Example research essay topic: U S Department S Department Of Justice - 2,649 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

The Effectiveness of Parole Abstract The effectiveness of parole system is an issue of the day. Although parole seems to be an effective measure aimed to reduce quantity of crimes and to enhance the level of prisoners conscience, the number of criminals and offenders who return to prison currently increases. Plenty of approaches and methods are proposed in order to improve the effectiveness of parole. The paper dwells on the parole system and assesses its effectiveness in most States.

Outline Introduction Parole System Parole and Statistics The Effectiveness of Parole Conclusion The Effectiveness of Parole Introduction According to Joan Petersilla, in 1999 American prisons admitted approximately 591, 000 prisoners and released almost the same number. Juvenile offenders and Federal prisoners make up another 10, 000 released people who arrive yearly on the doorsteps of communities nationwide (Petersilla, 2000). As far as policymakers pay no considerable, comprehensive and systematic attention to people after release, the issue of prisoner reentry constitutes a treat to our society. Such inadmissible attitude to problem can bring to negative consequences, if the cumulative impact of tens of thousands of returning felons on families, crime victims, and communities is not considered (Petersilla, 2000). Joan Petersilla claims that two thirds of so-called parolees are rearrested and return to prison despite of participation in rehabilitation programs and supervision of parole officers. In such a way, situation is really threatening.

Parole System The concept of parole system has changed drastically since 1970 s (Reilly, May 2003). Parole means discharge of a prisoner under supervision of special Parole board or parole commission from prison before his factual term of sentence. The main condition is that parolee should obey specially foreseen conditions (i. e.

good behavior, do not break the law, etc). Parole is allowed under these circumstances: The law currently in force foresees parole for prisoners who commit a crime of a certain character. As a rule, prisoners who committed presented killing, rape, or other dangerous special crimes, prisoners, who had previous convictions, prisoners who made attempt of a jail-break or prison-breaking, cannot be paroled. Members of groups of organized crimes, convicted for drug sale also cannot be paroled; Parole is allowed in case the prisoner served at least part of his sentence. For example, the prisoner has a right for parole after he served 1 / 3, ?

or 2 / 3 of his sentence (the term of sentence is different for different correctional facilities). The period of so-called conditional discharge depends of regulations and requirements of a definite Criminal Code of a definite State and term of prisoners good behavior in place of imprisonment. In case a special authority (i. e. the Adult Parole Authority, etc) comes to conclusion that prisoner behaved properly and is able to obey the restrictions and peculiar conditions and obligations after his discharge from prison. These conditions and obligations can include: the requirement to live and to work in as appointed company, do not visit certain places (gaming, places where narcotic drugs are sold, etc), do not communicate with disrepute people, do not leave the house after appointed hours, to mention a few.

All decisions concerning parole, control, supervising, the return of a parolee back to the place of imprisonment, abridgment of his probation period, and other questions are the responsibility of specially created Federal committees (commissions, bureau, councils, etc) dealing with problems of parole. A report made by a member of such committee who executed control over the parolee gives grounds for taking decision concerning certain problem of a definite parolee. In case a parolee violates conditions of parole, he can be returned back to the place of his imprisonment in order to serve there a remained part of his sentence. It seems that parole program is intended to be very effective because it stimulates a prisoner to obey the rules and gives him a chance to get a new life as a parolee (Glaser, 1964). Imprisonment is a measure of punishment as applied to people committed crimes dangerous for society. When the government punishes a prisoner and sentences him to imprisonment, it purposes the aim to correct the criminals behavior and to reeducate the offender.

In case these objectives are reached, the prisoner can be released from prison before his sentence expires. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of parole system often calls in questions. Parole and Statistics Lets examine statistic data on parole in the United States. Several years ago Lauren E.

Glaze and Seri Palla (BJS Statisticians) wrote an article dedicated to a problem of parole in the United States. They examined plenty of reliable sources and conducted their own survey. The results are presented in the table: Year Total Estimated Correctional Population Community Supervision (Parole) 1995 5, 342, 900 679, 421 2000 6, 445, 100 723, 898 2001 6, 581, 700 732, 333 2002 (June 30 -December 31) 6, 759, 100 750, 934 2003 (June 30 December 31) 6, 889, 800 774, 588 Percent change, 2002 - 2003 1. 9 % 3. 1 % Average Annual percent change, 1995 - 2003 2. 9 % 1. 7 % The correctional population imprisoned or in the community make up approximately 6. 9 million. What concerns parole, the population grew 3. 1 % reaching 774, 588 by December 31, 2003. Lauren E. Glaze and Seri Palla add that 17 States had double-digit increase in their parole population in 2003. 5 States had increase that reached 20 % and even more: Alabama (up 31 %), New Hampshire (up 25 %), New Mexico (up 23 %), Kentucky (up 27 %) and North Dakota (up 53 %).

Table 2 illustrates change in the number of adults on parole (1995 - 2003) Year Annual increase (number) Annual increase (percent change) 1995 - 10, 950 - 1. 6 % 1996 312 0. 0 % 1997 15, 054 2. 2 % 1998 1, 598 0. 2 % 1999 18, 072 2. 6 % 2000 9, 441 1. 3 % 2001 8, 435 1. 2 % 2002 18, 601 2. 5 % 2003 23, 654 3. 1 % Total Increase (1995 - 2003) 95, 167 14. 0 % Average annual increase (1995 - 2003) 11, 896 1. 7 % The figures are quite illustrative. The female parole population also increased in progression: from 10 % in 1995 to 12 % in 200 and 13 % in 2003. We can clearly notice that since 1995 the mandatory releases to parole have increased. However, can such increase witness of the effectiveness of parole system? The Effectiveness of Parole Drastic changes in the practice of sentencing combined with decreased quantity of prison rehabilitation programs suggest that something has been wrong with parole. More than half of parolees are re-arrested.

Before the mid- 1970 s, parole was treated like a kind of privilege that could be earned by a prisoner. The prisoners served indeterminate and open-ended terms. The parole board had an inalienable right to either release them or keep them behind bars (Petersilla, 2). Traditionally, the criminals were paroled only in case they were rehabilitated (reeducated) and had ties to the community (Petersilla, 2) such as job or family. In case parolee violated his obligations, parole board was able to return him to prison to serve the read of his term. Such threat to return back to prison was a strong disincentive to commit crime.

Nowadays discretionary release and indeterminate sentencing is replaced by automatic release and determinate sentencing (Petersilla, 2). Those who violated the law get fixed terms of imprisonment. At the end of the term they are released with credits for behavior. For instance, California foresees no parole board aimed to ask whether the inmate is ready for release, since he or she must be released once his or her term has been served (Petersilla, 2). When a prisoner is paroled, he has to come back to the region where he / she lived before imprisonment. As far as major part of criminals live in poor, culturally isolated and economically instable areas of the country, they return there after the end of their imprisonment.

Although a special parole supervision is foreseen for such people (usually the term of supervision do not exceed 1 year), a parolee who came back to his place of residence, often violates parole and commits another crime. So, no wonder that more than half of parolees are rearrested. It seems that the system of parole became less effective despite of increased quantity of parole population. At the same time the practice of indeterminate sentencing lost its sense because it was imperfect. Parole boards and other supervision boards were taking into account both the characteristics of crime and personal characteristics of offender such as place of conviction, socioeconomic status of offender and his race. Yet, there is an opinion that sentencing should be more individualized because parole board should take into account conditions that take place during th e imprisonment and behavioral changes.

For example, the incarceration can result in various psychological abnormalities, such as mental diseases, depressions, psychological breakdowns, etc. These changes can have impact on offenders behavior and can negatively influence his future behavior as a parolee. To be more effective, parole board should adjust the release dates in case they discover such problems or breakdowns. According to information from the Department of Justice, the Federal Government and the States increase the budgets to building and operating prisons (Petersilla, 3). For example, California's correction budget reached approximately 8 % (2000) compared to 2 % of California general fund in 1981. Such tendency is common for the vast majority of States.

However, this fastest growing item of State budget funds operating costs for building and operating prisons, but not more rehabilitation programs. Low quantity of rehabilitation programs for paroles, less incentives for participation result in decrease of effectiveness of parole system. In the upshot, the vast majority of parolees leaves places of incarceration without solving problems concerning substance abuse, education and work. Increased percentage of mental illnesses is also threatening. The Correction Program Office claims that approximately 1 in 5 inmates in U. S.

prisons reports having a mental illness (Petersilla, 3). Psychological disorders and mental illnesses become more menacing because the offenders are mostly kept in segregated or solitary housings. No wonder that parolees often suffer from serious psychological problems because of time spent in isolation. This aspect also contributes to violating parole and returning back to imprisonment, and, to some extent contributes to undermining the effectiveness of parole system.

Contradictory attitude of parole system to characteristics of crime is also shocking. Gang activity, for example, is well known factor that takes place in many prisons. The tension between gangs do not stop in prison, but also continue in the community after gang members are released or paroled. In this case a lot of potential hatred and rage is coming out of the places of incarceration to haut the future of American citizens.

In case the conflicts between gangs remain unsolved, the potential risk for member of society will increase in the form of a risk for further crime victimization. Again, the parole system in this case is not effective enough to protect civil society from potential offenders. Lets come closer to facts. 80 % of offenders are released on parole. They are assigned to a special parole officer who controls the parolees behavior.

However, it sounds amazingly but remaining twenty percent of returning prisoners serve their full sentence and are released without parole or post-incarceration supervision. It means that remaining 20 percent of prisoners (including those who were accused of the most serious crimes and offenses) who are presumably the least willing to enter rehabilitative programs are often not subject to parole supervision and receive no services (Petersilla, 4). Federal services and communities undertake attempts to force the government to affect the situation. Now, what concerns parolees, they have to obey the parole officer.

Parole officer is able to influence the conditions of release (i. e. the requirement for parolee to find a job, not to associate with criminals, prohibition on drug use, etc. ). As a part of service, parole officers inform the victim of a parolee about the details of offenders place of location, the conditions of his parole, and other information able to influence safety of crime victim.

Yet, the situation is not so cheerful as it can seem. The parole officers work hard and have plenty of essential work, however, the demand outdistances the number of parole officers. For example, in 1970 s, one parole officer controlled approximately 40 - 45 parolees. Nowadays an average parole officer is assigned 70 parolees.

The overwhelming majority of parolees are controled on a regular caseload, instead of an intensive one. It means that a parolee has less than two face-to-face contacts with his officer per month. Each contact lasts less that 15 minutes. The parole supervision costs approximately $ 2, 000 per parolee per year, compared to 10 times that much per prisoner (Petersilla, 4). Problems with monitoring also have negative influence on the effectiveness of parole system.

According to information received, the parole officers in California due to rare contacts with parolees reported lost track of about one-fifth of the process they were assigned to in 1999 (Petersilla, 4). On a national scale, approximately nine percent of parolees absconded. Second in importance aspect involves parolees numerous requests. Parolees who are released from prisons one have no family support and remain unskilled and largely uneducated.

The fact of their prison record also becomes an obstacle on the way to getting a job and establishing social contacts with community. No wonder that the vast majority of parolees are not successful after their release from prison. Substantial percentage of parolees are rearrested during the first six months after their release. Petersilla (4) confirms that fully two-thirds of all parolees are rearrested within three years. The percent of requests is constantly increases: in case in 1980 parole failures made up 17 % of all admissions, now they constitute 35 %. Conclusion Politicians and government officials express concern about parole issues.

According to Attorney General Janet Reno, the problem posed by parolees reentry is one of the most pressing problems we face as a nation (Petersilla, 5). The government tries to re-evaluate the attitude to parole system and undertakes all possible efforts to increase the parole effectiveness. In order to solve the problem, the U. S.

Department of Justice sponsored and supports various incentives and approaches to the public safety challenged posed by parolees and ineffective parole system. The Reentry Partnerships Initiative is one of such programs. The main aim of this initiative is better risk management via enhanced surveillance, risk and needs assessment, and prerelease planning (Petersilla, 5). The Departments new Reentry Courts Initiative is also aimed to cope with parole problems.

It is specially created to help the parolees remain crime free. The effectiveness of parole system can be enhanced by constant implementation of various federal and social programs, elicitation of cooperation with parolees, and investing in effective rehabilitation and support programs. Bibliography Glaser, D. (1964). The Effectiveness of a Prison and Parole System. Indianapolis, IN: Books-Merrill. Glaze, L. (July 2004).

Probation and Parole in the United States. Department of Justice. Hoffman, P. B. , DeGostin, L. K. (1974).

Parole Decision-Making: Structuring Discretion. Federal Probation, 38, 7 - 15. Petersilla, J. (November 2000). When Prisoners Return to the Community: Political, Economic, and Social Consequences. Office of Justice Programs, U. S.

Department of Justice. Washington, DC: National institute of Justice. Reilly, E. F. (May 2003). History of The Federal Parole System.

U. S. Department of Justice. Comission, United States Parole.

Research essay sample on U S Department S Department Of Justice