of punishment was believed to be the great deterrent. Severity of punishment has not deterred crime to any great extent. — FRANK WADE, CONGRESS OF THE AMERICAN PRISON ASSOCIATION, 1923 INTRODUCTION This chapter considers those forms of correctional supervision that take place outside secure confinement in jails and prisons. These alternatives, founded on probation and the suspended sentence, supervise more than twice as many offenders as are held in secure confinement. Probation is the principal option to imprisonment, but increasingly other intermediate sanctions are being used to fill the gap between prison and probation, which has led to the vast expan- sion of formal community corrections alternatives over the past thirty years. After reading the material in this chapter, you should be familiar with: 1. The history of the suspended sentence and probation in America. 2. Probation work and administration. 3. Probation as a sentence and a process. 4. The profile of probation clients. 5. Questions about the effectiveness of probation. 6. The range of controls provided by intermediate sanctions. 7. The options available under community corrections. 8. The pros and cons of intermediate sanctions and community corrections. 9. The future of probation and community corrections. CORRECTIONS OUTSIDE INSTITUTIONS When Americans think of punishment for serious criminality, we are predis- posed to imagine removing the criminal from society and putting him or her in a secure box—jail or prison—to spend a block of time. Punishment is time 455 ISBN: 0-536-16545-9 Corrections: The Fundamentals, by Burk Foster. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. 456 CHAPTER 15 in isolation, replacing the “normal” community of somewhat law-abiding cit- izens with a different community—a community of antisocial lawbreakers controlled by authoritarian keepers. The ideology of imprisonment is so strong that when you suggest decreased use of secure custody and working with more criminals under community supervision, people look at you as if you have suddenly begun speaking an alien language. “Leave criminals in the community? Not on your life.” To which you can make two sensible explanatory (and defensive) re- sponses. First, only in the past 200 years have large numbers of criminals been locked up in jails and prisons. Before the 1800s, whatever punishment was applied to criminals, it was done in the community, not out of it. Unless they were banished, criminals were beaten, executed, humiliated, fined, or otherwise punished while they remained in the community—indeed, often with the community observing the punishment. The criminal did not go any- where; punishment was close to home. As scholars have pointed out, one of the attributes of retribution is that once the punishment is over, things are all square. There are no collateral consequences, no stigma, and no disqualifica- tions following the criminal around—except whatever sense of shame the criminal might feel in a close-knit community. Even after prisons began to be used to punish serious criminals, the rates of imprisonment were low, well below 100 per 100,000 throughout the 1800s, in contrast to combined jail and prison rates averaging five to seven times that at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Thus, it is imprisonment or, more specifically, the ex- tensive use of imprisonment that is the new idea, not community corrections. Second, the criminals are already in the community. That’s where they were before they ran afoul of the legal system. That’s where ninety-eight out of every 100 will eventually return as they leave prison. They are all around you. An estimated 10 million adults have at least one felony conviction. With only 1,300,000 of them in prison at present, that means the other 87 percent are out there in society, roaming around loose. Look around you. One in every twenty adults is a convicted felon. Granted, it is a lot higher in some neighbor- hoods than others, so depending on where you live, it may be a lot higher or a lot lower than this. In 2002, when there were more than 2 million adults in jail and prison, over 4.7 million adults were under correctional supervision—some form of probation or parole—outside secure institutions. For every one crimi- nal behind bars, just over 2.3 criminals are supervised outside confinement. The point is clear: criminals remain a part of society no matter where they are. The question about community corrections—nonsecure supervision— becomes one of degree: how much of the criminal population should be man- aged in the community, and how much of it should be kept behind bars? When we look at how the federal government and the states answer this question, we see vast differences from one place to another, as you can see in Table 15-1. Nationwide, about 30 percent of our correctional population is incarcerated, but there is quite a range from high to low. The high-end states include Missis- sippi (58.7 percent), West Virginia (54.1 percent), Virginia (53.7 percent), and ISBN: 0-536-16545-9 Nevada (50.3 percent); the federal government, operating under strict sen- tencing guidelines, is high also (58.1 percent). On the low end of incarceration are Minnesota (8.9 percent), Vermont (11.4 percent), Rhode Island (12.5 per- cent), and Washington (14.4 percent). The state-to-state contrasts can be interesting. Minnesota and Louisiana have similar populations, 5 million and about 4.5 million people. Louisiana’s Corrections: The Fundamentals, by Burk Foster. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. TABLE 15-1 Adults under Correctional Supervision and Number Supervised per 100,000 Adult Residents, by Jurisdiction, Year-End 2002 Region/ Under On Probation In Jail Supervision Rate Percentage Jurisdiction Supervision or Parole or Prison per 100,000 Adults Incarcerated U.S. total 6,732,400 4,698,000 2,034,300 3,125 30.2 Federal 272,500 114,300 158,200 126 58.1 State 6,459,900 4,583,700 1,876,100 2,999 29.0 Northeast 1,051,200 778,700 272,500 2,545 25.9 Connecticut 72,000 53,200 18,700 2,747 26.0 Maine 12,600 9,500 3,100 1,275 24.7 Massachusetts 70,900 47,700 23,200 1,434 32.7 New Hampshire 9,200 4,700 4,500 960 49.2 New Jersey 190,400 146,200 44,200 2,923 23.2 New York 357,000 254,000 102,900 2,448 28.8 Pennsylvania 299,500 228,500 71,000 3,179 23.7 Rhode Island 27,700 24,300 3,500 3,390 12.5 Vermont 11,900 10,600 1,400 2,554 11.4 Midwest 1,392,100 1,040,300 351,900 2,866 25.3 Illinois 238,900 177,000 61,900 2,542 25.9 Indiana 147,300 112,500 34,800 3,213 23.6 Iowa 37,900 26,300 11,600 1,711 30.6 Kansas 34,000 19,200 14,800 1,692 43.5 Michigan 257,000 189,900 67,100 3,443 26.1 Minnesota 136,200 124,000 12,200 3,654 8.9 Missouri 106,500 68,100 38,400 2,515 36.0 Nebraska 26,300 19,700 6,600 2,050 25.0 North Dakota 5,000 3,300 1,700 1,055 33.6 Ohio 291,900 227,400 64,500 3,412 22.1 South Dakota 10,700 6,600 4,100 1,919 38.3 Wisconsin 100,400 66,100 34,300 2,469 34.2 South 2,642,800 1,812,100 830,700 3,422 31.4 Alabama 80,800 43,500 37,300 2,405 46.2 Arkansas 56,300 39,700 16,600 2,783 29.5 Delaware 27,700 20,800 6,900 4,557 25.0 District of Columbia 17,400 14,400 3,000 — — Florida 427,100 295,100 132,000 3,314 30.9 Georgia 470,100 387,800 82,300 — — Kentucky 55,100 30,400 24,700 1,783 44.8 Louisiana 103,600 56,600 47,100 3,166 45.4 Maryland 121,200 85,200 36,100 2,973 29.8 Mississippi 42,700 17,600 25,100 2,038 58.7 North Carolina 164,100 115,700 48,300 2,601 29.5 Oklahoma 62,100 32,800 29,200 2,389 47.1 South Carolina 78,000 45,200 32,800 2,536 42.1 (continued) 457 ISBN: 0-536-16545-9 Corrections: The Fundamentals, by Burk Foster. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. 458 CHAPTER 15 Region/ Under On Probation In Jail Supervision Rate Percentage Jurisdiction Supervision or Parole or Prison per 100,000 Adults Incarcerated Tennessee 88,600 49,800 38,900 2,024 43.9 Texas 737,400 526,600 210,900 4,682 28.6 Virginia 96,900 44,900 52,000 1,753 53.7 West Virginia 13,700 6,300 7,400 980 54.1 West 1,373,700 952,700 421,100 2,842 30.7 Alaska 9,900 5,500 4,400 2,186 44.8 Arizona 116,100 74,200 41,900 2,896 36.1 California 711,200 471,300 239,900 2,756 33.7 Colorado 89,300 60,400 28,800 2,646 32.3 Hawaii 24,400 19,300 5,100 2,587 20.8 Idaho 42,200 33,300 8,900 4,396 21.1 Montana 12,100 7,500 4,500 1,777 37.5 Nevada 32,700 16,300 16,500 2,030 50.3 New Mexico 25,600 13,600 12,000 1,904 46.9 Oregon 83,100 65,000 18,000 3,129 21.7 Utah 22,200 12,300 9,900 1,394 44.6 Washington 197,200 168,900 28,300 4,348 14.4 Wyoming 7,900 5,200 2,700 2,142 34.6 Source: Lauren E.