The criminal justice system adopted the policy of community supervision in the form of parole and probation as an alternative to mass incarceration. The purpose of granting parole and probation was to allow the rehabilitation of offenders as an alternative to mass imprisonment. Parole emerged as an alternative to incarceration, permitting conditional release for offenders.
All states in the United States implemented a parole system until 1977. The primary incentive for parole and probation was to control the growing prison population. Policy reforms through community supervision are intended to reduce disproportionately high incarceration rates in America. Community supervision is an alternative to imprisonment, as the rates of revocations reported by the states are 17 per cent. No state in America mentions revocation at high rates, depicting the effectiveness of the policy. Parole and probation focus on the offender’s re-entry into the community and living life as a law-abiding citizen. The policy emphasized controlling recidivism and disengaging offenders from different crimes (Kaeble & Bonczar, 2017).
Background of the Policy
Community supervision was imposed extensively between 1977 and 2010, when the prison population increased by 300,000 offenders. The estimated prison population during the period was 1.5 million people. The financial and social costs of incarceration were high, motivating policymakers to propose an alternative solution. The repercussions of mass incarceration were severe, as it deteriorated offenders’ lives. Americans convicted of minor crimes used to serve many years in jail, which influenced their employment, careers, and future lives. The inability to vote and disengagement from civil life were other consequences of incarceration. The financial crisis of 2008 was another factor promoting the adoption of community supervision as an alternative to incarceration. The country’s federal budget declined due to the crisis, and the costs of operating correctional facilities became unbearable. Policymakers were concerned about minimizing the costs associated with criminal procedures and prisons. The number of people availing themselves of community supervision increased enormously by 2010, with a reported 4,000,000 people under probation and 841,000 on parole (Klingele, 2013).
Development of Policy
The Supreme Court presented probation as an alternative to sentencing in 1916. Policymakers concluded that incarceration costs for a single offender were fifteen times higher than community-supervision costs. The Probation Act of 1925 gave courts the power to suspend sentences. Reformers also supported the policy of providing rehabilitative facilities to offenders. The chances of re-entering the community and living a civilian life are limited in jails. Under probation and parole, offenders can overcome criminal activities and start a lawful life. The state recognized that incarceration can ruin offenders’ lives, which policymakers viewed as unfair in some circumstances. Community supervision was developed as an alternative to its predecessor to overcome the issues and drawbacks of the incarceration system (Minn, 2009). The idea that expansion of community supervision would mitigate issues of over-incarceration played a key role in the development of the policy.
The criminal justice system recognized probation and parole as alternatives to limit prison populations. The justice system imposes probation in lieu of imprisonment and parole as a conditional release. During this period, the offender has to demonstrate a change in attitude and disengagement from offenses. Individuals who are conditionally released follow the conditions imposed by the state for retaining liberty and freedom. Failure of an offender to comply with the conditions leads to termination of community supervision and possible imprisonment. An individual under probation is liable to report to the probation officer regularly and attend work, classes, and rehabilitative programs. The purpose of probation is to promote rehabilitation in the offender. The federal government approved probation legislation in 1925, and probation became extremely popular during the 1980s. The rate of probation increased by 60% in 2001 (Klingele, 2013). Initially, the officer under the Attorney General had the power to decide on conditional release. The authority was then passed to superintendents in charge of prisons. Federal probation officers were responsible for inquiring into offenders’ performance during the specified period. The system of probation was transferred from the Federal Bureau to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts in 1940 (US courts, 2018).
The Board of Parole was developed in 1930 and was initially controlled by the Attorney General. Several changes occurred during the history of parole. In 1950, the Department of Justice was responsible for taking on the administrative role. During the same period, the Youth Corrections Act aimed at providing rehabilitative opportunities to young people. In 1972, the Justice Department provided comprehensive guidelines for officers and offenders with the goal of minimizing revocations and recidivism. The Parole Commission and Reorganization Act of 1976 established an independent agency for managing parole activities efficiently. The detailed guidelines were revised under the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. The purpose of the guidelines was to assess offenders who needed parole facilities. The approach was more appropriate for offenders involved in nonviolent crimes (Klingele, 2013).
Factors Contributing to Policy Development
The primary factor that contributed to the development of parole and probation policy was the need to control the high volume of imprisonment, as the state faced substantial financial costs. The years spent in jail affected the lives and careers of young people, as many teenagers and young adults spent much of their youth there. The facts also revealed that over 70 per cent of prisoners had committed nonviolent offences. The Justice Department found it unfair to imprison offenders for minor crimes. Racial bias was another factor motivating the justice system to adopt community supervision as an alternative to sentencing. Democrats claimed that people belonging to minority groups served more years in jail for felonies, theft, or substance abuse. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 supported changes to the parole system in America (Minn, 2009).
The evidence also revealed that people in jails are more likely to choose criminal lifestyles. Jails do not always provide rehabilitation, education, or treatment programs that increase their chances of becoming good citizens. The criminal justice system supported community supervision to encourage positive behaviours among young offenders. The system believed that supervisory services such as education, rehabilitative programs, treatments for substance abuse, and employment improve the behaviours of offenders (Kaeble & Bonczar, 2017). The criminal justice system’s belief that adult probation decreases recidivism rates also promoted community supervision. Other factors leading to the development of parole policy and its adoption as an alternative to incarceration involve allowing offenders to re-enter the community, reconnect with family and children, and give up a criminal life (Klingele, 2013).
Importance of Developing Alternative
Developing parole and probation as alternatives to mass incarceration was essential for preventing recidivism and the destruction of young lives. The policy is important for changing the offending attitudes of criminals and providing them with the opportunity to live better lives. It is also vital for managing the federal budget, as the cost of keeping offenders in jail is high and doubles after 55 years of age. Evidence supports parole and probation policies and identifies them as effective crime-control strategies. Only 17 per cent of offenders return to jail after availing themselves of parole and probation, while less than 5 per cent of offenders re-enter prisons for violent crimes (Kaeble & Bonczar, 2017). Developing the policy as an alternative is also crucial, as it rehabilitates young people, allowing them to build positive behaviours and give up crime. Compared with incarceration, community supervision is more practical for controlling crime.
References
Kaeble, D., & Bonczar, T. P. (2017). Probation and Parole in the United States, 2015. U.S. Department of Justice.
Klingele, C. (2013). Rethinking the Use of Community Supervision. J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 1015.
Minn. (2009). REVIEW OF GUIDELINES FOR REVOCATION OF PAROLE AND SUPERVISED RELEASE: 2009 REPORT TO THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE. MINN. DEP’T OF CORR.
US courts. (2018). Probation and Pretrial Services History. Retrieved Feb 12, 2018, from https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/probation-and-pretrial-services/probation-and-pretrial-services-history
Academic Master Education Team is a group of academic editors and subject specialists responsible for producing structured, research-backed essays across multiple disciplines. Each article is developed following Academic Master’s Editorial Policy and supported by credible academic references. The team ensures clarity, citation accuracy, and adherence to ethical academic writing standards
Content reviewed under Academic Master Editorial Policy.
