Kinds of Probation - Thesis Proposal Example

Kinds of probation al affiliation: Thesis ment Probation refers to a courts ordered disposition alternative throughwhich an adjudicated offender is put under the supervision, control and care of a probation staff member in lieu of imprisonment, as long as the probationer meets certain principles of contact. Probationer is a term refereeing to a person on probation. Probation may entail a variety of terms with numerous requirements vital to comply with it. Probation is the most used correctional response to youths who are arbitrated in juvenile courts. Probation is the conditional release of an arbitrated youth into the community under the court’s supervision. The situations under which an adult is released make up the rules of probation. Distinctive rules of probation requires that the probationer to honor all laws; follow home laws; be home every day by a certain time and meet with the probation officer when asked for (Corbett & DiIulio, 2000). Additionally, if the probationer is of school age, he/ she must attend school every day and abide by the rules of the school. Simply defining probation does not reflect the intricacies and disparities that exist in the probation practice. The literature review will cover this subject in detail. Additionally, different types of probation that exist will be covered in detail in the literature review sections. These kinds of probation are such as informal probation, supervised probation, community control probation, diversion courts, shock probation, suspended sentence probation and residential probation. The conclusion will entail the recommendations drawn from the body and it will offer insights on areas needed for further research. Literature review When an individual is facing sentencing for a misdemeanor, or in other instances has already served part of a penitentiary sentence, they may be granted a chance to be placed on probation rather than serving time in jail. As such, probation offers a chance for a person to return to the life outside of the detention in a reformatory cell, yet puts certain conditions on their daily tasks. While it seems an attractive alternative in contrast to imprisonment, probation may put a vast amount of strain on the probationer’s life due to its severe constraints. The main types of probation supervision are the following. Pretrial probation Pretrial probation is an arrangement of the government and the accused that occurs before a trail or other final disposition, although the real trial is managed by the probation section. Pre-trial probation necessitates that the accused be put on supervised or unsupervised probation for a certain period of time before illegal conviction is entered. Pretrial probation may be used to institute terms of bail pending resolution to a criminal case, as well as be used as a means of resolving a criminal case. If one resolves criminal charges through pretrial probation, they are not required to admit to being guilty (Gregory & Tamar, 2004). Informal probation Informal probation is also known as unsupervised probation, which is given to low threat offenders. It distinctively entails paying fines and fees, as well as approving to commit no more violations of the law for the period of probation, usually one to one and a half years. The court usually gives a hanging jail ruling as part of the probation. If one complies with the terms, they do not have to go to jail. On the other hand, if the probationer fails to pay fines or commits another felony, the court then sends them to jail (Peters, 2011). Supervised/formal probation Once a formal probation is given, the probationer has to report to a probation officer on a standard basis. Supervised probation entails stricter requirements, and the probationer may be required to attend counseling, make restitution reimbursements to sufferers of one’s felonies, submit to arbitrary drug tests and maintain useful employment. Failure in meeting the above conditions results in the probationer going to jail immediately. Community control This is the severest type of probation. Community control is effectively a prison condemnation without the prison, as the probationer under community control is kept an eye on at all times. This is made possible by the ankle monitor, where the probationer wears the ankle monitor throughout the probation period, and his whereabouts can be trailed at any time. In addition to this, other probation requirements of fine payments, maintaining a gainful employment and counseling still apply (Belshaw, 2011). Shock probation Shock probation is a recent phenomenon that gained prominence in the late 1990s, where an offender is sentenced for a greatest penitentiary punishment allowable under the law. After a short period of about thirty days, the lawbreaker is taken back to the court whereby he/she is released on a typical supervised probation program. The main aim of this kind of probation is to literally shock the offenders for the brief period they are in jail into abiding by the rules of probation (Pulis & Jane, 2005). Suspended sentence probation The lawbreaker is sentenced to imprisonment, though implementation of that verdict is withheld dependent on the wrongdoer’s conduct during a probation verdict. Suspended sentence probation varies from a deferred sentence in which the judge withholds formal condemnation of a guilty individual dependent on the individual staying out of lawful trouble. It also diverges from straight suspended sentence where a ruling is forced without placement on probation and not executed unless further unlawful activity happens. Probation officers sporadically supervise persons with deferred or straight suspended judgment arrangements (APPA, 2000). Split sentence probation The judge splits a total punishment of several years between a jail term and a probation time. Split and suspended sentence probation may be merged. For instance, an offender may serve the first four months of a six month jail term and have the remaining two months suspended contingent on performance on probation. Split sentence differs from shock probation in that split sentence entails a jail term, whilst shock probation entails prison time (Canton, 2009). Residential probation The probationer is required to serve part of the probation term in an intermediate house setting that offers fairly open, but still structured living. Such residential placements are sometimes used for the early part of a probation sentence, or for people who have violated their probation. Conclusion Different types of probation call for different types of conditions that the defendant must meet. This result in disparities and complexities in probation practice, as variability may result in the same probation department or the same state. Different standards programs; standard, moderate or intensive probation are meant to reflect different levels of contact between probation officers and the probationers. The level of contact between probation officer and a client may range from regular to infrequent (Alschuler, 2005). Large case loads results in reduced contact between the probationer and the probation officer. Another challenge is the variability in training, motivation, skills and workload of individual probation officers (Domurad, 2000). Communities also vary in the number and quality of services ready for use by probationers and probation officers. These challenges undermine the effectiveness for which probation is meant to achieve, and public safety being of utmost significance. As such, further research is needed in both governmental and societal institutions (Hinzman, 2000). Intensive training is required in order to train probation officers to become more connected to the communities in which offenders live in order to have a lasting impact on public safety. Additionally, further research may be carried on human service agencies and other government bodies on numerous ways to attain civic security goals through vigorous corporation with indigenous groups, government agencies and other societal agencies. This is in a bid to minimize delinquent behavior among adults, in order to reduce the strain on probation department that is already constrained. References: Alschuler, A.W. (2005).Disparity: The Normative and Empirical Failure of the Federal Guidelines. Stanford Law Review, 58, 1: 9.20 American Probation and Parole Association. (2000). Position Statement on Community Justice. Perspectives journal, 24, 1: 1-12 Spring. Belshaw, S.H. (2011). Are All Probation Revocations Treated Equal? An Examination of Felony Probation Revocations in a Large Texas County. International Journal of Punishment and Sentencing, 7, 2: 5-16 Corbett, R.P. & DiIulio, J.J. (2000). Getting Serious about Probation and the Crime Problem. Corrections Management Quarterly, 4, 2: 1-10. Canton, R. (2009). Nonsense upon Stilts? Human Rights, the Ethics of Punishment and the Values of Probation. British Journal of Community Justice, 7, 1: 23-41. Domurad, F. (2000). Who Is Killing Our Probation Officers? Corrections Management Quarterly, 4, 2: 41-51. Gregory W. C & Tamar, H. (2004) Fairness at the Time of Sentencing: The Accuracy of the Presentence Report. St. Johns Law Review, 78, 1: 1-16. Hinzman, G.R. (2000). Broken Windows, Broken Buckets: Solutions for Safer Communities. Corrections Management Quarterly, 4, 2: 23-33. Peters, C.M. (2011). Social Work and Juvenile Probation: Historical Tensions and Contemporary Convergences. Social Work journal, 56, 4: 2-15 Pulis, J.E & Jane B.S. (2005). Probation Sentences and Proportionality under the Young Offenders Act and the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 47, 4:3-20.   Read More