After reading the article and seeing that four million people were serving some sort of probation sentence is outrageous. I know that probation is better than prison or jail, or we may think that it is at least better in some sort of way. Also seeing that of those four million over forty percent were under supervision for some sort of misdemeanor infraction is absurd. The only reason that we are putting so many people on probation is because it is a money maker. I think that there are far more better ways to make money than to make someone pay to be supervised for an act that may not deserved to be supervised. If we start to put people under supervision for some act that may only need to be punished by a fine, then everyone will start to not trust our criminal justice system and not have faith in our country. I believe that probation is better because we are still letting people go to jobs and make money and we are letting them be with their family and take care of them. We can also allow them to go to school and get the essential skills needed for a certain job or get a degree to get a higher paying job. If we start limiting who we put on probation and only keep it to the ones who really deserve it such as high risk offenders then maybe we can have people start trusting our criminal justice system. When reading about New York’s successful ways of reducing probation population we need to start following because as a society if they reduced the population by almost seventy percent we need to look at this and follow to get ours down to almost two and a half million which would be about the same number of people who are incarcerated. Illini456
I agree with your stance the main reason we've even created a justice system is to reduce crime, but somewhere in this drive to bring justice. People who have power have allowed money to control their integrity and decisions. I feel like in this aspect of Criminal Justice the system as become a bully and is over abusing the powers it has been given. As you said it is ridiculous because they are so obsessed with money that they've allowed it to show in incarceration, probation, and parole rates. I think it is crazy because there will always be people who will break the law, and choose to do their own thing. So it's not like law enforcement will ever run out of a job or things to do. The people in these career fields as the person in the other article said are definitely creating a way to secure their jobs and in my eyes it is another form of slavery. McBrightyalife456
Once I read this article I thought that we could possibly decrease the people in probation and on parole but do we honestly think we can do this? Like I understand research can support this and get it done but we have been able to prove research wrong before. The ways they want to try and decrease the numbers could simply cause a bigger problem for the whole U.S. if we simply just dump money into our prisons and pray the money can solve all the issues then we must realize we need to have professionals there to fix these issues of so many people on probation and on parole. We need to simply realize why everyone is in these situations and fix it that way not just waste more money on prisons to hopefully fix our issues. Money could be a key factor in this but truly we need to just realize that like marijuana is not a super big issue today but other drugs are so all the people getting in trouble for smoking weed is most of the people on probation today. I understand it’s a gateway drug but really that’s all it is and not very many people will do other drugs after smoking weed they usually just stick to getting high from weed or start smoking it different ways to get high. If we start by seeing that marijuana is not a major issue to society and doesn’t cause huge issues it is the other drugs we need to worry about then maybe the amount of people in probation or parole will decrease and so will our prison population. We need to stop wasting money and time on stupid crimes that aren’t serious and worry about stuff that matters and maybe we won’t need to dump more money into these programs and we can use what we already have once the dumb offences are no longer there. So rather than wasting our time and money on trying to just have more room in these programs why don’t we eliminate some of the people in the programs and there want be such a huge issue with money. CarlBaconWho456
Yes I agree it would be hard to actually decrease the population and just because one area has seen a decrease does not mean that same type of result will be the same everywhere. We do need to start thinking of better ways to get the population down. We need to start letting people who may not have done anything horrible off with a fine if this was there first time, then we should think about probation on maybe their second or third time of arrest. If we start putting people on probation and not sending them to get treated for lets say an alcohol addiction, then they will just keep going back into the system and the cycle will just start over. Illini456
I agree with your post a lot and also the comment underneath because the population is going through the roof in multiple aspects such as jail/prison and probation. Learning that 4 million people are on probation shocks me because just imagining even half those people in jail or prison with them already overpopulating is a lot to process because it is like how do you get the rates to decrease. I agree with Illini456 with something new to be thought of because for some misdemeanors on their first offense they should only get a fine and if they do it again then probation. swaggyy456
I think that the research's suggestion isn't meant to be a permanent solution, but only a temporary one to prolong our deadline for ultimately resolving the situation. Cutting low-end offenders out of probation and/or parole would lower our populations in those two areas, however, these low-end offenders generally tend to be drug-offenders or people with mental disorders who's actions interfere with society. Cutting these types of offenders out will only deny them access to proper treatment and rehabilitation. The research is prioritizing the treatment of violent offenders and other serious criminals because they're more detrimental to society than drug-users. We only have so many resources in these areas compared to the number of offenders in probation and parole. If we decrease the number of people in these areas, we increase the amount of services that the individual offender has. The long term solution is to reform the system by making services more efficient and effective as well as increasing funding for said services. -TheTurk456
The first sentence of this article really drew my attention in. “The number of Americans on parole or probation can be “significantly” reduced without endangering public safety, a coalition of the country’s leading community corrections executives, criminologists and advocates said” the reason that this drew me into the article was what is going to make the money for the justice system if they reduce probation and parole. We learned in class that probation brings in the most money for the justice system, though reducing the funding of probation and parole will open up funding for the many other aspects within the justice system. One very interesting idea in this article was the electronic kiosks where probationers would check into instead of going into a probation officer’s office for meetings, this would free up more time for the probationer and the probation officer. The researchers suggested numbers of steps jurisdictions could take to reduce the number of probationers under community supervision and those steps that they laid out were street level diversion programs by police, “light touch” alternatives to formal probation and legislation to reduce probation terms and allow for early discharge. To me the most affect of those three choices would be the street level diversion programs conducted by police. I think if the police diverted them from the street then they wouldn't be very likely to offend again and end up back in jail or prison. This whole report was very interesting to me, but what I thought was the most interesting was the five approaches they would use to reduce populations under community supervision. As stated in the article they would use “earned compliance credits, reduced probation terms, evidence-based practice requirements, graduated responses for violations, and limits on revocation sentences.” The most effective of those five options to me would be graduated responses for violating probation. This would deter probationers from violating and would keep them on a straight path in my opinion. NightTrain456
I cannot agree more with what you are saying. I feel as if our country doesn't change the way they are doing parole and probation, how are the numbers going to drop. But, why would they? It's much like private prisons, it's a buisness built to make money. Instead of worrying about bettering individuals, we are focused on making money off of them doing bad and continuing to rearrest people for things that aren't hurting anyone else. I hope to see Illinois begin to make a change, as graduated responses is a much more intelligent answer than just locking them up for every little infraction. LowAndSlow456
The numbers on probation and parole speak for themselves: 4 million people on probation, 850,000 on parole. I’ll profess to being extremely skeptical on the issue of probation, especially in the modern day. The more I hear about it, the more it seems like a way of fleecing the perpetrators of minor crimes, to their detriment, and to the perpetuation of the modern justice system’s status quo. If I seem cynical, that would be because I am. The original intent of probation was to reform the most corrigible of the prison population, not to make them a mark in a complicated game of three-card monty.
To diverge momentarily: the major lesson that I took away from How to Win Friends and Influence People, one of the great books on communication was simply this: no man thinks himself a villain. One of the most sensational villains of the Prohibition Era, Francis “Two Gun” Crowley, during his climactic shootout with police wrote the following lines in what he presumed to be his last letter: “Under my coat is a weary heart, but a kind one - one that would do nobody harm.” This, he wrote shortly after gunning down a police officer in cold blood for asking for his license. When even a gangster can profess himself a complete innocent, who among us can deny that we justify to ourselves more than we ought? By nature, we pursue what we perceive to be our own good, and grant ourselves the largesse to do so. To do otherwise is contrary to natural instincts, and that is why rising above the baser instincts is respected, for we all know that call to sin.
Which is to say, bringing a man out of a self-destructive cycle is no easy task, be it with alcohol, narcotics, or merely a bad pattern of spending habits. These are tasks worth the doing, but I very much doubt the ability of one government employee, no matter how competent, to reform these bad habits in a hundred or more probationers at a time. These reforms require new support systems, encouragement from community, and structure that a probation officer, or even an office of them, cannot provide. These are efforts that are best served by organizations outside of the government, I would opine, that provide structures like Alcoholics Anonymous, churches, or any number of drug programs. Suffice it to say that I’m in favor of reducing the probation population, and redirecting these people to places that will better serve them.
I think the reason that probation and parole were created, contradicts the effects it actually has on individuals who are not placed in incarceration. It also shows that adjustments, and improvements definitely need to made in this specific area. They should make it to the point that non violent offenders cannot be placed on probation or parole, unless special occasions arise. I don't think it is fair to some non violent offenders if they are not deemed as an possible threat to society. When I was in records there was a violent offender who forgot to come in and re register. The lady who registers offenders had the chance to issue an warrant for his arrest due to this cause. Instead she contacted his probation officer, she did this because it was a violation of his probation, and he could be sent back to prison. When she spoke with his probation officer, it turned out that he had recently spoke with his probation officer, and she said the reason he had forgot was because he started a new job with rigors hours. The probation officer stated that she'd contact him immediately so he can come in the next day, and asked the lady to hold off on issuing the warrant. I can only imagine how this would have went for him if he was dealing with two people who didn't really care for him. So I can see how even low risk offenders have a high risk of being sent back to jail. My belief is that judges purposely place low risk offenders on probation, as the article stated to generate more revenue i the justice system. I think this is wrong because I thought the ultimate goal was to deteriorate major violent crimes. It is obvious to see that the system is more worried about money rather than reform. This shows because when the place people on probation for non violent crimes, that reduces the resources available for high-risk offenders who really need it. McBrightyalife456
My thoughts on probation are always mixed because I feel as if it depends more on the individual if probation works for them or not. The restrictions are a lot which kind of helps but at the same time who wants to be supervised 24/7 for months and even years. After reading the article and reading that 4 million people are on probation in the United States which is a lot. I do believe probation is the better option for people who commit petty crimes. Being a probation officer would have to be a stressful job just for the simple fact they have to supervise over 40 people sometimes just for a misdemeanor. Probation is often looked at as a money maker but at the same time this is helping a larger problem of prisons being overpopulated, imagine probation not being a thing and these 4 million people being added to the overpopulation problem. Even though I do believe at times that people with power do take advantage of their money and power and there are some things that cannot be controlled or changed due to that. Probation is a good idea to me because overall the criminal justice system was made to protect people and even selling drugs is hurting the person doing the drug and damaging someone else’s property is hurting the person property that was damaged. All crimes need some kind of punishment in order to make people learn that they cannot do certain things. Probation still allows for people to have jobs and they still get some freedom which is good because for a petty crime that could change them into a worse person and then actually do worse crimes and even allowing the offender to see their loved ones and be around them everyday therefore those people could be used as a support system. Just from a personal experience I had an uncle that was on probation due to him being young and dumb and he was caught selling drugs and he was only 19 and he always said how much he hated it and that he said selling drugs was not worth the hassle of having someone on your back all the time. swaggyy456
I agree with you that it does depends on an individual if the probations work. The reason being is why still give them chances and they still doing the same thing even though it will help the system make money. I also agree with you when you stated that probation is a better option for those who commit petty crimes. I believe the ones who committed the more serious crimes should do the time they deserve. It was crazy how it's more than four million people on probations I believe that number need to be reduced tremendously. Overall you stated some good points in your statementSavage456
I think that the problem with our probation and parole system isn't that we have too many offenders, rather that it's being overwhelmed by the ratio of offenders to available resources, as this article suggests. The most immediate solution is to reduce the amount of low-risk offenders in the system so that there are more resources available per singular offender. However, this isn't going to work in the long term. Just like in the video about the Federal Prison Camp in Alderson, the hands off technique does work, but only briefly. Eventually, society will evolve and offenders will reoffend. In order to properly handle and counsel our mass amounts of offenders, we need to reform the probation and parole system to allow more resources to be available to each individual offender. The current system seems to be too unregulated, a pseudo-wild west of sorts. By creating new and improved standards of treatment and corrections, we'll likely see reduced recidivism rates and, in turn, less crimes being committed. I hear a lot of people saying that the scandinavian economy and correctional design is perfect and why don't the larger countries follow this system. Well, the reason these rehabilitative correctional systems work so well in these countries their ratio of funding/income per offender/citizen is higher than what wr have here in the larger countries. Here, our population is too great for our provided funding. Equalizing that ratio should cause noticeable improvement. Ultimately, though, it would work better if each individual community oversaw their system independent or less dependent of federal oversight. I feel the reason we have such a faulty, almost corrupt correctional system is due to the avid lobbyists that private entities have been placing within the scope of influence of congress. If we had a more independent system run by individual communities in the interest of those communities, I feel like corruption would be much less likely to take hold. Again, this article's plan seems like an easy immediate fix, but in order to permanently solve the situation, more action needs to take place on a larger scale. -TheTurk456
After reading this article It just gave me a lot of thoughts on probation and parole. It was very shocking to know that more than four million Americans were serving probations and another 850,000 were under parole supervision in 2014. These numbers is outrageous because 42% of probationers that were under supervision for misdemeanors infractions. That mean that they was on probation for petty crimes which lead to outrageous numbers. I think that we can try to reduce it but would that actually work? I think those who is on probation or parole have the option to see if this work because it’s up to them to act right. Another thing is we taught that probations helps the system make money but if they plan on doing this they still have other options in the system to make money. Furthermore, the probation officers be have a lot of individuals on their caseloads so the ones with more serious crime should do the time they deserve and the ones who committed petty crimes should be on there to help the back into the community. Overall there were some interesting points made in this report. If the system do decide to reduce the number of Americans on parole or probations without endangering the community, then the criminal justice system should have a good thought process to help this out which will involve more funds. Either way it go the system will still be making money in some type of way and if this the route they going I hope they follow through with their procedures to reduce that outrageous number. Savage456
I think it’s interesting how need for probation has significantly decreased from 1996 to 2014. Those numbers dropped meaningfully. The crime rate has also decreased in a great amount although it may not seem like it from local news outlets. It makes sense that a larger number of people who are incarcerated are suffering from poverty and would probably rather be in prison then be out on the streets. I do think that probation is useless when it comes to low-end offenders or even first-time offenders. The people that need to be put on probation are the ones who are high-risk offenders and the ones committing violent crimes. Inmates who have an addiction need to be more engaged in rehabs and such and not be put on probation. I think the focus needs to be on the individuals who need the most help and the ones that may cause or be a risk to society. I think that might be the biggest fear because of the potential dangers of high-risk offenders may offer. I think the best way to reduce populations under community supervision, as stated by the article are; earned compliance credits, reduced probation terms, evidence-based practice requirements, graduated responses for violations, and limits on revocation sentences. Arizona and Missouri look as if they are the only states trying out this method and in 2012, Missouri’s supervised population decreased by at least 15,000 people. That’s actually incredible and I think Illinois should try a similar method to decrease offenders having to be supervised when in reality most offenders aren’t the real threat and have no need to be controlled. -PizzaLover456
I do agree with what you are saying about the first time and low-end offenders. Yes, I agree that we must focus more on those who committed violent crimes and high-risk offenders than putting all the resources and funding to low-risk offenders. They still need monitoring and help but I believe not as much as the high-risk offenders who I think need the most of the help. One of the best approaches that I would think will work is reduced probation terms especially for those low-risk offenders. I also think if the state of Illinois follows and try the method that the state of Arizona and Missouri are using, we will surely see more decline of incarceration population. -MScott456
I think that it would be great to see probation/parole numbers to keep dropping. Nearly 5 million people were on parole or probation as of 2014. That numbers is insanely high, and I believe it to be one of the reasons mass incarceration is so high. Probation/Parole in today's time seems almost as if a guarantee to fail. Instead of letting people serve time for smoking a little weed and letting them out to do as they want, we hit them with stupid amounts of probation and constantly check up on them. For people who aren't hurting anyone but themselves, we are just arresting the same people over and over for something that's not hurting any of us. 42% of 9 million are on probation for misdemeanor offenses. That blows my mind, as they should have paid a fine and went on with their day. Instead, they're burning money constantly babysitting these people. Probation and parole numbers can drop, but only if we quit bugging the people who are not high risk offenders. Quit worrying about the dopers and worry about the thefts, rapists, and other dogs of the world. MO and AZ stand out to me, as they are trying to reduce this number. If Illinois alone would follow suit, numbers could drop drastically. These numbers are only this high because we choose to leave them as is, instead of looking for answers like we should. LowAndSlow456
After reading this article I thought the facts and statistics were very interesting. Like the rate going down veery rapidly between 96 to 2014 because the crime rates just keep dropping and if that happens not as many people have to go to jail or prison or be on parole or probation. But at a time there were over four million americans on parole and probation now knowing there are 1 billion people in the world to think 4 million have been on probation or parole that really does blow my mind in a sense that almost everyone around be from day to day could've been on it and i would've had no idea. But which that could've been for minor and petty crimes its not always for serious and dangerous crimes but its still blows my mind. But in my opinion I feel like first time or second time offenders shouldn't always have to do parole I feel as if it was minor and they dont do it again it shouldn't be a problem for them not to be on parole. But with probation everyone is going to have a different opinion like it shouldn't be a thing people should just go to prison even if it is minor or serious crimes even should just go to parole or probation but it cant be that way because it would turn people into repeat offenders and the criminal justice system cant have that. Shark456
You made good points in your blog, although there are 7 billion people in the world instead of 1 billion. Also, parole is when you are released out of prison early. You are allowed to leave prison, and serve the rest of your time on parole. That is a totally different thing than probation. You have to be on parole. Rugby_456
After reading this article, it is shocking to me that more than four million Americans were serving probation sentences and additional 850,000 were under parole supervision in 2014. I agree with the article that our system is not just poor but lacking resources and funding. If we have more funding and resources, we must use it to make plans and programs to help those probationers especially the neediest and I believe that we can reduce the probation and parole probation without endangering the community safety. What interest me is that Harvard University thinks that we can cut the probation supervision by fifty percent over the next decade will be terrific. I believe that we can and if this happens it will be wonderful for a reason that fewer people will go to jail and prison and may result to steadily decrease of incarceration population. One thing I know is that it can happen if we have the right plans, resources, programs, and funding’s 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 program and to lessen down the jail and prison population. I believe using an electronic monitoring for low-risk probationers and having a check-in area or kiosk rather than meeting their probation officer to report might help to cut the use of resources that can be used to those high-risk probationers that need more supervisions. On the five approaches, I believe would work the most is by reducing probation terms. Using conditional agreement, they can be monitored using the latest technology like a smartphone app. Attending some 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. Like Arizona and Missouri, if other states follow them and make reforms we will surely see a decline of incarceration in jails and prisons. In all, I believe that there is a lot way to reduce the number of people on probations and paroles. -MScott456
Before this article I had already formed an opinion towards probation. I believe that probation is a good thing to put people on, although I don't believe that low offenders should have a long sentence, and such strict rules put on them. There are a total of nearly 4 million americans that have probation sentences as of 2014,and 850,000 individuals that are have parole supervision. That is nearly two times of a larger population than people incarcerated. Although I believe people have made mistakes, they are often petty mistakes. 42% probationers are sentenced because of misdemeanor infractions. The low offenders should be looked at more closely, and not just put them on probation because it is a money getter. I believe there is a way to reduce probation, we just need to treat the individuals as people first, and not as monety,. Rugby_456
Only if we lived in a perfect world. we wouldn't have to worry about probation or prison. but sadly that's not the case. we at trying to reduce incarceration in prison and those who are on parole. Why imprison someone for weed or let alone put them on parole for it? Just fine them. the state would make more money that way instead of throwing them behind bars and the government paying for. certain offenders need to be put away without the chance of parole. those would be your murderers and rapists. but yet we give a sex offender the chance of parole then let them out. I hate to say it but my father would be better off in prison or six feet under. along with those who kill for the fun of it. These numbers would be less if we followed through with the death penalty. Every thing needs to be looked at case by case. because their are sex offenders who shouldn't be sex offenders and murders who were either defending themselves or their homes. ~MYHEARSEISNOTAFUNERALCAR456
I think because jails are over full its going to be hard to decrease probation/parole. What would we do with the extra people walking around free of their crime? Probation/Parole is just extra supervision for the criminals of smaller crimes. Our murders, rapist, serial killers will have never probably even heard the word. You still find lots of restrictions either way. You have very little rights while having to report in to the law. Parole needs to say around for sure. Probation is going to be trying to have to decrease it. These drug offenders see probation quick. One day things may decrease somewhat in parole/probation. -Detective Stabler
After reading the article and seeing that four million people were serving some sort of probation sentence is outrageous. I know that probation is better than prison or jail, or we may think that it is at least better in some sort of way. Also seeing that of those four million over forty percent were under supervision for some sort of misdemeanor infraction is absurd. The only reason that we are putting so many people on probation is because it is a money maker. I think that there are far more better ways to make money than to make someone pay to be supervised for an act that may not deserved to be supervised. If we start to put people under supervision for some act that may only need to be punished by a fine, then everyone will start to not trust our criminal justice system and not have faith in our country. I believe that probation is better because we are still letting people go to jobs and make money and we are letting them be with their family and take care of them. We can also allow them to go to school and get the essential skills needed for a certain job or get a degree to get a higher paying job. If we start limiting who we put on probation and only keep it to the ones who really deserve it such as high risk offenders then maybe we can have people start trusting our criminal justice system. When reading about New York’s successful ways of reducing probation population we need to start following because as a society if they reduced the population by almost seventy percent we need to look at this and follow to get ours down to almost two and a half million which would be about the same number of people who are incarcerated.
ReplyDeleteIllini456
I agree with your stance the main reason we've even created a justice system is to reduce crime, but somewhere in this drive to bring justice. People who have power have allowed money to control their integrity and decisions. I feel like in this aspect of Criminal Justice the system as become a bully and is over abusing the powers it has been given. As you said it is ridiculous because they are so obsessed with money that they've allowed it to show in incarceration, probation, and parole rates. I think it is crazy because there will always be people who will break the law, and choose to do their own thing. So it's not like law enforcement will ever run out of a job or things to do. The people in these career fields as the person in the other article said are definitely creating a way to secure their jobs and in my eyes it is another form of slavery. McBrightyalife456
DeleteOnce I read this article I thought that we could possibly decrease the people in probation and on parole but do we honestly think we can do this? Like I understand research can support this and get it done but we have been able to prove research wrong before. The ways they want to try and decrease the numbers could simply cause a bigger problem for the whole U.S. if we simply just dump money into our prisons and pray the money can solve all the issues then we must realize we need to have professionals there to fix these issues of so many people on probation and on parole. We need to simply realize why everyone is in these situations and fix it that way not just waste more money on prisons to hopefully fix our issues. Money could be a key factor in this but truly we need to just realize that like marijuana is not a super big issue today but other drugs are so all the people getting in trouble for smoking weed is most of the people on probation today. I understand it’s a gateway drug but really that’s all it is and not very many people will do other drugs after smoking weed they usually just stick to getting high from weed or start smoking it different ways to get high. If we start by seeing that marijuana is not a major issue to society and doesn’t cause huge issues it is the other drugs we need to worry about then maybe the amount of people in probation or parole will decrease and so will our prison population. We need to stop wasting money and time on stupid crimes that aren’t serious and worry about stuff that matters and maybe we won’t need to dump more money into these programs and we can use what we already have once the dumb offences are no longer there. So rather than wasting our time and money on trying to just have more room in these programs why don’t we eliminate some of the people in the programs and there want be such a huge issue with money.
ReplyDeleteCarlBaconWho456
Yes I agree it would be hard to actually decrease the population and just because one area has seen a decrease does not mean that same type of result will be the same everywhere. We do need to start thinking of better ways to get the population down. We need to start letting people who may not have done anything horrible off with a fine if this was there first time, then we should think about probation on maybe their second or third time of arrest. If we start putting people on probation and not sending them to get treated for lets say an alcohol addiction, then they will just keep going back into the system and the cycle will just start over.
DeleteIllini456
I agree with your post a lot and also the comment underneath because the population is going through the roof in multiple aspects such as jail/prison and probation. Learning that 4 million people are on probation shocks me because just imagining even half those people in jail or prison with them already overpopulating is a lot to process because it is like how do you get the rates to decrease. I agree with Illini456 with something new to be thought of because for some misdemeanors on their first offense they should only get a fine and if they do it again then probation. swaggyy456
DeleteI think that the research's suggestion isn't meant to be a permanent solution, but only a temporary one to prolong our deadline for ultimately resolving the situation. Cutting low-end offenders out of probation and/or parole would lower our populations in those two areas, however, these low-end offenders generally tend to be drug-offenders or people with mental disorders who's actions interfere with society. Cutting these types of offenders out will only deny them access to proper treatment and rehabilitation. The research is prioritizing the treatment of violent offenders and other serious criminals because they're more detrimental to society than drug-users. We only have so many resources in these areas compared to the number of offenders in probation and parole. If we decrease the number of people in these areas, we increase the amount of services that the individual offender has. The long term solution is to reform the system by making services more efficient and effective as well as increasing funding for said services. -TheTurk456
DeleteThe first sentence of this article really drew my attention in. “The number of Americans on parole or probation can be “significantly” reduced without endangering public safety, a coalition of the country’s leading community corrections executives, criminologists and advocates said” the reason that this drew me into the article was what is going to make the money for the justice system if they reduce probation and parole. We learned in class that probation brings in the most money for the justice system, though reducing the funding of probation and parole will open up funding for the many other aspects within the justice system. One very interesting idea in this article was the electronic kiosks where probationers would check into instead of going into a probation officer’s office for meetings, this would free up more time for the probationer and the probation officer. The researchers suggested numbers of steps jurisdictions could take to reduce the number of probationers under community supervision and those steps that they laid out were street level diversion programs by police, “light touch” alternatives to formal probation and legislation to reduce probation terms and allow for early discharge. To me the most affect of those three choices would be the street level diversion programs conducted by police. I think if the police diverted them from the street then they wouldn't be very likely to offend again and end up back in jail or prison. This whole report was very interesting to me, but what I thought was the most interesting was the five approaches they would use to reduce populations under community supervision. As stated in the article they would use “earned compliance credits, reduced probation terms, evidence-based practice requirements, graduated responses for violations, and limits on revocation sentences.” The most effective of those five options to me would be graduated responses for violating probation. This would deter probationers from violating and would keep them on a straight path in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteNightTrain456
I cannot agree more with what you are saying. I feel as if our country doesn't change the way they are doing parole and probation, how are the numbers going to drop. But, why would they? It's much like private prisons, it's a buisness built to make money. Instead of worrying about bettering individuals, we are focused on making money off of them doing bad and continuing to rearrest people for things that aren't hurting anyone else. I hope to see Illinois begin to make a change, as graduated responses is a much more intelligent answer than just locking them up for every little infraction.
DeleteLowAndSlow456
The numbers on probation and parole speak for themselves: 4 million people on probation, 850,000 on parole. I’ll profess to being extremely skeptical on the issue of probation, especially in the modern day. The more I hear about it, the more it seems like a way of fleecing the perpetrators of minor crimes, to their detriment, and to the perpetuation of the modern justice system’s status quo. If I seem cynical, that would be because I am. The original intent of probation was to reform the most corrigible of the prison population, not to make them a mark in a complicated game of three-card monty.
ReplyDeleteTo diverge momentarily: the major lesson that I took away from How to Win Friends and Influence People, one of the great books on communication was simply this: no man thinks himself a villain. One of the most sensational villains of the Prohibition Era, Francis “Two Gun” Crowley, during his climactic shootout with police wrote the following lines in what he presumed to be his last letter: “Under my coat is a weary heart, but a kind one - one that would do nobody harm.” This, he wrote shortly after gunning down a police officer in cold blood for asking for his license. When even a gangster can profess himself a complete innocent, who among us can deny that we justify to ourselves more than we ought? By nature, we pursue what we perceive to be our own good, and grant ourselves the largesse to do so. To do otherwise is contrary to natural instincts, and that is why rising above the baser instincts is respected, for we all know that call to sin.
Which is to say, bringing a man out of a self-destructive cycle is no easy task, be it with alcohol, narcotics, or merely a bad pattern of spending habits. These are tasks worth the doing, but I very much doubt the ability of one government employee, no matter how competent, to reform these bad habits in a hundred or more probationers at a time. These reforms require new support systems, encouragement from community, and structure that a probation officer, or even an office of them, cannot provide. These are efforts that are best served by organizations outside of the government, I would opine, that provide structures like Alcoholics Anonymous, churches, or any number of drug programs. Suffice it to say that I’m in favor of reducing the probation population, and redirecting these people to places that will better serve them.
-Arsenal456
I think the reason that probation and parole were created, contradicts the effects it actually has on individuals who are not placed in incarceration. It also shows that adjustments, and improvements definitely need to made in this specific area. They should make it to the point that non violent offenders cannot be placed on probation or parole, unless special occasions arise. I don't think it is fair to some non violent offenders if they are not deemed as an possible threat to society. When I was in records there was a violent offender who forgot to come in and re register. The lady who registers offenders had the chance to issue an warrant for his arrest due to this cause. Instead she contacted his probation officer, she did this because it was a violation of his probation, and he could be sent back to prison. When she spoke with his probation officer, it turned out that he had recently spoke with his probation officer, and she said the reason he had forgot was because he started a new job with rigors hours. The probation officer stated that she'd contact him immediately so he can come in the next day, and asked the lady to hold off on issuing the warrant. I can only imagine how this would have went for him if he was dealing with two people who didn't really care for him. So I can see how even low risk offenders have a high risk of being sent back to jail. My belief is that judges purposely place low risk offenders on probation, as the article stated to generate more revenue i the justice system. I think this is wrong because I thought the ultimate goal was to deteriorate major violent crimes. It is obvious to see that the system is more worried about money rather than reform. This shows because when the place people on probation for non violent crimes, that reduces the resources available for high-risk offenders who really need it. McBrightyalife456
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts on probation are always mixed because I feel as if it depends more on the individual if probation works for them or not. The restrictions are a lot which kind of helps but at the same time who wants to be supervised 24/7 for months and even years. After reading the article and reading that 4 million people are on probation in the United States which is a lot. I do believe probation is the better option for people who commit petty crimes. Being a probation officer would have to be a stressful job just for the simple fact they have to supervise over 40 people sometimes just for a misdemeanor. Probation is often looked at as a money maker but at the same time this is helping a larger problem of prisons being overpopulated, imagine probation not being a thing and these 4 million people being added to the overpopulation problem. Even though I do believe at times that people with power do take advantage of their money and power and there are some things that cannot be controlled or changed due to that. Probation is a good idea to me because overall the criminal justice system was made to protect people and even selling drugs is hurting the person doing the drug and damaging someone else’s property is hurting the person property that was damaged. All crimes need some kind of punishment in order to make people learn that they cannot do certain things. Probation still allows for people to have jobs and they still get some freedom which is good because for a petty crime that could change them into a worse person and then actually do worse crimes and even allowing the offender to see their loved ones and be around them everyday therefore those people could be used as a support system. Just from a personal experience I had an uncle that was on probation due to him being young and dumb and he was caught selling drugs and he was only 19 and he always said how much he hated it and that he said selling drugs was not worth the hassle of having someone on your back all the time. swaggyy456
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that it does depends on an individual if the probations work. The reason being is why still give them chances and they still doing the same thing even though it will help the system make money. I also agree with you when you stated that probation is a better option for those who commit petty crimes. I believe the ones who committed the more serious crimes should do the time they deserve. It was crazy how it's more than four million people on probations I believe that number need to be reduced tremendously. Overall you stated some good points in your statementSavage456
DeleteI think that the problem with our probation and parole system isn't that we have too many offenders, rather that it's being overwhelmed by the ratio of offenders to available resources, as this article suggests. The most immediate solution is to reduce the amount of low-risk offenders in the system so that there are more resources available per singular offender. However, this isn't going to work in the long term. Just like in the video about the Federal Prison Camp in Alderson, the hands off technique does work, but only briefly. Eventually, society will evolve and offenders will reoffend. In order to properly handle and counsel our mass amounts of offenders, we need to reform the probation and parole system to allow more resources to be available to each individual offender. The current system seems to be too unregulated, a pseudo-wild west of sorts. By creating new and improved standards of treatment and corrections, we'll likely see reduced recidivism rates and, in turn, less crimes being committed. I hear a lot of people saying that the scandinavian economy and correctional design is perfect and why don't the larger countries follow this system. Well, the reason these rehabilitative correctional systems work so well in these countries their ratio of funding/income per offender/citizen is higher than what wr have here in the larger countries. Here, our population is too great for our provided funding. Equalizing that ratio should cause noticeable improvement. Ultimately, though, it would work better if each individual community oversaw their system independent or less dependent of federal oversight. I feel the reason we have such a faulty, almost corrupt correctional system is due to the avid lobbyists that private entities have been placing within the scope of influence of congress. If we had a more independent system run by individual communities in the interest of those communities, I feel like corruption would be much less likely to take hold. Again, this article's plan seems like an easy immediate fix, but in order to permanently solve the situation, more action needs to take place on a larger scale. -TheTurk456
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article It just gave me a lot of thoughts on probation and parole. It was very shocking to know that more than four million Americans were serving probations and another 850,000 were under parole supervision in 2014. These numbers is outrageous because 42% of probationers that were under supervision for misdemeanors infractions. That mean that they was on probation for petty crimes which lead to outrageous numbers. I think that we can try to reduce it but would that actually work? I think those who is on probation or parole have the option to see if this work because it’s up to them to act right. Another thing is we taught that probations helps the system make money but if they plan on doing this they still have other options in the system to make money. Furthermore, the probation officers be have a lot of individuals on their caseloads so the ones with more serious crime should do the time they deserve and the ones who committed petty crimes should be on there to help the back into the community. Overall there were some interesting points made in this report. If the system do decide to reduce the number of Americans on parole or probations without endangering the community, then the criminal justice system should have a good thought process to help this out which will involve more funds. Either way it go the system will still be making money in some type of way and if this the route they going I hope they follow through with their procedures to reduce that outrageous number. Savage456
ReplyDeleteI think it’s interesting how need for probation has significantly decreased from 1996 to 2014. Those numbers dropped meaningfully. The crime rate has also decreased in a great amount although it may not seem like it from local news outlets. It makes sense that a larger number of people who are incarcerated are suffering from poverty and would probably rather be in prison then be out on the streets. I do think that probation is useless when it comes to low-end offenders or even first-time offenders. The people that need to be put on probation are the ones who are high-risk offenders and the ones committing violent crimes. Inmates who have an addiction need to be more engaged in rehabs and such and not be put on probation. I think the focus needs to be on the individuals who need the most help and the ones that may cause or be a risk to society. I think that might be the biggest fear because of the potential dangers of high-risk offenders may offer. I think the best way to reduce populations under community supervision, as stated by the article are; earned compliance credits, reduced probation terms, evidence-based practice requirements, graduated responses for violations, and limits on revocation sentences. Arizona and Missouri look as if they are the only states trying out this method and in 2012, Missouri’s supervised population decreased by at least 15,000 people. That’s actually incredible and I think Illinois should try a similar method to decrease offenders having to be supervised when in reality most offenders aren’t the real threat and have no need to be controlled.
ReplyDelete-PizzaLover456
I do agree with what you are saying about the first time and low-end offenders. Yes, I agree that we must focus more on those who committed violent crimes and high-risk offenders than putting all the resources and funding to low-risk offenders. They still need monitoring and help but I believe not as much as the high-risk offenders who I think need the most of the help. One of the best approaches that I would think will work is reduced probation terms especially for those low-risk offenders. I also think if the state of Illinois follows and try the method that the state of Arizona and Missouri are using, we will surely see more decline of incarceration population. -MScott456
DeleteI think that it would be great to see probation/parole numbers to keep dropping. Nearly 5 million people were on parole or probation as of 2014. That numbers is insanely high, and I believe it to be one of the reasons mass incarceration is so high. Probation/Parole in today's time seems almost as if a guarantee to fail. Instead of letting people serve time for smoking a little weed and letting them out to do as they want, we hit them with stupid amounts of probation and constantly check up on them. For people who aren't hurting anyone but themselves, we are just arresting the same people over and over for something that's not hurting any of us. 42% of 9 million are on probation for misdemeanor offenses. That blows my mind, as they should have paid a fine and went on with their day. Instead, they're burning money constantly babysitting these people. Probation and parole numbers can drop, but only if we quit bugging the people who are not high risk offenders. Quit worrying about the dopers and worry about the thefts, rapists, and other dogs of the world. MO and AZ stand out to me, as they are trying to reduce this number. If Illinois alone would follow suit, numbers could drop drastically. These numbers are only this high because we choose to leave them as is, instead of looking for answers like we should.
ReplyDeleteLowAndSlow456
After reading this article I thought the facts and statistics were very interesting. Like the rate going down veery rapidly between 96 to 2014 because the crime rates just keep dropping and if that happens not as many people have to go to jail or prison or be on parole or probation. But at a time there were over four million americans on parole and probation now knowing there are 1 billion people in the world to think 4 million have been on probation or parole that really does blow my mind in a sense that almost everyone around be from day to day could've been on it and i would've had no idea. But which that could've been for minor and petty crimes its not always for serious and dangerous crimes but its still blows my mind. But in my opinion I feel like first time or second time offenders shouldn't always have to do parole I feel as if it was minor and they dont do it again it shouldn't be a problem for them not to be on parole. But with probation everyone is going to have a different opinion like it shouldn't be a thing people should just go to prison even if it is minor or serious crimes even should just go to parole or probation but it cant be that way because it would turn people into repeat offenders and the criminal justice system cant have that.
ReplyDeleteShark456
You made good points in your blog, although there are 7 billion people in the world instead of 1 billion. Also, parole is when you are released out of prison early. You are allowed to leave prison, and serve the rest of your time on parole. That is a totally different thing than probation. You have to be on parole. Rugby_456
DeleteAfter reading this article, it is shocking to me that more than four million Americans were serving probation sentences and additional 850,000 were under parole supervision in 2014. I agree with the article that our system is not just poor but lacking resources and funding. If we have more funding and resources, we must use it to make plans and programs to help those probationers especially the neediest and I believe that we can reduce the probation and parole probation without endangering the community safety. What interest me is that Harvard University thinks that we can cut the probation supervision by fifty percent over the next decade will be terrific. I believe that we can and if this happens it will be wonderful for a reason that fewer people will go to jail and prison and may result to steadily decrease of incarceration population. One thing I know is that it can happen if we have the right plans, resources, programs, and funding’s 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 program and to lessen down the jail and prison population. I believe using an electronic monitoring for low-risk probationers and having a check-in area or kiosk rather than meeting their probation officer to report might help to cut the use of resources that can be used to those high-risk probationers that need more supervisions. On the five approaches, I believe would work the most is by reducing probation terms. Using conditional agreement, they can be monitored using the latest technology like a smartphone app. Attending some 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. Like Arizona and Missouri, if other states follow them and make reforms we will surely see a decline of incarceration in jails and prisons. In all, I believe that there is a lot way to reduce the number of people on probations and paroles. -MScott456
ReplyDeleteBefore this article I had already formed an opinion towards probation. I believe that probation is a good thing to put people on, although I don't believe that low offenders should have a long sentence, and such strict rules put on them. There are a total of nearly 4 million americans that have probation sentences as of 2014,and 850,000 individuals that are have parole supervision. That is nearly two times of a larger population than people incarcerated. Although I believe people have made mistakes, they are often petty mistakes. 42% probationers are sentenced because of misdemeanor infractions. The low offenders should be looked at more closely, and not just put them on probation because it is a money getter. I believe there is a way to reduce probation, we just need to treat the individuals as people first, and not as monety,. Rugby_456
ReplyDeleteOnly if we lived in a perfect world. we wouldn't have to worry about probation or prison. but sadly that's not the case. we at trying to reduce incarceration in prison and those who are on parole. Why imprison someone for weed or let alone put them on parole for it? Just fine them. the state would make more money that way instead of throwing them behind bars and the government paying for. certain offenders need to be put away without the chance of parole. those would be your murderers and rapists. but yet we give a sex offender the chance of parole then let them out. I hate to say it but my father would be better off in prison or six feet under. along with those who kill for the fun of it. These numbers would be less if we followed through with the death penalty. Every thing needs to be looked at case by case. because their are sex offenders who shouldn't be sex offenders and murders who were either defending themselves or their homes. ~MYHEARSEISNOTAFUNERALCAR456
ReplyDeleteI think because jails are over full its going to be hard to decrease probation/parole. What would we do with the extra people walking around free of their crime? Probation/Parole is just extra supervision for the criminals of smaller crimes. Our murders, rapist, serial killers will have never probably even heard the word. You still find lots of restrictions either way. You have very little rights while having to report in to the law. Parole needs to say around for sure. Probation is going to be trying to have to decrease it. These drug offenders see probation quick. One day things may decrease somewhat in parole/probation.
ReplyDelete-Detective Stabler