The Problems with Revocation Part 2: The Hearing
by Thomas LyonsDecember 18, 2017
When spending taxpayer money on criminal justice, it is counterproductive and wasteful to enact policies that create more criminals, rather than enacting policies that reduce the incidence of crime. Communities do not benefit from locking up low-risk offenders. In prison, the offender is surrounded by hardened criminals and removed from his family and community. Because the offender is unable to work and earn income, he may be unable to pay adequate restitution to the victim of the crime. Moreover, when he is released, he will face a tough transition back to life outside of prison due to regulatory barriers to reentry. If he does not transition effectively, the state may have facilitated the development of a low-risk nonviolent offender into a career criminal. In effect, taxpayers will have spent more money to make their communities less safe.
As Mark Earley and Newt Gingrich have noted, “[j]ust as a student’s success isn’t measured by his entry into high school but by his graduation…celebrating taking criminals off the street with little thought to their imminent return to society is foolhardy.”
Probation presents an alternative to incarceration for certain low-risk offenders, and it carries three advantages when implemented appropriately. First, instead of sending low-risk offenders to prison, probation allows a chance to remain in the community, which keeps family structures together, workers available to the workforce, and allows offenders to be rehabilitated.
Secondly, because probation allows offenders to keep jobs and earn income, it increases the likelihood that they will be able to pay proper restitution to victims.
Third, because probation is significantly cheaper than incarceration, it can be a cost-effective form of rehabilitation. In Missouri, for example, incarceration is five times as expensive as probation, and the state has begun notifying judges of the costs of the sentences they administer. Lengthy and expensive sentences are necessary and unavoidable for serious offenders – but not necessarily for low-level, non-violent offenders. For these individuals, probation may be offered, and it may be conditioned on the offender receiving important services, like regular attendance at drug or psychiatric counseling, which can reduce the likelihood of recidivism. Thus, in some cases, society’s public safety goals may be achieved without the costs of incarcerating, facilitating reentry, or tracking down and re-incarcerating offenders who have become career criminals.
Probation can be made particularly efficient through the use of risk assessments, which are inventories containing questions designed to predict whether the individual will recidivate. The risk factors inquired about may include age, criminal record, employment status, history of substance use, and age of first offense. A risk assessment instrument can be administered when an offender begins probation to determine the appropriate level of supervision.
by Thomas LyonsDecember 18, 2017
by Right on CrimeDecember 6, 2017
by Thomas LyonsNovember 27, 2017
by Right on CrimeNovember 20, 2017
by Right on CrimeOctober 19, 2017
by Elain EllerbeOctober 17, 2017
by Thomas LyonsAugust 10, 2017
by Elain EllerbeAugust 10, 2017
by Right on CrimeMay 9, 2017
by Marc LevinMay 9, 2017
by Elain EllerbeMarch 16, 2017
by Right on CrimeMarch 14, 2017
by Right on CrimeMarch 13, 2017
by Right on CrimeMarch 3, 2017
by Right on CrimeMarch 1, 2017
by Right on CrimeFebruary 2, 2017
by Right on CrimeJanuary 31, 2017
by Right on CrimeJanuary 20, 2017
by Michael HaugenMay 9, 2016
by Michael HaugenJanuary 26, 2016