Personally I can see both sides of this argument, the fact that there are so many people on probation for things that are so minor and petty does not help the criminal situation in any form. I agree with the article in it saying that we need to lower the guide lines on which probation is used and what some of the terms are for people that are put onto probation. You take a person that has just got out of jail after 90 days and has no support system to help him. Hes placed on probation and told that he has certain guide lines that he must follow and task to do while on probation. This person has no means of transport no money to use public transport and no real place to stay currently with in the first couple of month the likely hood of this person going back to jail for basically nothing. This is not a solution it is a problem. On the other side of this I understand were parole or probation is necessary. You have prisoners or inmates that have committed violent or more serious crimes and these individuals need to be supervised and monitored to assure that they really have been rehabilitated into society. The statement made in the article about the founding also makes since in the fact that if you only have to monitor and support a fraction of the people on parole or probation then the money that is received will go farther to help those that really need it verses spending the same or slightly more on almost triple the population amount. Also, something that the article did not mention is the fact that it can also help the indirectly with taxes and state revenue. It can doe this because while incarcerated taxes payers help to fund the inmates and prisons if there are less revolving prisoners on prole or probation then the states revenue does not have to continue to rely on higher taxes to help support those people that may not actually require prole or probation.
I think that the first sentence of this article is completely true. I believe that the incarceration population can be drastically reduced without endangering everyone else. I think that it is interesting that Harvard reported that they think they could cut the number of people controlled under probation in half in the next decade. The fact that if probation would be cut in half it could impoverish Americans tells me how much we are dependant on the incarceration population and the money that it brings in. I agree with the article that the system we have in place is very poor and do agree that it produces a cycle with incarceration. Many cities have their crime rate decreasing, but a heavy incarcerated population which doesn’t make sense. How could that even happen is what I find myself asking the most. I feel like the five approaches that the report took were fairly solid. The one I think would work the best is evidence based practice requirements. If there was more evidence within these cases wrongful convictions could be lessened which could lead to the population being lowered. Obviously reducing the probation terms could definitely affect the population and how it grows. Graduated response for violations could deter many people from reoffending. The fact that in 2012 two states experimented with this idea and saw a twenty percent decrease blows my mind. If all of the states could adopt this the incarceration population would be diminished in a span of a decade or two. Many lessons and ideas can be learned from this article if there was more research done on ways to control the population of incarcerated people I think we would see a bigger impact on the population as a whole. NightTrain456
After reading this article it is clear that if states would just allow for some people to not have to be put on probation for very little crimes then maybe they would easily reduce the probation population. If we use the resources from less needy probationers on the ones who may actually need those, then we would be able to have certain organizations set up for them. If we start worrying about the ones who do not need to be looked after or who need to be checked on, then the ones who will need to be monitored every day might not be getting watched and may try to do something dumb to land them in prison. If we are able to slash the probation population by fifty percent then I think we may have less people going to jail and prison, then those populations will hopefully start to steadily decrease. If we set up programs for certain probationers to try and get help then that would also be something that may help the prison population go down, which in turn would start to save the state more money and that could help make more better programs for these people. If we start having low risk probationers wear ankle bracelets and have check in areas, then these people may be able to still work and not have to quit a job or leave early to meet with their probation officer. I feel that giving the low risk probationers more rights and more freedom would make the high risk ones think about what they have done and what they could do to try and get the same freedom. This may deter them from doing worse crimes and may make them think about the crime and what the consequences that go with the crime. Illini456
After reading this article, I do believe that the number of people on probation and parole can be reduced by a good amount without harming the safety of our public. I would first look at those on probation and then move to the parolees. I say this because those on probation have generally committed a less severe crime than those on parole. I do agree that there could be a reduction in the length of probation depending on the crime committed. Like the 30 for 30 stated in the article, I think people would be less likely to commit another crime knowing that their probation was being reduced on a day for day type basis. Putting people on probation for minimal misdemeanor crimes for several years really doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me as we are using resources that are short staffed to begin with on minimal risk cases when they could be spending more time with the higher risk cases. We should focus more on putting people that have done more serious crimes, or have committed multiple crimes (repeat offenders) on probation or parole. By putting the people that have committed small offences on parole or probation is causing an increase in our incarceration rates. If these people are caught for the slightest thing wile on probation or parole they are then sent right back behind bars of our already over populated jails and prisons again. But, on the other side by not punishing those people that have committed small crimes and broke their probation or parole could potentially raise the crime rates as they may think that nothing is going to be done about it so why not. However, I think by being on probation or parole would detour some people from committing more severe crimes that you would be behind bars for a long period of time therefore our crime rates for the more severe crimes would decrease. Thunder456
After reading this article, I believe that we can reduce the probation and parole probation without endangering the community safety. I agree with the article that our system is not just poor but insufficient of resources and funding. If we have more funding and resources, we should use it to make programs and organizations to help those probationers especially the neediest. The fact that Harvard University thinks that we can slash the probation supervision by fifty percent over the next decade would be terrific. If this happens it will be amazing for a reason that fewer people will go to jail and prison and it may result to steadily decrease of incarceration population. One thing I know is that it could happen if we have the right resources, programs, funding’s, and organizations to solve it. Giving certain low-risk probationers help programs other that probation terms might help the state to save funding’s to start a different one and to lessen the jail and prison population. I believe using an electronic monitoring for low-risk probationers and having a check in kiosks rather than meeting their probation officer to report might help to reduce the use of resources that can be used to those high-risk probationers that need supervisions. Based on the article, the five approaches the one I think would work the most is reduced probation terms. By conditional agreement, they can be unsupervised and be monitored using the latest technology like a smartphone app. Attending certain programs that will help them to understand that what they did was wrong and that can result in imprisonment, and by volunteering to help the community. There are many ideas and ways to reduce the number of people on probations and paroles. If the other states make reforms like Arizona and Missouri, we will surely see a decline of jail and prison incarceration in the years to come. -M.Scott456
After I had read this article I thought it was funny that leading community corrections executives, criminologists and advocates all said that the number of Americans on parole or probation can be “significantly” reduced without endangering public safety it shocks me that even professionals are saying people on parole or probation can be reduced but no one is doing anything to truly reduce the amount of people on parole or probation. It was also mentioned but another set of officials that they can reduce the people on probation and parole through sophisticated research and to me all these people say these things but never actually do anything to make their statements true they say they have ways to do these things but can they really execute it? After reading this I am starting to think that the stuff they say is a hoax and they can’t do anything to stop the amount of people on parole or probation from increasing. It is shocking to me that more than four million Americans were serving probation sentences and another 850,000 were under parole supervision in 2014, the last year for which figures were available which leads me to believe no one wants to release the following years because they don’t want the public to know how much worse these numbers got over the years. It is sad that those numbers are nearly three times as many as the number of Americans behind bars. Why do we have this many people in probation or parole shouldn’t we be decreasing the number of people in these situations not doubling or tripling the amount just because we can? Like isn’t it a little annoying having to fill out all the paperwork and everything for parole or probation over something small and not even worth the time it took to print out the papers to sign? CarlBaconWho456
I think the statistics this article showed that the criminal justice system may be misusing probation and parole. It was original designed to ensure the public's safety and people still receive probation for misdemeanors. I think if it isn't a violent crime then it shouldn't be something they should be placed under supervision for. I think its crazy how people get put under supervision for such minor of an offense, when all sexual offenders have to do is keep reregistering themselves every year. That's something that should automatically be put under supervision. It questions the priority of officials judgement because if you let a sexual offender roam free but require a drug dealer to be under supervision. I'm not saying that drug dealers shouldn't get probation because some are dangerous, as well as drugs, and even selling them. The fact simply is It seems as if the minor infractions get certain people in a lot of trouble. I don't think that's fair, and it only shows that some judges and boards are not doing their job. I'm pretty sure the law says that the punishment should be measured by the extent of the crime, and nowadays that just isn't the case. I also agree with the article that a lot of incarcerations results in revenue but I think we should seek revenue in building productive citizens. Instead of the tax payers money going to the jail, probation, and parole establishments. It can be contributed towards building up youth that may not have resources, and may likely resort to crime. Whether it be mentorships, recreations, or programs that teach skills for everyday living such as budgeting or how to do your own taxes. The youth need to be embraced because they want to go out and do what they want to do so, their more likely to meet up with other youths, and commit crimes without supervision. I find it unbelievable how people judge others nowadays at the end of the day we all have issues and some resort to negative behavior, rather than trying to do something productive. The criminal justice system should look towards making adjustments to this regulations. McBrightyalife456
After reading this article, "the number of Americans on parole or probation can be significantly reduced without endangering the public safety" is absolutely true. We need to find a new system that can be put into place in all states that can help offenders be successful in a community. I believe that if the funding's are there in state/federal which most of the time is 50/50 just depending where you are located at, that the money needs to be implemented into a better system. I believe that we have other options than the one we are working with to help the revolving door issue. When someone is released from their time being served they are usually given some type of money which isn't a lot, clothes that the came into the system with which can be compared to almost nothing depending if seasons changed while doing time, and sometimes support waiting but that's never promised for some. When someone doesn't have a support system when being released rather its family or programs, they are most likely going to fail and that's where the revolving door keeps getting the opportunity to be there. Instead if we didn't look at people for the crimes the committed and gave everyone a equal opportunity we would have less incarceration rates. unknownzeeha456
I have always felt as if probation was a great alternative for prison. But we can not put everyone who has gotten out of prison on an electronic monitor nor do we want to. Where do we draw that line of someone being on probation and someone not. I believe this question is hard to answer in some aspects. Just think there is a guy who did 30 days in jail for a crime such as having a small amount of marijuana on him. After doing the 30 days in jails do we put him on an electronic monitor, and make him do weekly visits to his probation officer? Or do we keep him off the monitor and make him do monthly visits? It's a hard decision because you have to take into account his crime was not violent or harmful. Do we spend all this money for him to be on an electronic monitor for having a small amount of marijuana on him. Do we make him follow all these rules and regulation for such a small crime. It's said that they are more likely to go back to prison with being on all these guidelines rather than being off. I do believe if they have been in prison for a long time or have committed a violent crime you should be on an electronic monitor. I believe this because they may be more so a treat to the community. Also some prisons do not do a good job of rehabilitating so having them constantly checking in or getting help can significantly help them out in the sense of getting back into the real world. Transitioning from being in prison to coming out to the world where you have to work for what you have may be hard and for some even impossible. But I believe the probation system is there to help with people like this. So yes I believe it can be a good in many cases. But they need to establish when it is needed and when it is not. Latte456
I don’t think offenders should be placed on probation for the minor offenses rather than offenders who commit major offenses. I was surprised to learn that the adult probation population decreased from 68,000 in 1996 to 21,379 in 2014 and the crime rate and jail/prison rate has decreased significantly. I don’t consider people who are placed on probation or parole to be a waste of time but maybe besides being placed on probation to monitor the offenders, maybe give them a few other resources too to help them. I think probation officers should be more engaging and personable with their clients instead of just checking on them once or so a month because this may help decrease them to reoffend again. As of today, I think our justice system is not doing a great job with the prisoners and helping them rehabilitate. If more programs were offered to these offenders than the likely hood of them returning to prison will probably decrease. I completely agree with what was stated in the article regarding probation should be eliminated for low-risk offenders who more than likely will not reoffend because I feel as if it’s just a waste of time when there are real criminals out there who need more help and such. I don’t think probation will have a huge effect on the offender unless there are more options available and the probation officers are more engaging with their clients rather than just “checking” on them. Offenders are more than likely to relapse into their habits and are sent back to jail or prison where it’s a continuing cycle and no change. -PizzaLover456
“More than four million Americans were serving probation sentences and another 850,000 were under parole sentences in 2014.” Let that sink in for a second and think of what kind of crimes did they commit. I personally feel like if you are on probation or parole, you should be able to get your time spent on parole or probation should get reduced if you are being good and following all orders given. I tend to think that they are just throwing people on probation and parole due to overcrowding. They could reduce the probation and parole statistics by doing supervised visits every so often. Even though the crime they committed might not be as bad as others, but the ones whose crimes are not as serve will think that they could commit an even worse crime and most likely serve a tad bit of time and or maybe get placed on probation or parole. I totally agree with the article when it said, “the number of Americans on parole or probation can be significantly reduced without endangering the public safety.” The states could put up a building where they aren’t locked up and have them do programs for a couple weeks and once they see a change in who they are; then you can let them back out into the world. I think every person who has served their time, when they get out should have some sort of help so they are less likely to come back. If there are more programs for everyone who has committed a crime, I can almost guarantee that rates will go down. They need to come up with what types of crimes people do, if they will get put on probation or not. -Bears456
In this article there are different things that can be argue with and against. I personally believe people shouldn't get probation for non serious crimes. I do agree with the opening of the article when they stated “number of Americans on parole or probation can be significantly reduced without endangering public safety”. Which is a true statement because if we stop putting people in jail for petty crimes the numbers wouldn’t be so high. Another thing is , it’s not fair that if the people who cannot meet their “community supervision” have to go through that cycle again with probation and incarceration. To me that’s not fair we need to use the resources the right way and get help for those who need it so they won’t have to go through that cycle again. I believe that the ones who commits the more serious crimes needs to be monitored and under supervision. The reason I say this because everyone deserves a another chance unless they continue to repeatedly do the same crime then they don’t. But , we need to use our resources to build an organizations to rehabilitate the ones who really need it the most to help them not fall in that cycle again. To conclude there are many different lessons that is stated which we should do something about. The criminal justice system should look at making changes and stop incarcerating people for petty crimes and try to help them make a differences to the society. savage456
After reading this article I definitely saw both sides and understood each side on different things. I first understand why parole and probation are necessary and very helpful. Prisoners and inmates that committed serious crimes deserve the time they are first sentenced but if they do rehabilitate correctly and with prisons becoming overcapacity I understand if they are granted parole for good behavior. I believe that if someone is being monitored they will do the correct day to day things in order to fit back into society and for doing a serious crime they should be pretty much babysat in order to ensure to the community the inmate would not be going back to jail while under watch. Now I understand and read the article and know that there are a lot of people on probation for a lot of petty crime and yes one side of me is like probation means no jail time so they still committed a crime and need to be punished but some terms of probation would seem unfair to someone who only committed a petty crime because they lose a lot of freedom. So I believe that if someone committed a petty crime and they are granted probation the guidelines should be reduced so they still have some of their freedom unlike someone who commits a serious crime. Putting someone on probation for a petty crime and not lower some of the guidelines would be very unfair and the person could actually escalate because they feel as if they are not free already. swaggyy456
I agree with everything in this article. I am a big believer in always finding better ways of doing things and this article is finding better ways to deal with probationers. It's also good that the problem of these over the top probation demands for people is being addressed. The whole point of probation is to get people out of prison and help them get a life out of prison started again. This revolving door of people who can't meet probation requirements and end up going back to prison is very counter productive and it's nice that we are dealing with the problem. I just hope that these potential changes to probation can show that everything within corrections can be improved upon so that people can stop spending so much time in prison or on probation. -CoffeeAddict
Jails and Prisons love money, They are over full because those who are being paroled will be sent back into the system due to the lack of rehabilitation for drug offenses. those who are on probation is because someone decided to steel a candy bar from a gas station. Just a light example. The prisons will offer parole to a sex offender who is supposed to spend 11 yrs in prison but gets out in five for good behavior. Meanwhile someone busted for some dope gets the same time and has to spend the full amount of time in prison instead of being in rehab. Personally that is backwards. Probation is a slap on the wrist, Don't do it again " oh you stole someones Tv? Here is three months house arrest. If you mess up will extend it and you might spend some time in jail. We need to punish the more serious crimes such as rape, child molestation, murder arson etc. They should spend the full amount of time in jail instead of getting out early. Those who are busted for some drugs need rehab not prison. Why, because drugs come in prisons all the time and they don't have a chance to get the help they need. ~myhearseisnotafuneralcar~
After reading this article, I came to the conclusion that if we stop placing people on probation for minor or small crimes then that can can cause a reduction the the probation rates. Also we should come up with other resources for these offenders to help them other than probation. I think that certain organizations should be created to help with rehabilitation of offenders then that can cut back on the parole and probation. I'm not saying to get rid of the parole and probation but make alternatives because not everyone can be placed on probation. This article has opened my eyes to how badly the US misuses the probation system. TJGirl456
This article definitely helps it's readers see each side of this argument. I really believe that probation is almost necessary in the criminal justice system because it does somewhat help rehabilitate people who are now our of jail. It's almost like an incentive to keep out of trouble but I think there are a lot of people on probation who really don't need to be. The article states that forty two percent of people on probation were under supervision for misdemeanor infractions, do you honestly think that someone who just spent jail time on a misdemeanor is going to need to be supervised and under all types of crazy restrictions? No. I can 100% see why felons should be on probation. Four million people are serving probation sentences in America, about half the states in our country don't even have four million people in them. I was honestly shocked to see how many people were on probation, never would I have ever guessed it'd be that high. I'm sure most of the people on probation are on there for drugs, I've always been a strong believer in people who get caught in possession of drugs need rehab, not prison. In prison they're only going to learn how to get a hold of and make drugs. I think our criminal justice system needs to work on changing the regulations of probation along with changing who goes on probation
This article has shown good important details to each side good and bad. It really helps the people reading it understand where each point is coming from. In my opinion I believe probation is very needed in our criminal justice system today it is a way for offenders to be on a leash in a way to be watched and monitored at all times. They are lucky to have this system because it keeps some offenders from going back to jail or prison because they get in the habit of an officer coming to be drug tested. It is also important because this article states that very minor crimes have high probation laws which should be the other way around for violent crimes in a way but other people to think of it as a minor crime if you crack down early then you wont have to worry about the results because they wont want to experience it again. I believe this system could work for offenders so they don't come back because who wants more and more people to come back to jail or prison. I see that felonies should be on probation because it is a more serious crime but misdemeanors shouldn't be as strict.
I am very mixed about the facts and points that were made in this article. I think probation is a great alternative, because not all of the people that are incarcerated are hard criminals. Incarceration turns a non violent drug offender, say a guy who likes to smoke weed, into a criminal. It's ridiculous how we are locking up people like dogs for something as stupid as weed. Probation is just going to steer them back onto the right path, say sobriety while they are serving their probation period. It's not going to make them go broke and become a crook or get them involved with the wrong people like being locked up would or could. I do think that parole is a good plan as well, as we spend entirely too much money on locking people up when they are no threat to society. One of our biggest issues in corrections are drug offenders wasting time on parole, probation, or incarceration. We need to filter less money into the corrections side, and focus on rehabilitation. I don't think our correction system is a failure, I just think we need to reevaluate it every so often to make sure the itentions are being made how they need to be. LowAndSlow456
Personally I can see both sides of this argument, the fact that there are so many people on probation for things that are so minor and petty does not help the criminal situation in any form. I agree with the article in it saying that we need to lower the guide lines on which probation is used and what some of the terms are for people that are put onto probation. You take a person that has just got out of jail after 90 days and has no support system to help him. Hes placed on probation and told that he has certain guide lines that he must follow and task to do while on probation. This person has no means of transport no money to use public transport and no real place to stay currently with in the first couple of month the likely hood of this person going back to jail for basically nothing. This is not a solution it is a problem. On the other side of this I understand were parole or probation is necessary. You have prisoners or inmates that have committed violent or more serious crimes and these individuals need to be supervised and monitored to assure that they really have been rehabilitated into society. The statement made in the article about the founding also makes since in the fact that if you only have to monitor and support a fraction of the people on parole or probation then the money that is received will go farther to help those that really need it verses spending the same or slightly more on almost triple the population amount. Also, something that the article did not mention is the fact that it can also help the indirectly with taxes and state revenue. It can doe this because while incarcerated taxes payers help to fund the inmates and prisons if there are less revolving prisoners on prole or probation then the states revenue does not have to continue to rely on higher taxes to help support those people that may not actually require prole or probation.
ReplyDeleteCountry456
I think that the first sentence of this article is completely true. I believe that the incarceration population can be drastically reduced without endangering everyone else. I think that it is interesting that Harvard reported that they think they could cut the number of people controlled under probation in half in the next decade. The fact that if probation would be cut in half it could impoverish Americans tells me how much we are dependant on the incarceration population and the money that it brings in. I agree with the article that the system we have in place is very poor and do agree that it produces a cycle with incarceration. Many cities have their crime rate decreasing, but a heavy incarcerated population which doesn’t make sense. How could that even happen is what I find myself asking the most. I feel like the five approaches that the report took were fairly solid. The one I think would work the best is evidence based practice requirements. If there was more evidence within these cases wrongful convictions could be lessened which could lead to the population being lowered. Obviously reducing the probation terms could definitely affect the population and how it grows. Graduated response for violations could deter many people from reoffending. The fact that in 2012 two states experimented with this idea and saw a twenty percent decrease blows my mind. If all of the states could adopt this the incarceration population would be diminished in a span of a decade or two. Many lessons and ideas can be learned from this article if there was more research done on ways to control the population of incarcerated people I think we would see a bigger impact on the population as a whole.
ReplyDeleteNightTrain456
After reading this article it is clear that if states would just allow for some people to not have to be put on probation for very little crimes then maybe they would easily reduce the probation population. If we use the resources from less needy probationers on the ones who may actually need those, then we would be able to have certain organizations set up for them. If we start worrying about the ones who do not need to be looked after or who need to be checked on, then the ones who will need to be monitored every day might not be getting watched and may try to do something dumb to land them in prison. If we are able to slash the probation population by fifty percent then I think we may have less people going to jail and prison, then those populations will hopefully start to steadily decrease. If we set up programs for certain probationers to try and get help then that would also be something that may help the prison population go down, which in turn would start to save the state more money and that could help make more better programs for these people. If we start having low risk probationers wear ankle bracelets and have check in areas, then these people may be able to still work and not have to quit a job or leave early to meet with their probation officer. I feel that giving the low risk probationers more rights and more freedom would make the high risk ones think about what they have done and what they could do to try and get the same freedom. This may deter them from doing worse crimes and may make them think about the crime and what the consequences that go with the crime.
ReplyDeleteIllini456
After reading this article, I do believe that the number of people on probation and parole can be reduced by a good amount without harming the safety of our public. I would first look at those on probation and then move to the parolees. I say this because those on probation have generally committed a less severe crime than those on parole. I do agree that there could be a reduction in the length of probation depending on the crime committed. Like the 30 for 30 stated in the article, I think people would be less likely to commit another crime knowing that their probation was being reduced on a day for day type basis. Putting people on probation for minimal misdemeanor crimes for several years really doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me as we are using resources that are short staffed to begin with on minimal risk cases when they could be spending more time with the higher risk cases. We should focus more on putting people that have done more serious crimes, or have committed multiple crimes (repeat offenders) on probation or parole. By putting the people that have committed small offences on parole or probation is causing an increase in our incarceration rates. If these people are caught for the slightest thing wile on probation or parole they are then sent right back behind bars of our already over populated jails and prisons again. But, on the other side by not punishing those people that have committed small crimes and broke their probation or parole could potentially raise the crime rates as they may think that nothing is going to be done about it so why not. However, I think by being on probation or parole would detour some people from committing more severe crimes that you would be behind bars for a long period of time therefore our crime rates for the more severe crimes would decrease.
ReplyDeleteThunder456
After reading this article, I believe that we can reduce the probation and parole probation without endangering the community safety. I agree with the article that our system is not just poor but insufficient of resources and funding. If we have more funding and resources, we should use it to make programs and organizations to help those probationers especially the neediest. The fact that Harvard University thinks that we can slash the probation supervision by fifty percent over the next decade would be terrific. If this happens it will be amazing for a reason that fewer people will go to jail and prison and it may result to steadily decrease of incarceration population. One thing I know is that it could happen if we have the right resources, programs, funding’s, and organizations to solve it. Giving certain low-risk probationers help programs other that probation terms might help the state to save funding’s to start a different one and to lessen the jail and prison population. I believe using an electronic monitoring for low-risk probationers and having a check in kiosks rather than meeting their probation officer to report might help to reduce the use of resources that can be used to those high-risk probationers that need supervisions. Based on the article, the five approaches the one I think would work the most is reduced probation terms. By conditional agreement, they can be unsupervised and be monitored using the latest technology like a smartphone app. Attending certain programs that will help them to understand that what they did was wrong and that can result in imprisonment, and by volunteering to help the community. There are many ideas and ways to reduce the number of people on probations and paroles. If the other states make reforms like Arizona and Missouri, we will surely see a decline of jail and prison incarceration in the years to come. -M.Scott456
ReplyDeleteAfter I had read this article I thought it was funny that leading community corrections executives, criminologists and advocates all said that the number of Americans on parole or probation can be “significantly” reduced without endangering public safety it shocks me that even professionals are saying people on parole or probation can be reduced but no one is doing anything to truly reduce the amount of people on parole or probation. It was also mentioned but another set of officials that they can reduce the people on probation and parole through sophisticated research and to me all these people say these things but never actually do anything to make their statements true they say they have ways to do these things but can they really execute it? After reading this I am starting to think that the stuff they say is a hoax and they can’t do anything to stop the amount of people on parole or probation from increasing. It is shocking to me that more than four million Americans were serving probation sentences and another 850,000 were under parole supervision in 2014, the last year for which figures were available which leads me to believe no one wants to release the following years because they don’t want the public to know how much worse these numbers got over the years. It is sad that those numbers are nearly three times as many as the number of Americans behind bars. Why do we have this many people in probation or parole shouldn’t we be decreasing the number of people in these situations not doubling or tripling the amount just because we can? Like isn’t it a little annoying having to fill out all the paperwork and everything for parole or probation over something small and not even worth the time it took to print out the papers to sign?
ReplyDeleteCarlBaconWho456
I think the statistics this article showed that the criminal justice system may be misusing probation and parole. It was original designed to ensure the public's safety and people still receive probation for misdemeanors. I think if it isn't a violent crime then it shouldn't be something they should be placed under supervision for. I think its crazy how people get put under supervision for such minor of an offense, when all sexual offenders have to do is keep reregistering themselves every year. That's something that should automatically be put under supervision. It questions the priority of officials judgement because if you let a sexual offender roam free but require a drug dealer to be under supervision. I'm not saying that drug dealers shouldn't get probation because some are dangerous, as well as drugs, and even selling them. The fact simply is It seems as if the minor infractions get certain people in a lot of trouble. I don't think that's fair, and it only shows that some judges and boards are not doing their job. I'm pretty sure the law says that the punishment should be measured by the extent of the crime, and nowadays that just isn't the case. I also agree with the article that a lot of incarcerations results in revenue but I think we should seek revenue in building productive citizens. Instead of the tax payers money going to the jail, probation, and parole establishments. It can be contributed towards building up youth that may not have resources, and may likely resort to crime. Whether it be mentorships, recreations, or programs that teach skills for everyday living such as budgeting or how to do your own taxes. The youth need to be embraced because they want to go out and do what they want to do so, their more likely to meet up with other youths, and commit crimes without supervision. I find it unbelievable how people judge others nowadays at the end of the day we all have issues and some resort to negative behavior, rather than trying to do something productive. The criminal justice system should look towards making adjustments to this regulations. McBrightyalife456
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article, "the number of Americans on parole or probation can be significantly reduced without endangering the public safety" is absolutely true. We need to find a new system that can be put into place in all states that can help offenders be successful in a community. I believe that if the funding's are there in state/federal which most of the time is 50/50 just depending where you are located at, that the money needs to be implemented into a better system. I believe that we have other options than the one we are working with to help the revolving door issue. When someone is released from their time being served they are usually given some type of money which isn't a lot, clothes that the came into the system with which can be compared to almost nothing depending if seasons changed while doing time, and sometimes support waiting but that's never promised for some. When someone doesn't have a support system when being released rather its family or programs, they are most likely going to fail and that's where the revolving door keeps getting the opportunity to be there. Instead if we didn't look at people for the crimes the committed and gave everyone a equal opportunity we would have less incarceration rates.
ReplyDeleteunknownzeeha456
I have always felt as if probation was a great alternative for prison. But we can not put everyone who has gotten out of prison on an electronic monitor nor do we want to. Where do we draw that line of someone being on probation and someone not. I believe this question is hard to answer in some aspects. Just think there is a guy who did 30 days in jail for a crime such as having a small amount of marijuana on him. After doing the 30 days in jails do we put him on an electronic monitor, and make him do weekly visits to his probation officer? Or do we keep him off the monitor and make him do monthly visits? It's a hard decision because you have to take into account his crime was not violent or harmful. Do we spend all this money for him to be on an electronic monitor for having a small amount of marijuana on him. Do we make him follow all these rules and regulation for such a small crime. It's said that they are more likely to go back to prison with being on all these guidelines rather than being off. I do believe if they have been in prison for a long time or have committed a violent crime you should be on an electronic monitor. I believe this because they may be more so a treat to the community. Also some prisons do not do a good job of rehabilitating so having them constantly checking in or getting help can significantly help them out in the sense of getting back into the real world. Transitioning from being in prison to coming out to the world where you have to work for what you have may be hard and for some even impossible. But I believe the probation system is there to help with people like this. So yes I believe it can be a good in many cases. But they need to establish when it is needed and when it is not. Latte456
ReplyDeleteI don’t think offenders should be placed on probation for the minor offenses rather than offenders who commit major offenses. I was surprised to learn that the adult probation population decreased from 68,000 in 1996 to 21,379 in 2014 and the crime rate and jail/prison rate has decreased significantly. I don’t consider people who are placed on probation or parole to be a waste of time but maybe besides being placed on probation to monitor the offenders, maybe give them a few other resources too to help them. I think probation officers should be more engaging and personable with their clients instead of just checking on them once or so a month because this may help decrease them to reoffend again. As of today, I think our justice system is not doing a great job with the prisoners and helping them rehabilitate. If more programs were offered to these offenders than the likely hood of them returning to prison will probably decrease. I completely agree with what was stated in the article regarding probation should be eliminated for low-risk offenders who more than likely will not reoffend because I feel as if it’s just a waste of time when there are real criminals out there who need more help and such. I don’t think probation will have a huge effect on the offender unless there are more options available and the probation officers are more engaging with their clients rather than just “checking” on them. Offenders are more than likely to relapse into their habits and are sent back to jail or prison where it’s a continuing cycle and no change.
ReplyDelete-PizzaLover456
“More than four million Americans were serving probation sentences and another 850,000 were under parole sentences in 2014.” Let that sink in for a second and think of what kind of crimes did they commit. I personally feel like if you are on probation or parole, you should be able to get your time spent on parole or probation should get reduced if you are being good and following all orders given. I tend to think that they are just throwing people on probation and parole due to overcrowding. They could reduce the probation and parole statistics by doing supervised visits every so often. Even though the crime they committed might not be as bad as others, but the ones whose crimes are not as serve will think that they could commit an even worse crime and most likely serve a tad bit of time and or maybe get placed on probation or parole. I totally agree with the article when it said, “the number of Americans on parole or probation can be significantly reduced without endangering the public safety.” The states could put up a building where they aren’t locked up and have them do programs for a couple weeks and once they see a change in who they are; then you can let them back out into the world. I think every person who has served their time, when they get out should have some sort of help so they are less likely to come back. If there are more programs for everyone who has committed a crime, I can almost guarantee that rates will go down. They need to come up with what types of crimes people do, if they will get put on probation or not. -Bears456
ReplyDeleteIn this article there are different things that can be argue with and against. I personally believe people shouldn't get probation for non serious crimes. I do agree with the opening of the article when they stated “number of Americans on parole or probation can be significantly reduced without endangering public safety”. Which is a true statement because if we stop putting people in jail for petty crimes the numbers wouldn’t be so high. Another thing is , it’s not fair that if the people who cannot meet their “community supervision” have to go through that cycle again with probation and incarceration. To me that’s not fair we need to use the resources the right way and get help for those who need it so they won’t have to go through that cycle again. I believe that the ones who commits the more serious crimes needs to be monitored and under supervision. The reason I say this because everyone deserves a another chance unless they continue to repeatedly do the same crime then they don’t. But , we need to use our resources to build an organizations to rehabilitate the ones who really need it the most to help them not fall in that cycle again. To conclude there are many different lessons that is stated which we should do something about. The criminal justice system should look at making changes and stop incarcerating people for petty crimes and try to help them make a differences to the society. savage456
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article I definitely saw both sides and understood each side on different things. I first understand why parole and probation are necessary and very helpful. Prisoners and inmates that committed serious crimes deserve the time they are first sentenced but if they do rehabilitate correctly and with prisons becoming overcapacity I understand if they are granted parole for good behavior. I believe that if someone is being monitored they will do the correct day to day things in order to fit back into society and for doing a serious crime they should be pretty much babysat in order to ensure to the community the inmate would not be going back to jail while under watch. Now I understand and read the article and know that there are a lot of people on probation for a lot of petty crime and yes one side of me is like probation means no jail time so they still committed a crime and need to be punished but some terms of probation would seem unfair to someone who only committed a petty crime because they lose a lot of freedom. So I believe that if someone committed a petty crime and they are granted probation the guidelines should be reduced so they still have some of their freedom unlike someone who commits a serious crime. Putting someone on probation for a petty crime and not lower some of the guidelines would be very unfair and the person could actually escalate because they feel as if they are not free already.
ReplyDeleteswaggyy456
I agree with everything in this article. I am a big believer in always finding better ways of doing things and this article is finding better ways to deal with probationers. It's also good that the problem of these over the top probation demands for people is being addressed. The whole point of probation is to get people out of prison and help them get a life out of prison started again. This revolving door of people who can't meet probation requirements and end up going back to prison is very counter productive and it's nice that we are dealing with the problem. I just hope that these potential changes to probation can show that everything within corrections can be improved upon so that people can stop spending so much time in prison or on probation.
ReplyDelete-CoffeeAddict
Jails and Prisons love money, They are over full because those who are being paroled will be sent back into the system due to the lack of rehabilitation for drug offenses. those who are on probation is because someone decided to steel a candy bar from a gas station. Just a light example. The prisons will offer parole to a sex offender who is supposed to spend 11 yrs in prison but gets out in five for good behavior. Meanwhile someone busted for some dope gets the same time and has to spend the full amount of time in prison instead of being in rehab. Personally that is backwards. Probation is a slap on the wrist, Don't do it again " oh you stole someones Tv? Here is three months house arrest. If you mess up will extend it and you might spend some time in jail. We need to punish the more serious crimes such as rape, child molestation, murder arson etc. They should spend the full amount of time in jail instead of getting out early. Those who are busted for some drugs need rehab not prison. Why, because drugs come in prisons all the time and they don't have a chance to get the help they need. ~myhearseisnotafuneralcar~
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article, I came to the conclusion that if we stop placing people on probation for minor or small crimes then that can can cause a reduction the the probation rates. Also we should come up with other resources for these offenders to help them other than probation. I think that certain organizations should be created to help with rehabilitation of offenders then that can cut back on the parole and probation. I'm not saying to get rid of the parole and probation but make alternatives because not everyone can be placed on probation. This article has opened my eyes to how badly the US misuses the probation system.
ReplyDeleteTJGirl456
This article definitely helps it's readers see each side of this argument. I really believe that probation is almost necessary in the criminal justice system because it does somewhat help rehabilitate people who are now our of jail. It's almost like an incentive to keep out of trouble but I think there are a lot of people on probation who really don't need to be. The article states that forty two percent of people on probation were under supervision for misdemeanor infractions, do you honestly think that someone who just spent jail time on a misdemeanor is going to need to be supervised and under all types of crazy restrictions? No. I can 100% see why felons should be on probation. Four million people are serving probation sentences in America, about half the states in our country don't even have four million people in them. I was honestly shocked to see how many people were on probation, never would I have ever guessed it'd be that high. I'm sure most of the people on probation are on there for drugs, I've always been a strong believer in people who get caught in possession of drugs need rehab, not prison. In prison they're only going to learn how to get a hold of and make drugs. I think our criminal justice system needs to work on changing the regulations of probation along with changing who goes on probation
ReplyDeleteXielxs456
This article has shown good important details to each side good and bad. It really helps the people reading it understand where each point is coming from. In my opinion I believe probation is very needed in our criminal justice system today it is a way for offenders to be on a leash in a way to be watched and monitored at all times. They are lucky to have this system because it keeps some offenders from going back to jail or prison because they get in the habit of an officer coming to be drug tested. It is also important because this article states that very minor crimes have high probation laws which should be the other way around for violent crimes in a way but other people to think of it as a minor crime if you crack down early then you wont have to worry about the results because they wont want to experience it again. I believe this system could work for offenders so they don't come back because who wants more and more people to come back to jail or prison. I see that felonies should be on probation because it is a more serious crime but misdemeanors shouldn't be as strict.
ReplyDeleteshark456
I am very mixed about the facts and points that were made in this article. I think probation is a great alternative, because not all of the people that are incarcerated are hard criminals. Incarceration turns a non violent drug offender, say a guy who likes to smoke weed, into a criminal. It's ridiculous how we are locking up people like dogs for something as stupid as weed. Probation is just going to steer them back onto the right path, say sobriety while they are serving their probation period. It's not going to make them go broke and become a crook or get them involved with the wrong people like being locked up would or could. I do think that parole is a good plan as well, as we spend entirely too much money on locking people up when they are no threat to society. One of our biggest issues in corrections are drug offenders wasting time on parole, probation, or incarceration. We need to filter less money into the corrections side, and focus on rehabilitation. I don't think our correction system is a failure, I just think we need to reevaluate it every so often to make sure the itentions are being made how they need to be.
ReplyDeleteLowAndSlow456