Use the Internet to research and appraise the value of probation in preventing recidivism. Be prepared to discuss.
From the e-Activity, take a position on whether or not the structure of probation effectively reintegrates the offender back into society while avoiding the stigma of incarceration. Provide a rationale for your response.
Take a position on whether or not intermediate sanctions allow judges too much discretion for establishing sentencing first time offenders. Provide a rationale for your response.
RESPOND TO THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT:
I believe that through the structure of probation, first-time-offenders and those who are non-violent and some repetitive, as opposed to violent offenders, can be successfully reintegrated into society without returning to incarceration if in the right programs. In one source of a study of repetitive offenders in a day reporting sentence, there was a lower recidivism rate and the country felt that it saved them incarceration costs. However, not all offenders would do well in a day reporting sentence. Many would need stronger programs with stricter rules and control.
This was in a Western Pennsylvania County but it doesnâ€™t say which one. My thinking while reading this was that maybe location, population, economics, etc. would have to be known to really appreciate this outcome. For instance, say that this county is out in the suburbs of Pennsylvania where it is more of an open country lifestyle in comparison to maybe Iâ€™ll select Newark, New Jersey, which is a city where crime is rampant and much of it is violent. I donâ€™t believe that day reporting Newark would be successful and incarceration would probably become necessary.
Another source had a stronger approach to probation with an intensive supervision program (ISP). This was California and the studies were in three locations: Los Angeles, Ventura, and Contra Costa Counties. This source felt that United States citizens were in favor of these type of programs of probation instead of incarceration. It seems everyone agrees though that it should not apply to violent offenders, and, of course many feel this way not just for the offenderâ€™s sake, but due to the fact that the costs are so high for incarcerations for which the taxpayers are responsible.