Effectiveness Of Probation And Parole

#3 Effectiveness of Probation & Parole in Current Form

In 1986, Petersilia and Turner conducted research examining sentencing decisions and the optional release on parole (judges discretion) or probation (discretion of the parole board). The results of their study indicated that the analysis of offenders background information, as gathered in the pre-sentencing investigation (PSI) , inadequately measures recidivism (Petersilia, 1998). More specifically, their findings revealed that there was minimal distinction between the PSI profiles of the offenders granted probation and those who were imprisoned. This study suggests that the offenders who were released are as much of a threat to the public as those who remained in confinement. However, the outcome of this study is only evidence of injustice in the correctional system. Probation as a rehabilitative determent is intended to protect society and reform the offender. Being that there are research indications of the failing to due so, I argue that probation and parole is ineffective as it is implemented currently due to the injustice sentencing tactics and failing to appropriately assess the individual needs.

The PSI should assist in formulating a reformative approach, seeking to directly address the offender’s needs as means to reduce recidivism and aid the successful completion of the conditions. However, the PSI furthers incapacitation as punishment as result of its unfairness in deciding which offender is suitable for probation. A consequence of inaccurately assessing the PSI to determine the offender suited for probation is the procedures following, when the court determines the conditions of the release. One error leads to the next. If there is limited distinction betwee...

... middle of paper ...

...lt of increased jail and prison populations, as well as correctional caseload increases (Petersilia, 2003). However, mandatory sentencing fulfills the severe aspect of the tough on crime policy, it is harsh, being disproportionate to the crime. It also places limitations on the rehabilitative programs offered, favoring incarceration. Whereas, a “soft on crime” policy would actually attempt to address the root cause of the crime to effectively reform and aid the offenders needs (In Class Discussions). Moreover, the tough on crime policy disregards Augustus reform principles. The policy has no incentive to embrace community relations, reduce crime rates, jail and prison population incomes and to assess the individual for rehabilitation to reduce recidivism. Therefore, evidence suggests that probation and parole programs could be more effective if properly administered.