Many state and local governments are bringing awareness to the connection between elevated revocation rates and correction population expansion. Many state and local governments are proposing new legislations that will assist in plummeting revocation rates by placing limits on the court’s and prison agencies’ authority to utilize imprisonment as a direct sanction for violating the terms of their release. Research- based evidence and practices reflect the rate of success the implementation of such policy changes will garner. Adjusting the current policies for community supervision will allow the overall purpose of the criminal justice process to be more effective in reducing recidivism which directly impacts the issue of mass incarceration. A great percentage of the current prison population are repeat offenders who have returned to the prison population due to revocation. Implementation of new policy changes would also positively impact the cost associated with imprisonment. Cost reduction could potentially save taxpayers a substantial amount of capital each year. Moreover, the aforementioned improvements to the current community supervision policy will garner more executive changes to be made by chief individuals in the criminal justice system. Researchers contest the conservative rational that increasing the use of community supervision will necessarily alleviate the problem of mass incarceration. Probation and parole are the most prevalent alternative to imprisonment which have evolved to become significant catalysts in prison population reduction by advocating the most successful method to reduce prison population is to restrict, in lieu of expanding their utilization. Although many researchers, scholars, legislators, and lobbyists continue to recognize the strength of community supervision as a sentencing option, there are a number of substitutes to the sole use of prison as a sanction. Many propose that community supervision would be more effective if community supervision is continuously regarded as a form of conditional release. Under the terms and conditions of community supervision, it is essential that offenders adhere to the provided program terms in order to preserve freedom. If in the event, offenders do not adhere to the agreed program requirements, the consequence(s) could be increased penalties or possible imprisonment. Community supervision is a criminal justice policy process by has an extensive amount of state supervision that is garnering an increasing amount of reception and utilization. Throughout the United States, the basis of community supervision tends to vary based upon the respective location and power. Essentially, the use of community supervision is under the control of various branches of government and in some cases in question to legal restraints. In order to begin with reforming community supervision, the first measures that must be administered is to an in-depth examination of the structure of the most highly implemented forms of community supervision and any lawful and established limitations that regulate their use. Community supervision can be separated into two different categories: probation and post-release supervision. While the conditions governing release under both categories tend to be equal, the practices developed independently in ways that continue to impact their organizations today. Probation is a community-based authorization executed by a court instead of incarceration. In many authorities, probation is preserved as a substitute to a traditional prison sentence. In other jurisdictions, probation is treated as a sentence entirety. Traditionally, probation almost always includes a definite period of conditional release in the community, sometimes preceded by a less extensive jail sentence. Probation is trained
…show more content…
Probation instantaneously became a widespread disposition. Studies from the 1900s indicate that almost half of all convicted criminals were sentenced to probation. During the late twentieth century, criminal justice policies and processes became more corrective and the use of probation and community supervision became more prevalent. “In 2001, 60% of those under correctional supervision were serving terms of probation. This development is best explained by changes in supervisory practices. Throughout the 1980s and ’90s, jurisdictions developed “intensive supervision” programs, imposed more restrictive conditions, and increased rates of revocation.” Many of the new reformations allowed probation to continue consistent with the philosophy of the times. This shift transitioned far from its simple and plain origins, rotating it into a more formal consent than the traditional alternative of probation that was initially
Probation instantaneously became a widespread disposition. Studies from the 1900s indicate that almost half of all convicted criminals were sentenced to probation. During the late twentieth century, criminal justice policies and processes became more corrective and the use of probation and community supervision became more prevalent. “In 2001, 60% of those under correctional supervision were serving terms of probation. This development is best explained by changes in supervisory practices. Throughout the 1980s and ’90s, jurisdictions developed “intensive supervision” programs, imposed more restrictive conditions, and increased rates of revocation.” Many of the new reformations allowed probation to continue consistent with the philosophy of the times. This shift transitioned far from its simple and plain origins, rotating it into a more formal consent than the traditional alternative of probation that was initially