A Historical Perspective of Probation and Parole as Corrections

A Historical Perspective of Probation and Parole as Corrections

Probation and parole, two practices that encompass community supervision for individuals charged with breaking the law, are dynamic alternatives to traditional incarceration that emphasize rehabilitation and reintegration of lawbreakers into society. From their humble beginnings in the 18th and 19th centuries, probation and parole have passed through a captivating path, becoming key components in today’s criminal justice system. They continue evolving and shaping the criminal justice system with the aim of achieving a more rehabilitative and inclusive society. In this regard, reviewing the rich history of probation and parole is important for understanding these two practices, assessing their role today, and identifying gaps that require innovative changes for a better and more effective criminal justice system.

A Historical Perspective of Probation and Parole

Probation

A close examination of the history of probation reveals three evolutionary stages: bailing on probation, probation as charitable work, and progressive probation (Jeglic & Calkins, 2022). To begin with, bailing on probation, which began in the 1700s, involved the use of “bonds,” “securities,” or “recognizances,” whereby offenders would pay some amount of the bond, and a community member covered the rest. Unlike contemporary bail systems, this approach aimed to ensure the offender appeared in court and showed law-abiding behavior for a specified period (Jeglic & Calkins, 2022). Nonetheless, the bond would be canceled and returned if the offender completed the specified good behavior period. As such, “bailing on probation” aimed to secure future good behavior through financial leverage and community involvement. Though this historical approach shares similarities with modern probation, like financial contributions and the involvement of an accountable person, a distinction lies in how this supervision was viewed; the ancient view did not consider it a formal punishment but a period to prove oneself and avoid subsequent punishment.

The next transformative stage unfolded in the first half of the 19th century. This era witnessed philanthropy and the belief that moral reformation in correctional institutions could cure societal ailments. This philanthropic zeal led to the establishment of charitable associations that addressed societal problems like alcoholism. In 1841, John Augustus, a shoemaker in Boston, introduced a more charitable version of bonds and expanded the colonial probation concept into an alternative to incarceration. Augustus would personally post bail and monitor financially invested individuals. Subsequently, his voluntary work and efforts “to help and transform” gained popularity, leading to the formalization of probation systems. Most importantly, Augustus’ influential bail-to-supervision approach formed the foundation for the development of probation systems, including how it is understood as a legal concept today.

Notwithstanding, the dominant origins of probation lie in Progressivism and the emergence of social sciences. Progressivism aimed to expand the government’s responsibility in domestic issues. In effect, social-behavioral scientists aided in fulfilling this responsibility by studying the causes of societal problems. This new approach arose from the belief that everyone could improve regardless of age or past criminal records (Jeglic & Calkins, 2022). Based on this idea, emphasis was placed more on rehabilitation over punishment, as courts were to consider individual circumstances before allotting justice or meting out punishment. In this context, probation was a method of treatment that comprised understanding the factors in individual cases and then setting a supervision plan and friendly personal guidance to the offender to ensure successful conduct (Jeglic & Calkins, 2022). Guided by thorough presentence investigations (PSIs), this probation treatment required competent probation officers employed by the court. The major focus was on character and the potential for reform rather than an offender’s criminal past. Nonetheless, progressive probation faced challenges like a lack of qualified personnel and overwhelming caseloads. Also, PSIs, intended to be scientific, fell short and often relied on speculations about the offender. Probation’s goal of rehabilitation weakened even further due to the implementation of community-based jails as supplements rather than true alternatives to imprisonment (Jeglic & Calkins, 2022).

Parole

The idea of parole supervision emerged in the Progressive Era. During this era, it was realized that offering hope was the best way to manage the problem of institutional order. This hope took the form of pardons or sentence commutations, which were an act of mercy and absolution. Unlike today, however, pardons were reserved for the wealthy; after all, they could afford attorneys who could “pry open the prison doors” (Jeglic & Calkins, 2022, p. 267). “Ordinary” offenders would also receive early releases (pardons or sentence commutations), particularly when the conditions were dire, such as due to overcrowding.

In the mid-19th century, sentence commutations progressed to “gain/good-time” laws. These laws authorized time off sentences following the inmate’s good behavior. Notably, inmates could serve half or a third of their sentence if they had no disciplinary violations. Accordingly, “gain/good-time” laws helped meet various needs: controlling overcrowding, managing potentially unruly inmates, eliminating corporal punishment, and motivating inmates to work, especially those unwilling to work (Jeglic & Calkins, 2022).

Furthermore, laws authorizing parole skyrocketed throughout the US. With parole, offenders were still under the supervision of the correctional system, making it a superior method of release and, hence, its rapid growth. Despite this rapid increase, parole supporters were constantly pressured to dispel misconceptions and convince detractors that parole was a means of protecting society, not an act of leniency (Jeglic & Calkins, 2022). Parole advocates even suggested changing parole vocabulary to calm the public’s outcry. Such proposals included characterizing parole as something a lawbreaker must be “subjected” to, not “granted.”

Additionally, it is worth noting that the indeterminate sentence, which required judges to set a minimum and maximum amount of time an offender would serve in prison (Jeglic & Calkins, 2022), was a major driving force for parole practice. After serving the minimum required time, an inmate would face a parole board hearing, and release would be warranted if the board agreed that reform was evident. Advocates envisioned this decision-making as one where authorities saw an inmate as a friend and desired their release. They argued that an inmate’s amenability to treatment relied on the friendship between them and their keeper (Jeglic & Calkins, 2022). Further, decision-making in parole would be approached scientifically, reviewing the offender’s past and present information.

Nonetheless, a historical examination of past parole hearings shows a problematic approach. For instance, rather than focusing more on the offender’s current disposition and prospects for rehabilitation, inquiries about the original offense, legal proceedings, and the inmate’s physical appearance took precedence during hearings. Despite these flaws, parole boards considered factors like employment prospects and the length of an offender’s prior criminal record, which they considered indicators of potential recidivism. Still, the parole process faced significant challenges: the lack of expertise among board members, infrequent and brief hearings, and a heavy emphasis on employment as a condition for parole. However, while initially stringent, the emphasis on employment as a requirement for parole release changed over time. This change was majorly influenced by the challenges of securing jobs and external factors such as economic crises like the Great Depression. Even with these recognized issues, the focus on employment as a requirement for parole release remained a central theme.

Probation and Parole Today

Today, over 2000 independent probation agencies in the US operate under different federal and state laws. Probation is further categorized into six systems: “juvenile probation, municipal probation, county probation, state probation, state combined probation and parole, and federal probation” (Labrecque, 2017, p. 13). Additionally, supervision approaches apply strategies that embrace the principles of effective intervention, like the Effective Practices in Community Supervision (EPICS) model, which has been introduced to improve the effectiveness of probation (Labrecque, 2017). These strategies aim to improve the relationship between probationers and probation officers, increasing the therapeutic potential of correctional intervention. Further, modern parole reflects early indeterminate sentencing, granting prisoners early release provided they comply with specified conditions under the supervision of a parole officer. Today’s parole also utilizes current evidence-based approaches due to the realization that such approaches will reduce recidivism significantly (Carter, 2017).

Needed Changes

Probation and parole still face several challenges, even after their transformation over the years. These include overwhelming caseloads that cause stress and burnout among supervision officers, incarcerations due to noncriminal violations of probation and parole, and offender employment and other reentry barriers. As such, needed changes to further the effectiveness of probation and parole include devising solutions to overcome issues like overburdening caseloads, incarcerations resulting from technical probation and parole, and barriers like unemployment that prevent offenders from successfully integrating into society.

Ideas on Changes

Ideas on the abovementioned changes include establishing case management policies that dictate the reasonable caseload size assigned to supervision officers. Implementing such policies is critical to alleviating case burdens that prevent supervision officers from providing individualized supervision. These policies should consider factors like the complexity and risk level to determine the caseload size. Another idea is limiting incarcerations arising from noncriminal probation and parole violations by pushing for laws like Florida’s Senate Bill 752 and Oklahoma’s House Bill 4369. Senate Bill 752 allows probationers to receive education and work credits that reduce their probation terms, while House Bill 4 allows parolees to earn monthly compliance discharge credits to reduce their time under parole supervision (Porter, 2022). Thus, advocating for the implementation of these legislative measures in other states will promote successful participation in rehabilitation programs and reduce incarcerations due to probation and parole violations.

Finally, educating the public about the importance of probation and parole while advocating for restorative justice would overcome employment barriers offenders encounter and promote successful reintegration into society. Discrimination and stigma are some of the factors contributing to offender employment barriers. Accordingly, social media could be used to build public support for successful societal reentry by dispelling stereotypes and promoting inclusivity and equal opportunities for all, regardless of criminal history. For instance, probation and parole agencies could use social media platforms to conduct education and awareness campaigns. They could also share testimonials from employers who have hired individuals with a criminal record and share case studies that show how this would benefit their businesses and the economy.

Conclusion

The assessment of the history of probation and parole discloses a journey characterized by historical continuity and evolution in response to shifting perspectives on criminal justice. From retributive punishment, the correctional system evolved to adopt probation and parole as correctional reforms. Today’s probation embraces the concepts that emerged over time: probation as a bailing system, charitable work, and rehabilitation reform. Similarly, from a historical perspective, parole is associated with the emphasis on rehabilitation and the development of indeterminate sentencing. In addition, it is evident that some challenges faced in the past, such as the issue of offender employment, resonate with those of modern probation and parole. Nonetheless, the correctional system continues to pursue effective correctional interventions guided by evidence-based practices.

References

Carter, M. M. (2017). Evidence-based policy, practice, and decisionmaking: Implications for paroling authorities | National Institute of Corrections. https://nicic.gov/resources/nic-library/all-library-items/evidence-based-policy-practice-and-decisionmaking

Jeglic, E., & Calkins, C. (Eds.). (2022). Handbook of issues in criminal justice reform in the United States. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77565-0

Labrecque, R. M. (2017). Probation in the United States: A historical and modern perspective. In Routledge Handbook of Corrections in the United States. PDXScholar. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=ccj_fac

Porter, N. D. (2022, December 14). Top trends in criminal justice reform, 2022. Criminology and Criminal Justice News. https://criminologie.org.ro/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Porter_Top-Trends-in-Criminal-Justice-Reform-USA-

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

---

This course covers the 3 main areas of Criminal Justice: Policing, Courts, and Corrections. Your assignment is to take one of these elements, which can be broken down (i.e., Corrections may be broken down into Probation, Parole, Community Corrections, Prison and Jobs, Prison Life, Correction Officers, etc.), and research the historical perspective. The paper should summarize how/where it began and where it is now. The paper should also include your thoughts on changes, opinions, and ideas that you would employ. These changes can be structural, bureaucratic, etc.

Instructions:
For this assignment, you will submit your Research Paper based on the Topic Paper
you created in Unit 1. Your outline page must include the following:
• An introduction to your approved topic.
• Describe where it was in a historical context and where it is now.
• Your thoughts on needed changes, opinions, and ideas you would employ
(structural, bureaucratic, etc.) and how you would employ them
• Conclusion
Requirements:
• Length: at least 5, 12 pt. font, double-spaced, APA formatted pages (not
including title and reference pages).
• This assignment must be submitted as a Microsoft Word Document.
Be sure to read the criteria by which your work will be evaluated