DOCSLIB.ORG

Recidivism of Young Parolees

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Recidivism of Young Parolees If you have issues viewing or accessing this file, please contact us at NCJRS.gov. U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics " -' -y":: '-~ Recidivism of Young Parolees By Allen J. Beck, Ph.D. BJS Statistician May 1987 Bernard E. Shipley BJS Program Manager Recidivism is one of the most States. It examines the relationship important issues facing those who between rates of recidivism and a Approximately 69% of a group of young formulate and administer our variety of other factors, including parolees were rearrested for a serious sentencing and corrections the age and prior arrest record of crime within 6 years of their release policies-policies intended to the parolees, the length of time each from prison, 53% were convicted for a punish and rehabilitate offenders parolee had spent in prison, and the new offense, and 49% returned to pris­ and to protect the public from nature and location of the rearrest on. These findings are based on a crim e. This special report, with charges. sample of 3,995 parolees, representing its innovative methodology, broad The Bureau of Justice Statistics 11,347 persons between the ages of 17 scope of coverage, and rich data, wishes to express its gratitude to the and 22, who were paroled from prisons should be of particular interest to personnel at the Identification in 22 States in 1978. These States all those concerned abou t these Division of the FBI and all others accounted for 50% of all State prison­ policies. whose cooperation and assistance ers paroled in the Nation during that This report traces the made this report possible. year. criminal activities over a 6-year Stet'en R. Schlesinger period of a sample of young adults Director Other findings include the follow­ paroled in 1978 from prisons in 22 ing: • Excluding violations of parole and those paroled had been rp.arrestedj • The longer the parolee's prior arrest probation, these parolees were re­ within 2 years, 47% had been re­ record, the higher the rate of recidi­ arrested for more than 36,000 new fel­ arrested. vism-over 90% of the parolees with six onies or serious misdemeanors, includ­ or more previous adult arrests were re­ ing approximately 6,700 violent crimes • Recidivism was higher among men, arrested compared to 59% of the first­ . and nearly 19,000 property crimes. blacks, and persons who had not com­ time offenders. pleted high school than among women, • Approximately 10% of the persons whites, and high school graduates. • The earlier the parolee's first adult paroled accounted for 40% of the sub­ arrest, the more likely the chances for -sequent arrest offenses. • Almost three-quarters of those pa­ rearrest-7!J% of those arrested and roled for property offenses were re­ charged as an adult before the age of • About a fifth of the subsequent ar­ arrested for a serious crime compared 17 were rearrested, compared to 51% rests occurred in States other than the to about two-thirds of those paroled for of those first arrested at the age of 20 original paroling State. violent offenses. or older. • An estimated 37% of the parolees • Approximately a third of both prop­ • Time served in prison had no consis­ were rearrested while still on parole. erty offenders and violent offenders tent impact on recidivism rates-those were rearrested for a violent crime who had served 6 months or less in pris­ • Recidivism rates were highest in the upon release from prison. on were about as likely to be rearrested first 2 years after an offender's release as those who had served more than 2 from prison. Within 1 year, 32% of years. Measuring recidivism Cumulative percent of young adults paroled in 1978 Criminal history da ta for the who were rearrested, reconvicted, and reincarcerated, sample of parolees in this study were by6-month intervals obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. These data included Cumulallve percent information on arrests, prosecutions, 100 and incarcera tions for felonies and serious misdemeanors that occurred either before the parolee was released from state prison in 1978 or within 6 years after release. (See Methodology for a further description of the sample 75 and discussion of data contained in the FBI criminal history files.) A rate of recidivism is an estimate of the likelihood that oomeone released from prison commits another crime. 50 Estimates of recidivism vary with the length of the followup period and the measure selected. Three measures of recidivism are employed in this study: rearrest, reconviction, and reincarcer­ ation. 25 Rearrest refers to any felony or se­ rious misdemeanor arrest reported to the FBI after the date of parole. Ar­ rest data were reported on fingerprint o K-_______________________________________________ •________ _ cards, which were submitted by an ar­ resting agency, typically a police Months 24 36 48 72 department or a sheriff's office. Re­ 12 60 conviction refers to a conviction on at Figure 1 least one charge after the date of pa­ role entry. Reconviction data were reported to the FBI by prosecutors' cidivism rates because not all offenders Recidivism and time on parole offices, courts, and correctional are prosecuted or go to trial. Parolees agencies. Reincarceration refers to are often not prosecuted for new offen­ Within 6 years after their release any return to a prison or any admission ses but have their parole revoked and from prison in 1978, an estimated 69% to a local jail with a new sentence. are returned to prison to serve the of the 11,347 young parolees had been Confinements in correctional institu­ balance of their original sentence. rearrested; 53% had been reconvicted; tions were reported to the FBI by the and 49% were reincarcerated (figure receiving agencies, typically State or Moreover, new convictions were 1). Recidivism rates were the highest Federal prisons and local jails. the most underreported of the three in the first 2 years for all three meas­ measures. Data on convictions and ures. Nearly a fifth of those paroled Because the three measures reflect other dispositions were not reported for were rearrested in the first 6 months, a successive transactions within the approximately a third of the arrests in third in the first year, and nearly half criminal justice system, the percen t the criminal history files; however, by the end of the second year. Of all rearrested will always be the highest; more than half of the 927 persons who those who were rearrested during the 6- the pe,<1'9nt reincarcera ted, the lowest. lacked a final disposition on their first year followup period, more than two­ rearrest were convicted on a subse­ thirds were arrested by the end of the In previous studies of criminal quent arrest. secQnd year. history records, criminologists have relied on arrests Sf the principal meas­ Because of this underreporting, the Approximately a fifth of all parol­ ure of recidivism. For the sake of true reconviction rate following parole ees were incarcerated within a year of simplicity and comparability with these would be greater than the reported con­ their release from prison; nearly a studies, arrests are also emphasized in viction rate, but still less than the re­ third, within 2 years. Of all those who this report. Violations of parole or pro­ ported arrest rate. If all persons with­ were reincarcerated within 6 years of bation that lead to incarceration arE:: in­ out dispositions on their first rearrest parole, 62% were reincarcerated by the cluded among arrests. or without convictions on subsequent end of the second year. arrests had been convicted, the under­ Although oome rearrested individ­ estimate would be at most 15%. These rates of recidivism are simi­ uals may have been innocent of the lar to those reported in recent single­ crime charged, using only reported con­ State stUdies (see Appendix). vic tions would understa te the true re- lFor II discussion or problcms with other measures or recidivism, see Maltz, M.D., Recidivism (Orlando, Fla.: Academic Press, 1984). 2 Volume of crime Table 1. The DUmber or DeW arrest charges Cor you~ adults paroled in 1978, by type or offense The 11,347 young inmates entering pal'Ole in 1978 were rearrested an esti­ Number of charges for which parolees were arrested within 6 :lears of release mated 25,383 times and charged with Before -36,726 new offenses. More than 6,700 Rearrest minimum eligible of the new charges were violent offen­ charge Total discharge dateS ses, including an estimated 324 mur­ b ders, 231 rapes, 2,291 robberies, and All charges 36,726 10,832 3,053 assaults (table 1). Violent offenses 6,753 2,259 Murder 324 132 Rape 231 55 More than half of the new charges Robbery 2,291 882 were for property offenses (51 %). Assault 3,053 906 These parolees were arrested for Property offenses 18,904 5,528 approximately 6,600 burglaries, 5,590 Burglary 6,620 1,916 larcenies, and 2,300 forgery and fraud Fraud 2,300 770 offenses. Almost a third of the new Larceny 5,590 1,533 charges were for drug offenses (9%), Drug offenses 3,244 884 public-order offenses (18%), and other Public-order offensesb 6,735 1,757 unspecified felonies (3%). Other offenses 1,090 404 An estimated 10,832 (29%) of the ILrhe date when the offender is first ~ctors affecting this date. f eligible for complete discharge from all xcluding violations of probation, parole, new arrest charges occurred before pa­ corl'ectional supervision, including and warrants. rolees were first eligible for discharge deductions for time credits and other from parole. For each parolee a date was established by the paroling agency indicating when the offender was first Table 2.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Consequences of Failing to Admit Guilt at Parole Hearings Daniel S
    MEDWED_TRANSMITTED.DOC2 2/26/2008 1:51 PM The Innocent Prisoner’s Dilemma: Consequences of Failing to Admit Guilt at Parole Hearings Daniel S. Medwed∗ INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 493 I. THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF PAROLE ................................................ 497 A. HISTORICAL ORIGINS AND PURPOSES OF PAROLE ................................ 497 B. PAROLE RELEASE DECISION-MAKING: CONTEMPORARY STANDARDS AND POLICIES .................................................................................... 504 II. THE EFFECT OF PAROLE RELEASE DECISION-MAKING NORMS ON THE INNOCENT ............................................................................................... 513 A. PAROLE: AN INNOCENCE OPTION OF LAST RESORT ............................. 518 B. PRESSURE ON INNOCENT INMATES TO “ADMIT” GUILT ........................ 523 III. ADMISSIONS OF GUILT AND THE PAROLE RELEASE DECISION RECONSIDERED ....................................................................................... 529 A. THE DANGER OF ASSUMING THE LITIGATION PROCESS ACCURATELY FILTERS THE GUILTY FROM THE INNOCENT ......................................... 530 B. POTHOLES ON THE PATH TO REDEMPTION THROUGH THE PAROLE PROCESS ........................................................................................... 532 IV. SUGGESTIONS FOR REFORM .................................................................... 541 A. LIMITATIONS ON THE SUBSEQUENT USE OF STATEMENTS FROM PAROLE HEARINGS ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Compensation Chart by State
    Updated 5/21/18 NQ COMPENSATION STATUTES: A NATIONAL OVERVIEW STATE STATUTE WHEN ELIGIBILITY STANDARD WHO TIME LIMITS MAXIMUM AWARDS OTHER FUTURE CONTRIBUTORY PASSED OF PROOF DECIDES FOR FILING AWARDS CIVIL PROVISIONS LITIGATION AL Ala.Code 1975 § 29-2- 2001 Conviction vacated Not specified State Division of 2 years after Minimum of $50,000 for Not specified Not specified A new felony 150, et seq. or reversed and the Risk Management exoneration or each year of incarceration, conviction will end a charges dismissed and the dismissal Committee on claimant’s right to on grounds Committee on Compensation for compensation consistent with Compensation Wrongful Incarceration can innocence for Wrongful recommend discretionary Incarceration amount in addition to base, but legislature must appropriate any funds CA Cal Penal Code §§ Amended 2000; Pardon for Not specified California Victim 2 years after $140 per day of The Department Not specified Requires the board to 4900 to 4906; § 2006; 2009; innocence or being Compensation judgment of incarceration of Corrections deny a claim if the 2013; 2015; “innocent”; and Government acquittal or and Rehabilitation board finds by a 2017 declaration of Claims Board discharge given, shall assist a preponderance of the factual innocence makes a or after pardon person who is evidence that a claimant recommendation granted, after exonerated as to a pled guilty with the to the legislature release from conviction for specific intent to imprisonment, which he or she is protect another from from release serving a state prosecution for the from custody prison sentence at underlying conviction the time of for which the claimant exoneration with is seeking transitional compensation.
    [Show full text]
  • Juvenile Life Without Parole
    POLICY BRIEF: JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE Juvenile Life Without Parole: An Overview The momentum to protect youth rights in the criminal legal system is clear. Twenty- five states and the District of Columbia have banned life sentences without the possibility of parole for people under 18; in nine additional states, no one is serving life without parole for offenses committed before age 18. The Sentencing Project, in its national survey of life and from life without parole sentences, regardless of the virtual life sentences in the United States found 1,465 crime of conviction. Life without parole, as a mandatory people serving JLWOP sentences at the start of 2020. minimum sentence for anyone under age 18 was found This number reflects a 38% drop in the population of unconstitutional. Montgomery, in 2016, clarified that people serving JLWOP since our 2016 count and a 44% Miller applied retroactively. Jones reaffirmed both drop since the peak count of JLWOP figures in 2012.1 Montgomery and Miller but held that a specific factual This count continues to decline as more states eliminate finding of “permanent incorrigibility” at the time of JLWOP. sentencing is not required for the imposition of a juvenile life without parole sentence. In five decisions – Roper v. Simmons (2005), Graham v. Florida (2010), Miller v. Alabama (2012), Montgomery Henceforth, few youth will be sentenced to life without v. Louisiana (2016), and Jones v. Mississippi (2021) – the possibility of parole. Moreover, youth sentenced to the Supreme Court of the United States establishes parole-ineligible life sentences in 28 states where the and upholds the fact that “children are constitutionally sentence was mandatory and the federal government different from adults in their levels of culpability”2 when are in the process of having their original sentences it comes to sentencing.
    [Show full text]
  • Consolidation of Pardon and Parole: a Wrong Approach Henry Weihofen
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 30 Article 8 Issue 4 November-December Winter 1939 Consolidation of Pardon and Parole: A Wrong Approach Henry Weihofen Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Henry Weihofen, Consolidation of Pardon and Parole: A Wrong Approach, 30 Am. Inst. Crim. L. & Criminology 534 (1939-1940) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. CONSOLIDATION OF PARDON AND PAROLE: A WRONG APPROACH HENRY WEMOFEN* There is a growing tendency throughout the United States to consolidate pardon with parole administration, and even with pro- bation. This movement seems to have met with almost unanimous approval; at least it has no opposition. It is the purpose of this paper to remedy that lack and furnish the spice of opposition. The argument for such consolidation-is that pardon and parole perform very largely the same function. A conditional pardon, particularly, is practically indistinguishable from a parole. But the governor, granting a conditional pardon, usually has no officers available to see that the conditions are complied with. Why not-, it is argued-assign this duty to parole officers? Moreover, it is felt to be illogical to have two forms of release so similar as parole and conditional pardon issuing from two different sources, one from the parole board and the other from the governor's office.
    [Show full text]
  • Privatizing Probation and Parole
    Privatizing Probation and Parole by Morgan O. Reynolds NCPA Policy Report No. 233 June 2000 ISBN #1-56808-089-1 web site: www.ncpa.org/studies/s233/s233.html National Center for Policy Analysis 12655 N. Central Expwy., Suite 720 Dallas, Texas 75243 (972) 386-6272 Executive Summary One out of fifty adults free on the streets today is a convicted criminal released on probation or parole. That’s 4.1 million people “under government supervision,” and a majority are convicted felons. Some 50,000 government bureaucrats supervise these probationers and parolees. The probation and parole systems have many problems, especially the fact that many of those released commit loathsome crimes. ● Criminals under government supervision commit 15 murders a day. ● Nearly four out of 10 people arrested for a felony crime are already out on probation, parole or pretrial release from a prior conviction or arrest. ● One in 10 probationers and parolees “abscond.” This year state and federal prisons will release 600,000 convicts, 38 percent more than in 1990, because of the enormous increase in the prison population over the last decade. Most are released on parole or other supervision because they have not served their full sentence. The probation and parole systems could be made more effective and efficient by enlisting the private sector. Those released on probation (nonincarceration) or released early from prison could be required to post a financial bond guaranteeing behavior in accord with terms of the release. If individual accountability is the answer to crime, then it must include the most powerful kind of accountability: financial responsibility.
    [Show full text]
  • Parole and Probation Violations
    DESCHUTES COUNTY ADULT JAIL CD-5-15 L. Shane Nelson, Sheriff Jail Operations Approved by: February 21, 2018 PAROLE AND PROBATION VIOLATIONS POLICY. The Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office – Adult Jail (AJ) will accept into custody and process offenders who violate the conditions of their parole, post-prison supervision (PPS), or probation according to statute. PURPOSE. The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines for corrections staff in the processing of parole and probation violators. OREGON JAIL STANDARDS: None REFERENCES: ORS 135.775 to 135.793, Detainer ORS 137.520 to 137.630, Probation and Parole by Committing Magistrate ORS 144.096 to 144.109, Post-Prison Supervision ORS 144.110 to 144.275, Parole Process ORS 144.315 to 144.395, Termination of Parole DEFINITIONS. Detainer. A pink slip detention warrant that is filled out by the parole or probation officer. The detainer provides the name, date of incarceration, State Identification Number (SID), authority held for, place of confinement, and court case number of the case(s) violated. Morrissey Hearing. A hearing held by a state parole agent (Hearings Officer) to determine if conditions of one’s parole or PPS status have been violated. The violator may have parole or PPS revoked or receive a sanction to serve time in jail or prison for violated conditions. The name for the hearing comes from the Morrissey v. Brewer (408 U.S. 471) court case, which set down the minimum due-process requirements for revocation of parole. Parole. A conditional release of a prisoner who served part of his sentence at a state correctional facility and is released into the community, but remains under the control of and in the legal custody of a parole authority.
    [Show full text]
  • Introductory Handbook on the Prevention of Recidivism and the Social Reintegration of Offenders
    Introductory Handbook on The Prevention of Recidivism and the Social Reintegration of Offenders CRIMINAL JUSTICE HANDBOOK SERIES Cover photo: © Rafael Olivares, Dirección General de Centros Penales de El Salvador. UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME Vienna Introductory Handbook on the Prevention of Recidivism and the Social Reintegration of Offenders CRIMINAL JUSTICE HANDBOOK SERIES UNITED NATIONS Vienna, 2018 © United Nations, December 2018. All rights reserved. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Publishing production: English, Publishing and Library Section, United Nations Office at Vienna. Preface The first version of the Introductory Handbook on the Prevention of Recidivism and the Social Reintegration of Offenders, published in 2012, was prepared for the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) by Vivienne Chin, Associate of the International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy, Canada, and Yvon Dandurand, crimi- nologist at the University of the Fraser Valley, Canada. The initial draft of the first version of the Handbook was reviewed and discussed during an expert group meeting held in Vienna on 16 and 17 November 2011.Valuable suggestions and contributions were made by the following experts at that meeting: Charles Robert Allen, Ibrahim Hasan Almarooqi, Sultan Mohamed Alniyadi, Tomris Atabay, Karin Bruckmüller, Elias Carranza, Elinor Wanyama Chemonges, Kimmett Edgar, Aida Escobar, Angela Evans, José Filho, Isabel Hight, Andrea King-Wessels, Rita Susana Maxera, Marina Menezes, Hugo Morales, Omar Nashabe, Michael Platzer, Roberto Santana, Guy Schmit, Victoria Sergeyeva, Zhang Xiaohua and Zhao Linna.
    [Show full text]
  • The “Radical” Notion of the Presumption of Innocence
    EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE FUTURE OF JUSTICE POLICY THE “RADICAL” MAY 2020 Tracey Meares, NOTION OF THE Justice Collaboratory, Yale University Arthur Rizer, PRESUMPTION R Street Institute OF INNOCENCE The Square One Project aims to incubate new thinking on our response to crime, promote more effective strategies, and contribute to a new narrative of justice in America. Learn more about the Square One Project at squareonejustice.org The Executive Session was created with support from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation as part of the Safety and Justice Challenge, which seeks to reduce over-incarceration by changing the way America thinks about and uses jails. 04 08 14 INTRODUCTION THE CURRENT STATE OF WHY DOES THE PRETRIAL DETENTION PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE MATTER? 18 24 29 THE IMPACT OF WHEN IS PRETRIAL WHERE DO WE GO FROM PRETRIAL DETENTION DETENTION HERE? ALTERNATIVES APPROPRIATE? TO AND SAFEGUARDS AROUND PRETRIAL DETENTION 33 35 37 CONCLUSION ENDNOTES REFERENCES 41 41 42 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AUTHOR NOTE MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE FUTURE OF JUSTICE POLICY 04 THE ‘RADICAL’ NOTION OF THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE “It was the smell of [] death, it was the death of a person’s hope, it was the death of a person’s ability to live the American dream.” That is how Dr. Nneka Jones Tapia described the Cook County Jail where she served as the institution’s warden (from May 2015 to March 2018). This is where we must begin. EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE FUTURE OF JUSTICE POLICY 05 THE ‘RADICAL’ NOTION OF THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE Any discussion of pretrial detention must Let’s not forget that Kalief Browder spent acknowledge that we subject citizens— three years of his life in Rikers, held on presumed innocent of the crimes with probable cause that he had stolen a backpack which they are charged—to something containing money, a credit card, and an iPod that resembles death.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effects of Parole on Recidivism: Juvenile Offenders Released from Washington State Institutions
    The Effects of Parole on Recidivism: Juvenile Offenders Released From Washington State Institutions Preliminary Findings Robert Barnoski and Steve Aos March 2001 Washington State Institute for Public Policy The Effects of Parole on Recidivism: Juvenile Offenders Released From Washington State Institutions Preliminary Findings Robert Barnoski and Steve Aos March 2001 Washington State Institute for Public Policy 110 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 214 Post Office Box 40999 Olympia, Washington 98504-0999 Telephone: (360) 586-2677 FAX: (360) 586-2793 URL: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov Document No. 01-03-1201 WASHINGTON STATE INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY Mission The Washington Legislature created the Washington State Institute for Public Policy in 1983. A Board of Directors—representing the legislature, the governor, and public universities—governs the Institute, hires the director, and guides the development of all activities. The Institute’s mission is to carry out practical research, at legislative direction, on issues of importance to Washington State. The Institute conducts research activities using its own policy analysts, academic specialists from universities, and consultants. New activities grow out of requests from the Washington legislature and executive branch agencies, often directed through legislation. Institute staff work closely with legislators, as well as legislative, executive, and state agency staff to define and conduct research on appropriate state public policy topics. Current assignments include projects in welfare reform, criminal justice, education, youth violence, and social services. Board of Directors Senator Karen Fraser Dennis Braddock, Department of Social and Health Services Senator Jeanine Long Marty Brown, Office of Financial Management Senator Betti Sheldon Douglas Baker, Washington State University Senator James West David Dauwalder, Central Washington University Representative Ida Ballasiotes Marsha Landolt, University of Washington Representative Jeff Gombosky Thomas L.
    [Show full text]
  • Reducing Recidivism: People on Parole and Probation
    California State University, San Bernardino CSUSB ScholarWorks Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations Office of aduateGr Studies 7-2020 REDUCING RECIDIVISM: PEOPLE ON PAROLE AND PROBATION Noe George Gutierrez California State University - San Bernardino Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd Part of the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Gutierrez, Noe George, "REDUCING RECIDIVISM: PEOPLE ON PAROLE AND PROBATION" (2020). Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations. 1120. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd/1120 This Project is brought to you for free and open access by the Office of aduateGr Studies at CSUSB ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of CSUSB ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. REDUCING RECIDIVISM PEOPLE ON PAROLE AND PROBATION A Project Presented to the Faculty of California State University, San Bernardino In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Social Work by Noe George Gutierrez July 2020 REDUCING RECIDIVISM PEOPLE ON PAROLE AND PROBATION A Project Presented to the Faculty of California State University, San Bernardino by Noe George Gutierrez July 2020 ApProved by: Teresa Morris, Faculty SuPervisor, Social Work Armando Barragan, M.S.W. Research Coordinator © 2020 Noe Gutierrez ABSTRACT Continuing criminal justice aPProaches have led to Persistent recidivism among Parolees and Probationers. This study investigates the observed influence recidivism has on individuals on Parole and Probation. This research Project aimed to shed more light on the attitudes of Parolees and Probationers and to Provide more insight into recidivism and its contributing factors.
    [Show full text]
  • Application for Pardon After Probation, Parole Or Discharge
    CFJ-515A Rev. 6/2021 MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICE OF THE PAROLE BOARD APPLICATION FOR PARDON AFTER PROBATION, PAROLE OR DISCHARGE I hereby petition the Governor, as provided by law, for a pardon for the following conviction(s) in the State of Michigan and submit the following information in support of this application: 1. Name: ___________________________________________ Telephone #: (_____)______- ________ Address: __________________________________________________________________________ Marital Status: ( ) Married ( ) Divorced ( ) Single ( ) Widowed Number of Dependents: ______ 2. * Date of Birth: ___________ Place of Birth: _________________ U.S. Citizen: ( ) Yes ( ) No SS#: _____-____-_____ Sex: ( )Male ( )Female Race: ________ Michigan Prison #: _________ (* Information under question # 2 above used for identification and statistical purposes only) 3. Pursuant to statute, if you have been convicted of not more than one offense you may file an application with the convicting Court for the entry of an order setting aside the conviction. A person is not rendered ineligible for filing an application if they have also been convicted of not more than 2 minor offenses in addition to the offense for which the person files an application. “Minor Offense” means a misdemeanor or ordinance violation for which the maximum permissible imprisonment does not exceed 90 days, for which the maximum permissible fine does not exceed $1,000.00, and that it is committed by a person who is not more than 21 years of age. Have you reviewed the statutory criteria in 1965 PA 213, MCL 780.621 - MCL 780.624, seeking expungement/setting aside of the conviction of that crime? ( ) Yes ( ) No (Statutes can be found on the Michigan Legislative website at www.michiganlegislature.org) 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Parole, Probation, and Clemency
    Guidance for preventive and responsive measures to coronavirus for parole, probation, and clemency March 18, 2020 he coronavirus, or COVID-19, has already been declared by the World Health Organization as a global pandemic.1 As the number of people infected in the United States grows exponentially, we Tmust focus on prevention and containment in the criminal and immigration legal systems. Actors in the criminal and immigration legal systems have a unique and critical role to play. The importance of this role is underscored by how vast these systems are—almost 10.5 million arrests a year,2 2.2 million people in jail and prison at any given time,3 50,000 in immigration detention,4 and another 4.5 million under some form of supervision on probation or parole.5 Footprint of U.S. corrections, detention, and supervision systems 10.5 million 2.3 million 4.5 million people arrested people behind bars people under every year community supervision The Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) and Community Oriented Correctional Health Services (COCHS) have created the guidance in this document to protect people who interact with these systems and for the staff and personnel who work with them. For other system guidance, see Vera’s COVID-19 Response page. 34 35th Street, 4-2A, Brooklyn, New York 11232 212 334 1300 vera.org State and local probation and parole authorities, as well as the executive offices that grant clemency, should: Prioritize prevention first and foremost.To reduce contact between people, probation and parole departments should: 1. Promulgate a policy to temporarily suspend any incarceration to jail or prison for technical vio- lations—noncompliance with the terms of community supervision—such as failing a drug test, missing a meeting with the probation or parole officer, violating curfew, or using alcohol.
    [Show full text]