• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
2. the 19th century roots of community corrections
 

2. the 19th century roots of community corrections

on

  • 2,081 views

CJCJ's Executive Director Daniel Macallair, is a practitioner-in-residence at San Francisco State University (SFSU)'s Department of Criminal Justice Studies. These slides are from his Community ...

CJCJ's Executive Director Daniel Macallair, is a practitioner-in-residence at San Francisco State University (SFSU)'s Department of Criminal Justice Studies. These slides are from his Community Corrections and Sentencing course materials.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,081
Views on SlideShare
330
Embed Views
1,751

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
0
Comments
0

2 Embeds 1,751

http://www.cjcj.org 1735
http://cjcj.webitects.com 16

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    2. the 19th century roots of community corrections 2. the 19th century roots of community corrections Presentation Transcript

    • Probation• The conditional release of a person convicted of a criminal offense in lieu of a prison sentence for a specified period of time. 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
    • The 19th Century Roots of ProbationSeeking Alternatives toImprisonment 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
    • Sentencing in Early 19th Century America (1820 – 1860)• Jail• Houses of Corrections• Prison 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
    • 19th Century Development of Incarceration Alternatives• Judicial Reprieve• Filing• Release on Recognizance• Suspended Sentence 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
    • Birth of Probation• 1830 Commonwealth v. Chase (recognizance)• 1836 - Massachusetts Law allows court to release minor offenders• 1841 - Judge Matthew Hill introduces community supervision and suspended sentence (England)• 1841 -1859 John Augustus “Father of Probation” 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
    • John Augustus (1841)Established the essential elements ofprobation:• Investigation• Selection of clients• Maintenance of case files• Community support and supervision• Progress reports for courts 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
    • Criticisms of John Augustus• Probation was too lenient of a sentence.• Probation causes financial burdens on the courts.• Augustus was seen as abrasive and contentious. 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
    • Probation in the post-Augustus Era 1860-1900• Carried on by volunteers• 1869 - Board of Charities Act created juvenile home visiting program• 1878 - Massachusetts Law allows the hiring of a probation officer in Boston• 1891 - Massachusetts extends probation to all municipal courts• 1898 – Vermont becomes second state to establish probation law 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
    • Report on the Prisons and Reformatories of the United State and Canada (1867) Theodore W. DwightEnoch Wines 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
    • First Adult Probation Law (1878)Chapter 198Authorized the mayor of Boston the power to hire a probation officer for SuffolkCounty.Provided annual appointment of a “suitable person either from the police forceor from citizens at large” to become probation officers.Probation officers remained under police control for thirteen years. 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
    • Chapter 198• Bill indicated that probation was a form of mitigation.• Specified those eligible for probation as “persons who are reasonably expected to be reformed without punishment.”• No legal restrictions were placed on defendants who were deemed eligible.• All felony and misdemeanor defendants were candidates for probation.• Lt. Hemmenway (Boston Police Department) – First probation officer appointed under act. 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
    • The 20th Century Evolution of Probation Curing the Offender 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
    • National Probation and Parole Association Founded 1907 Under leadership of Charles Chutebecomes leading advocate for creation of probation system 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
    • Probation Expands (1900-1960s)• 1903 Probation established in California• 1913 Wisconsin passed first work release law• 1916 - “Killits Case”• 1925 –National Probation Act• 1930 – most states enact probation statutes• 1930s- Evolution of the Presentence Investigation Report 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
    • The Birth of Community Corrections“With two-thirds of the total correctionscaseload under probation or parolesupervision today, the central question THE CHALLENGEis no longer whether to handleoffenders in the community but how to OF CRIMEdo so safely and successfully. Clearly, INA FREE SOCIETYthere is a need to incarcerate thosecriminals who are dangerous until they A REPORT BY THE PRESIDENTS COMMISSION ONno longer are a threat to the LAW ENFORCEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICEcommunity. However, for the large bulkof offenders, particularly the youthful,the first or the minor offender, United States Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. February 1967institutional commitments can causemore problems than they solve.” 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
    • Historical Approach to Probation WorkCasework Approach and the MedicalModel:•Emphasis on individualizedtreatment through diagnosis andassessment•Treatment delivered by probationofficers with manageable caseloadand community resources 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
    • Critiques of Probation•Unrealistic Expectations•Fragmentation•Inadequate Funding•Low Status 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
    • Research on Probation in 1960s• Impact of case sizes• Impact of supervision• Casework model effectiveness 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
    • Trends in Probation 1975 -2000• Adoption of punitive sentencing and decline of rehabilitation• Offense-based presentence investigation• Emphasis on law enforcement function• Greater focus on victim retribution• Declining funding• Growing demands and role confusion 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
    • Rediscovering Probation: Recent Trends• Sentencing reform and the reemergence of individualized intervention• Reductions in imprisonment• Expanded use of refined classification systems for risk management• Emergence of brokerage of service model• Expanding probation resources through incentive based legislation 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
    • Case Law on Probation and Revocation• Mempha v Rhay (1967) (right to counsel at revocation)• Morrissey v Brewer (1972) (due process at parole revocation)• Gagnon v Scarpelli (1973) (due process at probation revocation)• Bearden v Georgia (1983) (revocation restrictions) 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
    • Probation and Parole Revocation Procedures• Liberty interests and diminished due process rights• Formal notice of violation• Preliminary hearing• Revocation hearing 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
    • Probation in California: The Legislative Analyst Report (2007)Key Findings:• California probation failing to follow best practices due to limitedresources.• Current funding model provides unintended incentives to revokeprobationers to state prison.Recommendations:• Provide financial incentives to counties to reduce probationrevocations to state prison by implementing best practices.• Fund the new program from a portion of the savings to the stateresulting from incarcerating fewer probationers. 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
    • Probation in California 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013