Ethical Issues in Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections

Ch. 13 in Michael C. Braswell, et al. (eds.) (2023). Justice, Crime, and Ethics. New York: Routledge. 257.
The new penology (Feeley & Simon, 1992) takes a less strident stance and argues that probation and parole should be efficient monitors of the conditions of supervision. If an offender fails to follow the conditions of supervision, then the officer should be swift to report the failure to the court or the parole board. Sufficiently serious or frequent violations would land the offender in prison. Ironically, failure becomes success in this model. Whereas old-fashioned officers who aimed for the rehabilitation of offenders would consider recidivism (new crimes) a failure of supervision, new penology officers would consider a new crime a success as long as it is noted and used to get the offender back into prison. Here, the officer claims that one is doing one’s job because signs of continuing criminal tendencies are used to get the offender off the street. The objective is to classify offenders into various categories of risk and to place them into the proper risk-management response. There is no pretense of trying to rehabilitate or cure the offender.
The most recent variation on rethinking the mission of probation emphasizes deterrence and treatment but with modifications. First, programs in Hawaii (HOPE—Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement Program) and Delaware (DYT—Decide Your Time) emphasize the certainty and swiftness aspects of deterrence rather than severe punishments (O’Connell, Visher, Martin, Parker, & Brent, 2011). Second, these programs offer treatment options, but only make treatment compulsory for those who fail. Some of the key components are clear rules, strict monitoring of compliance (including frequent drug testing), and graduated sanctions for rule breaking, especially positive drug tests. Preliminary research has shown that HOPE probationers did better in drug testing and revocations of probation than regular probationers (Hawken & Kleiman, 2009). However, given the cost, researchers have cautioned against implementation until more thorough evaluations have been conducted (Duriez, Cullen, & Manchak, 2014). The federal government has funded replications of HOPE in other states. Currently, there are HOPE programs within 21 states (Bartels, 2015).
**
The ethical question is this: Can society embrace a neoclassical perspective— assume offenders are totally free and responsible—and simply ignore any consideration of assistance to offenders? Or does society have some obligation to help offenders to some degree?
Research suggests an answer to this question. The ideal probation program appears to be a balance of punishment and treatment. The punishment side includes monitoring of probation conditions, taking action if the probationer violates the conditions, and also enforcing such punitive conditions as paying court costs, fines, and restitution. The treatment side involves recognizing that the probation officer has a critical role in helping to motivate the offender to change and in monitoring the offender’s progress. One approach is to set up a behavioral contract with the probationer so that the offender earns points for treatment attendance and other positive activities. A leading proponent of this model, Faye Taxman, argues that the objectives should be realistic, such as lowering overall recidivism from a current average of 45% to a significantly lower average of 35% (Taxman, 2008).
An evaluation of a probation program in Maryland that used the new model of probation showed promising results. Probationers were given risk assessments, probation officers used motivational interviewing techniques, and offenders were given three goals a month, including participation in treatment services. Only 30% of the new probationers were arrested during two years versus 42% of the control group (Taxman, 2008).
So the best current answer seems to be a reasonable blend of punishment and treatment, not a strident call for overly harsh models of probation and parole. This seems to make the most sense ethically and in light of the research evidence.