It can be hard to get too teary-eyed over the fact that defendants sentenced to probation, or convicts released on parole, end up in prison for failure to abide the terms of release. The simple answer is that if you don’t want to go to, or back to, prison, comply with the terms of your release. How hard is that?
It’s a far bigger question than many realize.
Nationwide, 45 percent of admissions to state prisons are the result of probation or parole violations. Sometimes these violations are serious, but most involve technicalities, such as botched paperwork, curfew violations or missing a drug test, according to a report released Tuesday by the Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center.
In other words, violations drive a huge number of defendants into prison who wouldn’t otherwise be there. Given we’re Prison Nation, neither the sheer numbers nor cost of warehousing people is any small matter. Notably, it’s not correct to say “most” of these violations involve technicalities.
States spend $9.3 billion a year incarcerating people for parole or probation violations, according to CSG. About a third of that, $2.8 billion, is spent locking people up for technical violations.
Still, a third is an enormous number of people. But if they deserve imprisonment, does that matter?
One of the questions corrections officials themselves ask is whether probation and parole rules are realistic, or whether they’re setting people up for failure.
Spending time with other people who have criminal records can be a violation, says John Wetzel, secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. Many felons return to communities where it’s difficult for them to avoid spending time with other people with criminal records.
“They’re asked to do a laundry list of things,” says Ron Corbett, an adjunct professor of criminology at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell and former acting probation commissioner for the commonwealth. “Given their life circumstances — having few resources, no transportation, very little money — it becomes mission impossible from day one.”
There are two prongs to this problem, the first being that there is a laundry list of standard rules with which probationers and parolees must comply, many of which sound theoretically fine but are practically extremely difficult, if not impossible. Don’t associate with felons? Does that mean you can’t live at home with dad anymore? Don’t break curfew, which means you’re constrained to tell the boss you can’t work the double shift when he tells you not to come back tomorrow if you aren’t working tonight?
It’s easy to say comply with the rules or else when one lives a nice suburban lifestyle, but far harder to comply when real life makes the rules untenable. And even when violations could be avoided, many constitute trivial violations. Some people on probation and parole aren’t the most anal rule-oriented types? Is that worthy of being sent to prison? Is that worthy of the imprisonment cost related to a guy who misses a urine test, even though his case had no connection to drugs, whether because he had to work to feed the kids or he just forgot, because he’s not the most reliable guy around?
The second prong of this problem is that the same people on probation and parole receive little, if any, support to become productive, law-abiding citizens. Jobs? A place to live? A chance to do something other than hang out on the street corner or return to crime because those kids get hungry every single night?
The point isn’t that defendants sentenced to probation or released on parole get a free ride, rendering their restrictions meaningless in the absence of any consequences. Rather, the question is whether the restrictions are viable, and whether the consequence for violations of technical rules reflect proportionality or utility in preventing recidivism.
The point isn’t to play “gotcha” with these defendants, but to provide a path to a productive law-abiding life rather than an expensive and pointless prison cell. As it now stands, we not only fail to help defendants to overcome the problems that led them to court in the first place, but have created a minefield to put them back in if they make the slightest misstep. This saves no one, and costs a fortune to both the public and in the lives of defendants and their families.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“The point isn’t to play “gotcha” with these defendants, but to provide a path to a productive law-abiding life rather than an expensive and pointless prison cell.”
Clearly, you’ll never be a judge. And the Probation Department be like:
https://images.app.goo.gl/eaiW2KEbUmp4C5oN6
A gif, Noel? Why do you hate me so much?
People, individually, find it hard to imagine that other people’s lives are not like their own. People, collectively, find it impossible.
True dat. This is why it never really matters until it touches your life. Only then does the real epiphany happen.
The whole revocation scene is just another facet of randomness in the randomness. The reality of policing compliance with conditions is that probation officers blind-eye a tremendous amount of noncompliance. On the other hand, they tend to get chapped about even “technical” noncompliance where it appears to be deliberate. So, the defendant who misses a scheduled drug test because of some factor beyond his control (e.g., car breakdown) is likely to come out better than one who blows off multiple scheduled tests because they might harsh his mellow. The same considerations matter to judges at revocation hearings. Where they have to deal with a defendant who has simply and chronically disregarded conditions, they aren’t going to ignore that (and as an aside, it is remarkable how many defendants do exactly this).
Some POs are humps. Some aren’t. Some are humps when they don’t like someone. Some aren’t. And far too many get burned out by their difficult charges and become humps, even though they didn’t start that way. Being a PO can be a hard job or an easy job; it’s a lot easier to violate the people who annoy you.
“This saves no one, and costs a fortune”
Where does that fortune go? 30 years ago we had mostly police and prison guard unions promoting draconian laws that would increase the prison population. Now we also have the private prison lobbyists. I expect the problem to continue getting worse. Any “reform” laws will be written by the lobbyists and will provide window dressing at best. If they are good at their jobs, the reforms will increase their clients’ profits one way or another.
That’s dumb, wrong and did I mention dumb. Save that crap for reddit.
In NY in 2018 DOCCS budget was $3.3 Billion. If this story is close to accurate 45% of the inmates in NY are Parole violators. If you extend that out we could save over $1.5 Billion in taxpayer funds by eliminating Parole and Post supervision in NY as was recommended years ago. Even conservatively looking at it by halving that and only eliminating the crap violations its still a lot of taxpayer money.
But it won’t happen in NY because of the unions.
It’s likely less in NY given how well the parole board functions.
The problems associated with parole, at least here in Texas, go beyond the failure to provide a path to a productive law-abiding life rather than an expensive and pointless prison cell.
ICE now regularly detains people when they come to their “community supervision” appointments. One of my clients was even picked up at the AA meeting he was attending as a condition for parole. The kick in the nuts is that the parole officer then asked the DA to revoke parole because he missed his AA meeting.
That sounds like a feature not a bug. Removing illegals from parole and sending them back will save taxpayer dollars. They can go live a productive law-abiding life in their country.
The reason you’re irritated is because you know I’m right. Who do you think writes the laws, the lazy stupid congresscritters? They are too busy insider trading, legally, because they are exempt from insider trading laws. Who do you think wrote Obamacare? Nancy “we have to pass the bill to find out what is in it” Pelosi? I don’t expect you to post this; these links are just for your reference:
[Ed. Note: Expectations met. You’re welcome.]
Here’s the difference: there are instances where you are very much right. There are instances where you’re not. It’s your grand, not to mention slightly one-sided, conspiracy that’s wrong. If you address specifics, you might find that there’s complete agreement. If you go for one-size-fits-all, then you’re unlikely to find agreement here.
One
dayissue at a time, PGP. It’s not that you’re necessarily wrong, as much as you aren’t right.I swear I used the reply button. I blame the computer. Or the crappy Internet service here in Buenos Aires. Or anyone but me!
I had to fish your comment out of the spam folder. For you, anything.