DOCSLIB.ORG

Probation and Parole in the United States, 2017-2018 Danielle Kaeble, BJS Statistician Mariel Alper, Ph.D., Former BJS Statistician

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Probation and Parole in the United States, 2017-2018 Danielle Kaeble, BJS Statistician Mariel Alper, Ph.D., Former BJS Statistician U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics August 2020, NCJ 252072 Bulletin Probation and Parole in the United States, 2017-2018 Danielle Kaeble, BJS Statistician Mariel Alper, Ph.D., former BJS Statistician n the United States, the adult population on FIGURE 1 probation or parole declined from 4,508,900 Adults on probation or parole, 2008-2018 at the end of 2017 to 4,399,000 at the end Iof 2018, a decrease of 2.4% (figure 1).1 An Year-end population estimated 1 in 58 adults in the U.S. were under 6,000,000 community supervision at year-end 2018. Adults Total community supervision* on probation accounted for about 80% of those 5,000,000 under community supervision, while parolees 4 000 000 made up the remaining 20%. , , Probation From the end of 2017 to the end of 2018, 3,000,000 the adult probation population declined 2,000,000 from 3,647,200 to 3,540,000 (figure 2). This 2.9% decrease drove the entire decline in 1,000,000 the population of adults under community Parole supervision. The adult parole population 0 remained relatively steady, increasing 0.3%, ’092008 ’10 ’11 ’12 ’13 ’14 ’15 ’16 ’17 ’18 from 875,000 persons in 2017 to 878,000 in 2018 Note: Counts for 2016 and earlier may have been revised based (figure 3). on updated reporting and may differ from numbers in past reports. Counts are for December 31 of each year. See table 1 for counts from 2008 to 2018. 1The community-supervision population excludes parolees also on probation to avoid double-counting. *Details may not sum to totals because the community-supervision counts were adjusted to exclude parolees who were also on See Methodology. probation. See table 3 for counts of parolees also on probation. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey and Annual Parole Survey, 2008-2018. HIGHLIGHTS The total number of adults on probation or parole An estimated 1 in 58 adults in the U.S. were under decreased by an estimated 109,900 offenders community supervision at the end of 2018, down (down 2%) from 2017 to 2018, and by 694,400 from 1 in 45 in 2008. (down 14%) from 2008 to 2018. The adult probation population declined 3% from The total community-supervision population in 2017 to 2018 and 17% from 2008 to 2018, while 2018 was at its lowest level since 1998. the adult parole population increased 0.3% from The portion of adults on community supervision 2017 to 2018 and 6% from 2008 to 2018. fell 1.5% from 2016 to 2017, 3% from 2017 to The adult probation rate fell 25% from 2008 to 2018, and 22% from 2008 to 2018. 2018, while the adult parole rate fell 4%. In 2018, the portion of adults on community In 2018, probation exits outpaced entries for the supervision was at its lowest level since 1990. tenth consecutive year, while parole exits in 2017 exceeded entries for the first time since 2009. TISTICS YEARS OF STA The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) collected the data FIGURE 2 in this report through the Annual Probation Survey, Annual percent change of adults on probation, the Annual Parole Survey, and the Federal Justice 2008-2018 Statistics Program. Data are collected on adults placed on supervision (entries) or removed from supervision Annual percent change (exits) during the reporting year and on population 0.0 characteristics at year-end. These are the only national data collections that cover community corrections -0.5 in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. federal system. -1.0 For this report, an adult is defined as any person -1.5 subject to the jurisdiction of an adult court or correctional agency. Reporting methods for some -2.0 probation and parole agencies have changed over time. (See Methodology.) Appendix tables 1 through 3 and 5 -2.5 through 7 present additional 2018 data by jurisdiction. Appendix tables 9 through 11 and 13 through 15 present additional 2017 data by jurisdiction. -3.0 -3.5 Definition of probation and parole ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12 ’13 ’14 ’15 ’16 ’17 ’18 Note: Counts for 2016 and earlier may have been revised based on Probation is a court-ordered period of correctional updated reporting and may differ from numbers in past reports. See supervision in the community, generally as an table 1 for counts from 2008 to 2018. Annual percent change is the difference in population from January 1 to December 31 for 2016 and from alternative to incarceration. In some cases, probation December 31 to December 31 for all other years. See Probation and Parole may be a combined sentence involving incarceration in the United States, 2016 (NCJ 251148, BJS, April 2018). followed by a period of community supervision. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey, 2008-2018. Parole is a period of conditional supervised release in the community following a term in state or federal FIGURE 3 prison. Parolees include persons released through Annual percent change of adults on parole, 2008-2018 discretionary or mandatory supervised release Annual percent change from prison. 2.0 The definition of parole used in this report may differ from those in other statistical series published by the 1.5 Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12 ’13 ’14 ’15 ’16 ’17 ’18 Note: Counts for 2016 and earlier may have been revised based on updated reporting and may differ from numbers in past reports. See table 1 for counts from 2008 to 2018. Annual percent change is the difference in population from December 31 to the previous December 31 for each year. Annual percent change from 2007 to 2008 was less than 0.01%. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2008-2018. PROBATION AND PAROLE IN THE UNITED STATES, 2017-2018 | AUGUST 2020 2 The decrease in probationers drove the overall has declined each year since 2007, when it peaked at decline in adults under community supervision 5,115,500 (not shown in tables). In comparison, the parole population increased 6% from 2008 to 2018, and From the end of 2016 to the end of 2017, the total 2018 marked its fifth consecutive year of growth. community-supervision population decreased 0.6%, from 4,537,100 to 4,508,900 (table 1). The adult The rate of adults supervised in the community fell probation population decreased by 25,900 (0.7%) over to 1,726 per 100,000 U.S. adult residents in 2018 that time, while the adult parole population was relatively stable (increasing less than 0.05%). From 2017 to 2018, The rate of adults under community supervision the community-supervision population declined from declined 3% from the end of 2017 to the end of 2018, 4,508,900 to 4,399,000, as the number of adults on from 1,784 to 1,726 offenders per 100,000 U.S. adult probation decreased by 107,300 and the number on residents (table 2). During that time, the rate of adults parole increased by 3,000. Collectively, from 2016 to on probation declined 4% (from 1,443 to 1,389 per 2018, the total number of adults under community 100,000), and the rate of adults on parole decreased supervision declined 3.0%. During this 2-year span, 0.6%, from 346 to 344 per 100,000. From 2016 to 2017, persons on probation declined by 133,100 adults, while the rate of adults on community supervision fell 1.5%, persons on parole increased by 3,200 adults. So the as the probation rate fell 1.6% and the parole rate fell overall decline in the total number of adults under 0.9%. In 2018, the community-supervision rate was at community supervision was due to the decline in the its lowest level since 1990, when it was 1,720 per 100,000 probation population. (not shown in tables). It decreased 22% from 2008 to 2018 and 1.9% from 1998 to 2018 (not shown in tables). In 2018, the community-supervision population was The community-supervision and probation rates have at its lowest level since 1998, when it was 4,122,400 decreased for 11 consecutive years since 2008, while the (not shown in tables). It decreased 14% from 2008 parole rate has decreased since 2015. to 2018. The community-supervision population has declined each year since 2007. The probation population TABLE 2 Community-supervision rates of U.S. adult residents, TABLE 1 2008-2018 Adults under community supervision 2008-2018 , Per 100,000 U.S. adult residents U.S. adult residents on— Year Total* Probation Parole Community Community 2008 5,093,400 4,271,200 826,100 Year supervisiona,b Probation Parole supervisiona,b Probation Parole 2009 5,019,900 4,199,800 824,600 2008 2,202 1,847 357 1 in 45 1 in 54 1 in 280 2010 4,888,500 4,055,900 840,800 2009 2,148 1,797 353 1 in 47 1 in 56 1 in 283 2011 4,818,300 3,973,800 855,500 2010 2,067 1,715 356 1 in 48 1 in 58 1 in 281 2012 4,790,700 3,944,900 858,400 2011 2,017 1,663 358 1 in 50 1 in 60 1 in 279 2013 4,749,800 3,912,900 849,500 2012 1,984 1,634 356 1 in 50 1 in 61 1 in 281 2014 4,713,200 3,868,400 857,700 2013 1,946 1,603 348 1 in 51 1 in 62 1 in 287 2015 4,650,900 3,789,800 870,500 2014 1,911 1,568 348 1 in 52 1 in 64 1 in 288 2016 4,537,100 3,673,100 874,800 2015 1,872 1,526 350 1 in 53 1 in 66 1 in 285 2017 4,508,900 3,647,200 875,000 2016 1,811 1,466 349 1 in 55 1 in 68 1 in 287 2018 4,399,000 3,540,000 878,000 2017 1,784 1,443 346 1 in 56 1 in 69 1 in 289 2018 1 726 1 389 344 1 in 58 1 in 72 1 in 290 Percent change, , , December 31 Note: Counts for 2016 and earlier may have been revised based on updated reporting and may differ from numbers in past reports.
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]
  • Revocation of Probation and Supervised Release | October 2004
    OFFICE OF DEFENDER SERVICES TRAINING BRANCH Administrative Office of the United States Courts One Columbus Circle, NE, Suite G-430 Washington, DC 20544 (800) 788-9908 www.fd.org REVOCATION OF PROBATION AND SUPERVISED RELEASE Frances H. Pratt* October 2004 INTRODUCTION This outline addresses revocation of probation and supervised release. Revocation of probation and revocation of supervised release are, in many ways, treated identically. See, e.g.,Fed.R. Crim. P. 32.1 (entitled “Revocationor Modification of Probation or Supervised Release”); U.S.S.G. Ch. 7, Pt. B (entitled “Probation and Supervised Release Violations”); id. intro. comment. (“Because these policy statements focus on the violation of the court-ordered supervision, this chapter, to the extent permitted by law, treats violations of the conditions of probation and supervised release as functionally equivalent.”). However, the statutory provisions concerning sentencing for each differ in some significant ways. Consequently, this outline is organized as follows: Part I addresses the issues common to both revocationof probation and revocation of supervised release. Part II focuses on those issues peculiar to probation revocation, and Part III onthose issues peculiar to supervised release revocation. (For another take on many of the same issues, see U.S. Sentencing Commission, Office of General Counsel, Probation and Supervised Release Violations (February2002),available at http://www.ussc.gov/training/educat.htm; for an article written for probation officers, see David N. Adair, Jr., Revocation Sentences: A Practical Guide, Fed. Probation, Dec. 2000, at 67.) * Ms. Pratt was a staff attorney with the Defender Services Division Training Branch from July 1995 to March2002.
    [Show full text]
  • Probation in the United States
    robation Part I P Editor’s note: This is the first part of a two part article. Part two of this article will appear in the Perspectives Summer 1998 issue. robation is the most common form of criminal sentencing in the United States. It is commonly defined as: A court-ordered disposition alternative through which an adjudicated offender is placed under the control, supervi- in sionP and care of a probation staff member in lieu of imprisonment, so long as the probationer meets certain standards of contact (American Correctional Association 1995). The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that just over 3 million adults were under state or federal probation at year-end 1995, and that probationers make up 58 percent of all adults under correctional supervision (BJS 1996). In fact, the number of persons on probation is so large that the U.S. Department of Justice estimates that, on any one day, nearly 2 percent of all U.S. adult citizens are under probation supervision. And the the population continues to rise—increasing 4 percent in 1994, and almost 300 per- cent over the past ten years (BJS 1996). Despite its wide usage, probation is often the subject of intense criticism. It suffers from a “soft on crime” image, and as a result, maintains little public support. Probation is often depicted as permissive, uncaring about crime victims, and blindly advocating a rehabilitative ideal while ignoring the reality of violent, predatory criminals. Their poor (and some believe, misunderstood) public image leaves them unable to compete effectively for scarce public funds. Nationally, community corrections re- United ceives less than 10 percent of state and local government expenditures for corrections, even though they supervise two out of three correctional clients (Petersilia 1995b).
    [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]