Probation and Parole Practices in England and the United States - Coursework Example

Development of Probation and Parole Practices in England and the United s Introduction Probation and parole practices startedin middle age criminal law in England. Over this period, people were harshly punished for offences that were not even serious. Execution was a usual thing during this time. People were mutilated, branded and even flogged. It was also over this period, when Henry VIII was King, that death was the ultimate punishment for over 200 crimes. Most of these crimes were minor offenses. As a result of the harshness, many people started showing discontent, especially in sections of the English society where people wanted a change in the judicial system. In order to get rid of these harsh punishments, the justice systems started to device various new measures of handling criminal offenses.The new measures included royal pardons in which people accused of these minor offences could buy; courts started to interpret harsh statutes into more lenient ones before they could apply them; and in order to make charges of a lesser crime, the courts could devalue stolen property. In addition, offenders were protected by judicial reprieve, benefit of the clergy, abjuration and sanctuary. In the end, judges started to award criminals temporary release called “binding over for acceptable behavior”. During this temporary release, criminals were required to take steps that could ensure they were either pardoned or given lesser jail terms. In certain states of America, especially Massachusetts, the courts developed different practices from the ones in English law. “Good aberrance”, also known called “security for acceptable behavior” was similar to modern day bail. Those accused of criminal offences were required to pay a certain amount of money which was considered collateral for their ethical conduct. In cases that did not require immediate sentences, the courts started to practice filing. Under this process, courts either held indictments in abeyance or laid criminal charges on file. Later on, judges were allowed to quash cases in order to deal with the harsh penalties of the day. They could base this on errors in proceedings of the courts, or on certain little technicalities. In 18th century England, offenders were reported to have been sentenced to as little as one-day jail terms but only on condition that found themselves guardian or parents that could supervise them closely. This practice became common in English law. Over time, offenders that showed signs of rehabilitation were released to guardians who supervised them over the period of their terms. The police were required to visit them to make sure their progress was on track and to take records. In Washington, America; alcohol abusers were rehabilitated rather than put to serve jail terms. A case is reported, in 1841, of a “common drunkard” who was orderedto make an appearance to court in 3 weeks in order to be sentenced. When that time finally came, he was in court a sober man. He was a changed man, much to everyone’s surprise. Before a person could be considered for probation, various things were taken into account. These include their age, character, people around them and so on. This process gave birth to modern day probation investigations practices; investigation, intake and supervision. All this is credited to John Augustus, the “Father of Probation”. By 1859, after John’s death, a probation statute was enacted by the state of Massachusetts. This was attributed to John’s efforts. After the passage of this statute, probation started to spread across America. In 1899, a juvenile court was established in Chicago. Later on, various 30 states of the United States of America started to practice probation. Eventually, all the states of the USA adopted probation, for both juveniles and adults. In all the states of the United States, probation structures widely differ. Some states combine probation and parole, while others do not. Probation systems also vary. Some are state-administered while others are locally administered. Evolution of probation and parole practices in the United States In recent years, probation and parole practices have experienced enormous changes. Some segments of the US justice system have taken this positively, while to others, this is disturbing. These changes have majorly been experienced over the past 3 decades. The roles of the law enforces have evolved from that of ‘helping’ the offender, to that of holding the offender accountable to the justice system. In this new role, the justice system has taken; it provides the supervision and monitoring services. With changes in the society, especially, in terms of the way of living, probation and parole poses new challenges and demands. It is, therefore, in order that new concepts have been adopted for this practice of rehabilitation. Individuals are being recruited, hired, trained, and evaluated on ways of handling offenders in this system. Some of these employees are sourced from the community and not necessarily from the justice system as it used be the case. Juvenile justice and state criminal agencies today encourages community and system-wide changes in dealing with family and social problems. All stakeholders are engaged in all the decisions that need to be made about the welfare of offenders and the community. Social and family problems are now responded to by the community while the judicial system only acts to support the community in its efforts of solving these problems. Sanctions and revocation of probation and parole Probation violators can have sanctions imposed on them by the states in which they live. Imposing sanctions on a probation violator are usually aimed at avoiding their return to prison. Some of these sanctions include: treatment for drug or substance abuse, community service, release from work, surveillance, fines, detention at their homes increased reporting and monitoring and short jail terms. More often, these sanctions are aimed at holding the offenders accountable for not meeting the conditions set for their probation. The sanctions can also be aimed at addressing those issues that caused the violations. Parole sanctions vary from state to state. Most states have laws that have been defined on what should be done in case a parolee violates the conditions of parole. Among them are provisions for: having restrictions on incarceration, allowing community options, and creating special facilities to hold parole violators. Section 1203.2 of the Penal Code allows a trial court to move a motion to revoke probation. Probation is revoked if a probationer has violated the conditions of his or her probation, has associated with ‘bad’ company or has committed a crime. This happens even if the probationer has been charged for the offense or not. Probation revocationbegins if the probation officer believes the probationer has violated a certain condition of probation. However, probationers have certain due process privileges. This is as a result of the Gagnon v. Scarpelli case of 1973 (411 U.S. 778) in which the Supreme Court made the decision to award probationers rights when ‘liberty’ interests were in play. Some of the rights are preliminary hearing, notification of the violations in writing, a revocation hearing. Parole can, similarly, be revoked. This happens when the parolee does not meet the conditions for his or her parole (technical violation). A revocation can also take place if the parolee has committed a new crime while still on parole. Administrative procedures govern parole. For this reason, the process of revoking parole varies from state to state and in different jurisdictions. Parole revocation also award offenders due process rights. These are as a result of the Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) case. In this case, the offender was allowed to confront and even cross examine his accuser (exceptions exist for this). The parolee has the right to ask for a written explanation as to why the parole is being revoked too. Various states in the United States have abolished parole. This has been attributed to the failure of the system to ensure security to the communities in which parolees are released into. Revoking of parole also leads to the shifting of responsibility from the community to the justice systems to deal with the offender. References Abadinsky, H. (2000). Probation and Parole, New York: Prentice Hall. Champion, D. (1999). Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections, New York: Prentice Hall. Encyclopedia of Everyday Law, Probation and Parole, accessed December 3rd, 2011 Glaze, L. & Bonczar, T. (2006), Probation and Parole in the United States, Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics New York City Department of Probation, History of Probation, accessed December 3rd, 2011 Read More