An Examination Of The History Of Probation And Parole Reveal

An Examination Of The History Of Probation And Parole Reveals Many Cha

An examination of the history of probation and parole reveals many changes in the way this country has managed its criminal offenders. As we’ve seen throughout this course, many factors, such as societal values, political ideology, and psychological theories have impacted our criminal justice system and resulted in theoretical and procedural changes. If this trend continues, probation and parole, as we know it today, may not be the same twenty years from now.

Probation and parole are vital components of the criminal justice system, offering alternatives to incarceration and focusing on rehabilitative efforts rather than solely punitive measures. Over the years, policies governing probation and parole have evolved significantly, reflecting shifting societal attitudes toward punishment, rehabilitation, and public safety. Understanding what strategies work and what do not is essential to improving these programs.

In considering what works, community-based supervision combined with evidence-based practices has demonstrated promising results. Programs incorporating risk assessments to tailor supervision levels, along with rehabilitation services such as substance abuse treatment, mental health counseling, and vocational training, tend to reduce recidivism rates. For example, the use of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) within probation supervision has been shown to promote behavioral change by addressing cognitive distortions associated with criminal behavior (Lipsey, 2009).

However, certain approaches, such as overly punitive probation conditions and strict parole enforcement, often prove ineffective and can hinder rehabilitation efforts. Excessive technical violations—such as missing an appointment or failing to attend treatment—can lead to reincarceration without addressing the underlying issues that contributed to criminal behavior. This punitive mentality tends to prioritize punishment over support, which research indicates is less effective in promoting long-term desistance from crime (Gendreau & Ross, 1979).

As a nation, there are mixed signals from policymakers regarding our criminal justice approach. On one hand, there is increased recognition of the need for reform, with initiatives promoting alternatives to incarceration, expanded parole eligibility, and funding for rehabilitative services. On the other hand, political rhetoric often emphasizes toughness on crime, resulting in policies that focus on sentencing enhancements and incarceration quotas. Such discrepancies suggest that lawmakers may be moving in a direction that deprioritizes restoration and rehabilitation in favor of punitive measures.

Policy recommendations to improve probation and parole systems include increased investment in evidence-based practices, expansion of rehabilitative services, and the adoption of graduated sanctions that encourage positive behavior rather than punishment. Enhanced training for officers on motivational interviewing and trauma-informed care can foster more collaborative relationships with offenders (Miller & Rollnick, 2013). Additionally, reforming the use of technical violations by emphasizing community-based sanctions over reincarceration could reduce prison populations and improve rehabilitation outcomes.

In conclusion, while progress has been made, the future of probation and parole depends on a commitment to evidence-based practices and policies focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment. Emphasizing individualized treatment, community involvement, and fair sanctions will be key to creating a more effective and just system.

References

• Gendreau, P., & Ross, R. (1979). Rehabilitation and correctional treatment: Evidence, questions, and prospects. In P. Gendreau & R. Ross (Eds.), Effective correctional treatment (pp. 1-18). SAGE Publications.
• Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims & Offenders, 4(2), 124–147.
• Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2013). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change (3rd ed.). Guilford Publications.
• Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and reentry. Oxford University Press.
• Taxman, F. S., & Sheridan, D. (2004). Strategies to increase community supervision compliance. Justice Research and Policy, 6(2), 61-91.
• McGuire, J. (2002). Crime prevention and community safety from a therapeutic jurisprudence perspective. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29(4), 446-465.
• Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct. Routledge.
• Clear, T. R., & Cole, G. F. (2017). American Corrections. Cengage Learning.
• National Institute of Justice. (2014). Evidence-based practices for adult corrections. Retrieved from https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/evidence-based-practices
• Mears, D. P., & Cochran, J. C. (2015). Prisoner reentry and desistance from crime. In Reentry and desistance from crime (pp. 37-58). Springer.