Parole and probation play important roles in the American criminal justice system. They connect lawful punishment to rehabilitation and social reintegration.
Parole and probation are distinct yet interconnected. They have specific meanings and consequences for the people they apply to.
Key Differences Between Parole and Probation
Parole
- Definition: Parole is the conditional release of an inmate from incarceration but not from the legal custody of the state. It is granted after a portion of a prison sentence has been served and the inmate is deemed fit for release by a parole board.
- Decision Process: Parole decisions are typically made by a parole board, which assesses whether the inmate has shown enough improvement and rehabilitation to warrant release before their sentence is fully served.
- Supervision: Once released on parole, the individual is usually supervised by a parole officer and must adhere to certain conditions. Violation of these conditions can result in being sent back to prison to serve the remainder of the sentence.
- Purpose: The purpose of parole is to reintegrate offenders gradually into society while still providing a level of supervision and support, as well as to manage prison populations.
Probation
- Definition: Probation is an alternative to incarceration that allows the offender to live in the community under court-ordered conditions. It is usually granted by a judge at sentencing, either in lieu of jail time or in combination with a shorter jail term.
- Decision Process: Probation is decided by a judge at the time of sentencing, based on factors such as the nature of the crime, the character of the offender, and the risk to the community.
- Supervision: Individuals on probation are supervised by a probation officer and must comply with specific terms and conditions set by the court. Failure to comply can lead to probation being revoked and the individual being incarcerated.
- Purpose: The purpose of probation is to supervise and rehabilitate the offender while they remain in the community, with the goal of preventing future criminal behavior.
What is the difference between parole and probation in American states?
In the United States, both parole and probation are subject to state laws, which means that the specifics can vary significantly from one state to another. The general principles remain the same, but the details, such as eligibility for parole, the conditions of probation, and the authority of the officers, can differ.
Here are some common areas where states might differ:
- Eligibility for Parole: Some states have “truth-in-sentencing” laws that require offenders to serve a substantial portion of their sentence before becoming eligible for parole, while others may allow for parole much sooner.
- Conditions of Parole/Probation: The specific conditions imposed on an offender can vary, including things like travel restrictions, employment requirements, and drug testing.
- Probation Sentencing: Some states may use probation more frequently than others as a part of sentencing and may have different criteria for its imposition.
- Parole Boards: The composition and operation of parole boards, where they exist, can vary, with some states using a centralized board and others using local or regional boards.
- Abolishment of Parole: A few states have abolished parole entirely for certain offenses or for all offenses, opting for determinate sentencing instead.
| State | Parole Eligibility | Parole Board Structure | Probation Conditions | Probation Authority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| California | After serving a percentage of sentence | State Board of Parole Hearings | Varies by case; can include community service, fines, and rehabilitation programs | Granted by judges at sentencing |
| Texas | Determined by offense and sentence date; some inmates are not eligible | Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles | Often includes community supervision and mandatory programs | Administered by county departments |
| New York | Eligibility after serving minimum sentence | New York State Board of Parole | Standard conditions plus any special conditions imposed by the court | Probation provided by county probation departments |
| Florida | No parole for offenses committed after October 1, 1983 | Abolished except for offenses committed before specified dates | Specific conditions set by statute and additional conditions by the court | Supervised by the Florida Department of Corrections |
| Illinois | Determined by sentencing laws; some offenders are not eligible for parole | Prisoner Review Board oversees parole | Standard conditions apply, with possible additional conditions by the court | Probation services provided by state or local authorities |
The Evolution of Parole and Probation in the U.S. Justice System
Early Beginnings
- Probation Origins: The concept of probation in the United States can be traced back to the 19th century. In 1841, John Augustus, a Boston cobbler, persuaded a judge to give him custody of a convicted offender, arguing that he could reform the individual. His efforts were successful, leading to the eventual establishment of probation as a formal part of the criminal justice system.
- Parole Emergence: Parole has its roots in the penal practices of the 19th century as well. The system was inspired by the Irish “ticket of leave” system, which allowed prisoners to be released under certain conditions. Parole was first introduced in the United States by Alexander Maconochie and Sir Walter Crofton, who were in charge of prisons in England and Ireland, respectively.
Progressive Era Reforms
- Juvenile Courts: The establishment of juvenile courts in the early 20th century, which focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment, helped lay the groundwork for probation as a sentence for adult offenders as well.
- Indeterminate Sentencing: The idea of indeterminate sentences, where prisoners could earn an early release by demonstrating good behavior and rehabilitation, became popular in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and led to the development of parole boards.
Mid-20th Century to Present
- Increase in Probation Use: The use of probation grew significantly after World War II, as courts sought alternatives to incarceration for non-violent offenders and for cases where overcrowding in prisons was a concern.
- Parole Abolition Movement: In the 1970s and 1980s, some states began to abolish or severely limit parole, especially for violent offenders, in response to a public outcry over crime rates and a shift towards a more punitive approach in the criminal justice system.
- Sentencing Reform Acts: The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 was a significant federal reform that abolished parole for federal prisoners sentenced for crimes committed after November 1, 1987, and established determinate sentencing guidelines.
Recent Developments
- Risk Assessment: The modern era has seen a move towards using risk assessment tools to aid in decisions related to parole and probation, with the goal of reducing recidivism and improving public safety.
- Technology in Supervision: Advances in technology have introduced electronic monitoring, GPS tracking, and other tools to enhance the supervision capabilities of parole and probation officers.
- Reform Movements: There has been a renewed interest in reforming parole and probation to reduce recidivism rates further, address racial disparities, and reduce the overall cost of the criminal justice system.
Key Legislative Changes
- “Three Strikes” Laws: The 1990s saw the introduction of “three strikes” laws in several states, which severely limited the availability of parole for repeat offenders.
- Community Corrections Acts: Various states have passed Community Corrections Acts to provide local jurisdictions with the funding and authority to manage offenders in a community setting more effectively.
- Justice Reinvestment Initiatives: In the 21st century, many states are participating in justice reinvestment initiatives, which involve redirecting a portion of the savings from reduced prison populations into community-based programs that decrease crime and strengthen neighborhoods.
Effectiveness in Reducing Recidivism
- Studies and Statistics: Research has shown mixed results on whether parole and probation effectively reduce recidivism. Some studies suggest that intensive supervision may not reduce reoffending rates and can even increase the likelihood of re-incarceration due to technical violations (Pew Charitable Trusts, 2013).
- Rehabilitation vs. Punishment: There is a debate on the balance between using parole and probation as tools for punishment versus rehabilitation. Some argue that without proper support and resources, neither system can effectively reduce recidivism (Travis & Lawrence, 2002).
Fairness of Parole Boards and the Probation System
- Discretionary Decisions: Critics argue that parole boards have too much discretion and that their decisions can be arbitrary or biased (Rhine, Petersilia, & Reitz, 2017).
- Racial Disparities: Numerous studies have highlighted racial disparities in parole and probation decisions, with minorities often receiving harsher treatment (The Sentencing Project, 2018).
Impact on Prison Overcrowding and Taxpayer Costs
- Alleviating Overcrowding: Parole can relieve prison overcrowding by allowing inmates to complete their sentences in the community (Clear, Reisig, & Cole, 2012).
- Cost Savings: Probation is significantly less expensive than incarceration, offering potential savings for taxpayers. However, some argue that without proper investment in support systems, these savings are not realized (Aos, Miller, & Drake, 2006).
Key Takeaways
- Parole and probation are not monolithic systems; they vary widely across states, reflecting differing philosophies and approaches to justice.
- Success stories illuminate the potential of these systems to foster genuine change, while the challenges underscore the need for supportive structures and resources.
- The fairness and effectiveness of parole boards and probation systems remain subjects of ongoing debate, with concerns about disparities and the consistency of decision-making.
- Technological advancements and legislative reforms continue to shape the landscape of community supervision.
- Legal and ethical considerations raise questions about the rights of those under supervision and the societal implications of these programs.