Probation as a Future Punishment Alternative

The President’s Council on Enforcement Agencies and Justice Administration report had just started to have a significant impact on public and professional opinion ten years ago. Although several modifications and enhancements were suggested, the information overall gave probationers a lot of reason for optimism. Probation has a bright future, as the issue is not whether to treat criminals in society but how to do it efficiently and safely, as probation officials oversaw about two-thirds of the overall caseload in corrections.

The introduction of new-concept jails is one approach that might enhance American views on the penalty. Modern prison concepts aim to rehabilitate inmates and get them ready to rejoin society. These facilities frequently provide various services and activities, such as education, vocational training, and drug and alcohol rehabilitation. Implementing rehabilitation services is another option that can enhance punitive approaches.

By completing a series of criteria, such as community service or treatment, offenders can escape prison through diversion programs. Finally, prosecutorial adjustments or methods could enhance the theories behind punishment (Canton, 2022). For instance, instead of using prison time, prosecutors may concentrate on making sure offenders are held responsible for their acts. Individuals under probation monitoring may be summoned back before the trial and penalized if they do not follow the rules. Although flagrant non-compliance does not always result in incarceration, it frequently does, and the perpetrator will typically receive a new sentence for their original offense.

Implementing more restorative measures to aid in a perpetrator’s redemption differs from mere observation of a perpetrator’s whereabouts and conformity with essential requirements. Both of these approaches are sought in current probation services (Smith, 2019). A probation service focused on positive transformation and qualified, experienced professional personnel is necessary for creating programs to assist criminals in changing their behavior, improving their abilities, locating employment, and repairing relations. Probation services frequently coordinate the placement of defendants to conduct community work.

Effective organizational capabilities are required to ensure that proper records are kept and that non-compliance is successfully dealt with. These collaborations with local organizations that can supply these are also necessary.

In the United States, probation officers frequently deal with overwhelming caseloads. Courts are commonly compelled to decide whether to ignore probation or parole infractions entirely or send serial offenders away for lengthy sentences (Fox et al., 2021). Modern “smart” justice systems provide better, more affordable, and more efficient alternatives. More states and municipalities are putting initiatives into practice to enhance results and lessen the impact of drug-related criminals on their correctional and criminal justice systems.

These cutting-edge new initiatives include the Probationer Accountability with Certain Enforcement (PACE) initiative in Alaska, the Decide Your Time program in Delaware, and the Swift, Accountable, Fair Enforcement (SAFE) initiative in Arizona. Some regions have also approved or are actively debating trial and bail transformation regulation that permits directorial punishments as an alternative, including Alabama, Montana, Georgia, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Virginia, and Kentucky.

There are several justifications for creating a variety of societal approaches to dealing with offenders. One is the dangers that incarceration brings to criminals’ legal rights (Barberet & Jackson, 2017). The criteria of need and fairness demand that sanctions be accessible for less severe offenses that do not involve liberty deprivation due to the intrinsic limitation on rights inherent in confinement. A second justification relates to the expense of jail. The yearly cost of housing a perpetrator in a Bureau of Prisons facility in the USA in 2012 was nearly eight times that of housing the same crime under federal probation officer post-conviction monitoring (Harris, 2022).

The third justification is that probation may be more successful than incarceration in achieving judgment goals (Burrell, 2022). In England and Wales, the law specifies that the purpose of sentencing is to ensure the following. Firstly, penalize the criminal by denying them their freedom, time, or assets. Stop violence by preventing criminals from committing additional crimes and discouraging others from committing similar offenses.

Secondly, reform and rehabilitate perpetrators — transforming a criminal’s behavior to prevent future offenses, for instance, by demanding that a defendant receive medical treatment for drug or alcohol abuse. Thirdly, protects the public — from the perpetrator and the risk that they will commit additional crimes. Fourthly, make the perpetrator give something back — for instance, the opportunity for victims to inform offenders of the consequences of their wrongdoing and receive remorse is provided through therapeutic jurisprudence. However, these suggestions and adjustments come with several risks. The new procedure or alteration may not have the desired effect. Moreover, there is a chance that the new procedure or alteration may have unforeseen negative impacts. There is also a chance that the adjustment will disturb the team or organization and interfere with efficiency or workflow. Furthermore, there is a chance that team members or employees may oppose the move.

At least four strategies exist for probation to support efficient criminal justice. First, if used effectively, probation can relieve some of the strain on the jail system (Harris, 2022). Conversely, there is proof that in some instances, rather than serving as options for incarceration, society penalties have helped broaden the scope of the criminal justice system. According to a US study, probation serves both purposes, operating as an option and as a net-widener to varying degrees throughout time and place (Harris, 2022). Although less destructive than jail, probation can nonetheless serve as a penalty. Perpetrators subject to social penalties typically stay at home, allowing them to maintain relationships with friends and family and keep working if they already have a career.

The four strategies recommended above provide a tripled social return on investment. The first benefit would be reducing the social costs of intoxicated driving. This involves items such as fewer hospital admissions, car accidents, and deaths due to traffic (Charles et al., 2019). The second benefit is a reduction in the financial expenses of driving drunk. These are just a few examples of reduced costs for the criminal justice system, lower insurance rates, and lower maintenance and repair expenses. Lastly, each person’s prices as a result of drunk driving would go down (Smith, 2019). This includes a lower risk of harm or death, a lower risk of a DUI, and a lower likelihood of losing one’s driving permit.

The community would gain from the above-suggested reforms by having better access to federal information and programs. Additionally, it would help appointed politicians by increasing their public accountability (Kenworthy, 2022). Convincing the people that the reforms are required and that they would have a positive impact will be the biggest obstacle. Probation provides several benefits through opportunities to lessen the need for unnecessary incarceration and the dangers of reoffending. Based on the specific conditions of a given nation, certain arguments will have more weight for establishing or expanding probation. Probation needs to be adequately planned and supervised to reach its maximum potential, especially to avoid unintentionally increasing the jail population and to maximize its effect on reoffending.

In contrast to inmates who become a liability to society, they can continue to maintain dependents and fulfill other social tasks while paying their debt to the community. Probation may offer chances for recuperation through one-on-one counseling or other forms of treatment, structured psychological programs, and programs for social, academic, and occupational development (Ortiz & Jackey, 2019). These can also be planned in a prison environment; however, they are more likely to be effective in society.

References

Barberet, R., & Jackson, C. (2017). UN rules for the treatment of women prisoners and non-custodial sanctions for women offenders (the bangkok rules): A gendered critique. Papers. Revista De Sociologia, 102(2), 215–231. Web.

Burrell, A. (2022). The reflective practitioner in transition. Probation work during reintegration of Probation Services in England and Wales. Probation Journal, 1–18. Web.

Canton, R. (2022). Theories of punishment. Punishment, 34–62. Web.

Charles, J. M., Jones, A., & Lloyd-Williams, H. (2019). Return on investment, social return on investment, and the business case for prevention. Applied Health Economics for Public Health Practice and Research, 279–300. Web.

Fox, C., Harrison, J., Hothersall, G., Smith, A., & Webster, R. (2021). A rapid evidence assessment of the impact of probation caseloads on reducing recidivism and other probation outcomes. Probation Journal, 69(2), 138–158. Web.

Harris, R. (2022). Race, criminal justice and the Probation Service. Crime, Criminal Justice and the Probation Service, 107–128. Web.

Kenworthy, L. (2022). Truly Democratic politics. Would Democratic Socialism Be Better?, 97–107. Web.

Ortiz, J. M., & Jackey, H. (2019). The system is not broken, it is intentional: The prisoner reentry industry as deliberate structural violence. The Prison Journal, 99(4), 484–503. Web.

Smith, M. (2019). After the massacre, Ill. City recoils as a killer moves in. Man free on parole living in Christian facility. 1–2.