Future of Parole in the United States - Research Paper Example

Parole is the “conditional early release from prison or jail, under supervision, after a portion of the sentence has been served.” (Phelps, Gale, Cengage, 2003 Probation and Parole) The first documented use of the word parole, thought to be French, meaning word of honor, comes from Samuel G. Howe, 1847 in Boston. In many states before that it was simply termed a conditional pardon. By 1930 lagging behind England and Ireland the United States formally established a Board of Parole. Parole and also probation in itself is a positivist belief meaning that early believers in the program thought offenders committed offenses through no fault of their own, forced into unfortunate circumstances, and therefore should be rehabilitated. The federal parole board increased to eight members in 1950, appointed by the President, with three of them assigned to youth corrections. By October of 1974 due to a pilot reorganization program the US Department of Justice had five regions with one member and five hearing examiners. Through the Parole Commission and Reorganization Act in 1976 the Board of Parole became known as the United States Parole Commission, independent of the DOJ (USDOJ: USPC: Our History). They adopted explicit parole guidelines, became affiliated with the Senate, disbanded from youth corrections, and created a Comprehensive Crime Control Act in 1984. The use of intermediate sentencing is the only sentencing that actually involves parole boards and they receive complete power in determining who is to be released. Intermediate sentencing does contain some positive factors and allows for full implementation of the rehabilitative ideal. It offers the highest and strictest level of protection from the more violent criminal offenders and also offers feasible alternatives to capital punishment. Parole decisions are also made with considerably more behavioral observation noted since the original trial and does not force corrections to release an inmate before they are ready to return to society. Negative factors involved with intermediate sentences are many with mostly criticism and onslaughts of impossibilities. Treatment is too expensive, training and rehabilitation not done, and even if treatment were honestly attempted by staffs, psychotherapy with involuntarily committed patients is generally considered difficult; indeterminate sentencing supplies only negative motivation, which will be insufficient for long-range results and the list continues. One of the most important factors I considered in this area is that there is no protection for the offender from life imprisonment under the guise of indeterminate sentencing. Sentencing guidelines were approved November 1, 1987. Those who committed crimes on or before that day are not eligible for parole, though they may be eligible through the court for release of another type. By 1989, the number of hearings heard by the commission had declined to 16,619 as the new law began to take effect. Incarcerated individuals were still being released using other ways, such as monitoring or probation. Since that time various acts and commissions have been passed making many changes. At the state level it is still rare that an offender who has committed a violent crime after 1987 will be awarded parole, though they will still see the parole board. For first-degree murder convictions, the new guidelines prescribe 30 years to life for all offenders compared with 10-12.5 years time served, on the average, under old sentencing practices by federal judges, therefore, more convicted felons will go to prison, but many of these offenses will carry shorter incarceration terms. In 1999 only 24% of inmates were released by state parole boards (Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report). Each prisoner released should be prepared to return home and re-enter society with a plan, answering the question and preparing for the necessary action on the prisoner’s part to undertake that plan, using all the support he claimed at his/her parole hearing. Still about three quarters of prisoners are being released from state and federal prisons through parole, probation or other programs. Most of those come home with some form of supervision, some initial planning and follow up that they must complete. One quarter of those that come home are leaving the system with no plan, no supervision, no follow up, no parole and no probation. Ten years ago in May, 2002, a hundred thousand prisoners were released in this manner (http://www.urban.org/publications/410521.html). The use of intermediate sentencing is the only sentencing that actually involves parole boards and they receive complete power in determining who is to be released. Intermediate sentencing does contain some positive factors and allows for full implementation of the rehabilitative ideal. It offers the highest and strictest level of protection from the more violent criminal offenders and also offers feasible alternatives to capital punishment. Parole decisions are also made with considerably more behavioral observation noted since the original trial and does not force corrections to release an inmate before they are ready to return to society. Negative factors involved with intermediate sentences are many with mostly criticism and onslaughts of impossibilities. Treatment is too expensive, training and rehabilitation not done, and even if treatment were honestly attempted by staffs, psychotherapy with involuntarily committed patients is generally considered difficult; indeterminate sentencing supplies only negative motivation, which will be insufficient for long-range results and the list continues. One of the most important factors I considered in this area is that there is no protection for the offender from life imprisonment under the guise of indeterminate sentencing. By 2005, 32 states had established sentencing guidelines for their prison inmates. Critics had their own criticism of these guidelines and argued that these may be considered fair in the sentencing process as it does provide the prisoner with release certainty but there are six critical times when decisions are important to ensure sentencing equity and predictability. Of course it starts with the initial decision to incarcerate and involves characteristics of the penalty scaling system, including the numbers of penalty ranges and offense categories, presence or absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the parole review process, and the use of good time in calculating early release and the revocation from supervised release (Champion, D. J. 2008 In Probation, parole, and community corrections) Most States make plans yearly, assessing State correction needs, noting strong and weak areas within their individualized system. Many offenders committing crimes are prisoner’s released through parole or another State program. Higher functional monitoring and integrated surveillance efforts with local law enforcement is necessary. Electronic monitoring has been used for years and has only gotten more specific and better in my opinion. Cell phones now have the capability through mapping applications and I for one believe that this could present some new possibilities. Since there are many facets to parole and its many forms at the state level there are many facets to consider when deciding what the future may hold. Community programs that involve the offender working as restitution in the community, community service, often do not take full advantage of a prisoner’s individual talents, skill sets or abilities. Meanwhile, many of these prisoner’s are having difficulty getting employed. Prisoner’s return to their activities often and though they might would like to become employed it is easier to continue as they were before being incarcerated. Gang affiliation seems to be common when inmates are released from prison no matter their affiliation beforehand. Reoffending, most likely with drug associated crimes are increased and probation violations become a problem. The variety and nature of gangs is explained by personal factors such as class, culture, race, and ethnicity, along with community factors such as poverty, social instability, and social isolation .(Champion, D. J. 2008 In Probation, parole, and community corrections). These affiliations are reported to be one of the major problems associated with parolees. A greater police presence in areas where Probation officers have large amounts of clients reduces some recidivism but despite that it is difficult to reform, rehabilitate and reintegrate these gang members whose activity goes unnoticed until they are re-arrested. Kentucky uses a half-back way program as incentive for gang members to avoid going back into incarceration over technical violation usually with agreements. It is sometimes an option to use electronic monitoring and home confinement. When parole was first being phased out three reasons were ultimately thought to be responsible for the ineffectiveness of parole. One, rehabilitation hadn’t worked because nothing would, two, parole boards often made decisions based on personal opinion with no set requirements and third was that they were very soft on crime, releasing inmates extremely early in some cases, especially where the offender committed heinous crimes after release. More structure has been introduced through mandatory minimums, time-served requirements, etc, parole use is still very heavy and discretionary parole release plays a crucial part in the USJS. Public and political pressures are important elements in the shift of parole guidelines and the way individuals are managed within the prison system. We are continuing to attempt to move from control and custody to deliberate efforts to change behavior. These actions are motivated by studies showing that it is possible to reduce recidivism with the proper care. Standard conditions obviously do not work in every case and setting conditions in a tailored specific way to the client’s needs can prove successful. This is demonstrated with the sex offender, we do not just expect that offender to return to his/her family if that be the case without management and follow up of some sort when they return to the community. The future of parole and corrections altogether may be facing positive change in the future, addressing many of the issues that we have mentioned. References Champion, D. J. (2008). 7-9. In Probation, parole, and community corrections (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Chapter 3 - Rethinking Probation. (n.d.). Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved October 31, 2011, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/probation/chap3.htm Is the future parole with GPS and other techno-reentry devices? (2006, December 1). Sentencing Law and Policy. Retrieved November 02, 2011, from http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2006/12/is_the_sentenci.html Probation And Parole. Encyclopedia of Everyday Law. Ed. Shirelle Phelps. Gale Cengage, 2003. eNotes.com. 2006. 31 Oct, 2011 http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/ probation-and-parole Http://static.nicic.gov/Library/024200.pdf. (n.d.). Http://static.nicic.gov/Library/024200.pdf. Retrieved October 31, 2011, from http://static.nicic.gov/Library/024200.pdf Thigpen. (2011). Parolling Authorities Strategic Planning and Management for Results. Http://static.nicic.gov/Library/024199.pdf. Retrieved October 31, 2011, from http://static.nicic.gov/Library/024199.pdf Thigpen. (2011). The Future of Parole as a Key Partner in Assuring Public Safety. Http://static.nicic.gov/Library/024201.pdf. Retrieved October 31, 2011, from http://static.nicic.gov/Library/024201.pdf Travis, J. (2002, May). Thoughts on the Future of Parole. The Urban Institute | Research of Record. Retrieved October 31, 2011, from http://www.urban.org/publications/410521.html USDOJ: USPC: Our History. (n.d.). Welcome to the United States Department of Justice. Retrieved October 31, 2011, from http://www.justice.gov/uspc/history.htm Read More