Criminology

Question one
Historical Development of Probation in England and America
Though probation was already known and practiced in Massachusetts by the 1860s, the probation service has its origins in the voluntary work of the Church of Englands Temperance missionaries in police courts in London in the 1870s (Crow, 2001). Its work would grow to include prison after-care, but for a beginning, probation services were associated with release of offenders on account of good behavior besides involvement in investigations, matrimonial dispute resolution, and making recommendations to trial judges as well home visiting.

The Missionaries efforts were officially recognized through the enactment, later in 1887 of the first offenders act allowing courts to release offenders into the Missionaries care. The reliance of recognizance of good behavior as a basis of parole was replaced with a statutory basis by the introduction in 1907 of the probation of offenders act.

But since the acts were in the main permissive and probation service relied largely on the Missionaries resources, who were largely concerned with social factors, the probation service developed unequally across the country. The enactment of the Prevention of Crimes act in1908 allowed for the probation officers to provide after-care to prisoners as well as the setting up of borstal institutions to offer training.

A key landmark in the development of probation as a service came in 1912 with the establishment of the National Association of probation Officers  as well as the setting up by the Home Office in 1922, of a  Departmental committee  to determine the appointment, remuneration and other work conditions of the probation officers. The Criminal Justice act in 1926 which was replaced by the Criminal Justice amendment act in the same year that provided for the setting up of probation committees based on localities with express rules and regulations on the appointment of probation officers who were to be present by law at every sessional division. The development of probation still depended on local initiatives but it had effectively evolved away from the informal serviced that was thought helpful to a formal service with the continued involved of the Home Office and the progressive  development of laws and rules to refine and regulate it for greater effeteness.

As mentioned at the outset, probation was known and practiced in the State of Massachusetts as far back as 1841 when a Bostonian boot maker persuaded a judge to give a convicted drunk whom he then helped to appear rehabilitated before sentencing (Cole, Pond  Smith, 2007). Courts released offenders on cognizance of good behavior, handed down suspended sentences or simply did not take further action on offenders without any formal statutory provisions for such practices.

Later in 1878, a police officer was appointed by a Boston Mayor and charged with functions similar to that of a probation officers. In 1880, the state of Massachusetts developed a probation system and other States followed its example, one by one. It was until the Federal Supreme Court held in 1916 that Federal judges had no authority to hand down suspended sentences that in 1925 the National Probation act was passed allowing judges to place offenders on probation and saw the establishment of the Federal Probation Service.

Probation has grown to become an important part of the correctional facilities with the immediate effect of  reducing congestion in Federal Penitentiaries across the world and  thusly reducing the costs of running and maintaining such facilities (Crow, 2001). In addition, the shift to use of psychological counseling of offenders geared at alleviating social as well as psychological problems of offender served to take care of the causes of crime rather than treatment of its effects and thusly curbing repeat crimes in the nib. The community service undertaken by probes as well the assistance accorded to the in finding jobs or acquiring vocational skills are vital in alleviating poverty in America alongside other social problems such as homelessness, crime among others thus helping build a better America.

Question two
Parole and Probation
People serving sentences in prison, if eligible as per their sentences, can be granted parole which shortens the maximum amounts of their prison sentences. This decision is reached by the parole board and especially helpful with non violent offenders in decongesting prisons.

Committing crimes on parole goes against the spirit and conditions of parole and would lead to re imprisonment.  In addition, parolees must meet parole officers regularly and refrain from leaving the State without notice to, and permission by the probation officers (Pond, 1837).

Probation is handed down as part of, or instead of a sentence. During the duration of the probation Probees must not commit other State, local or Federal offences, refrain from any unlawful use of or possession of illegal or controlled substances, avail themselves to drug tests as well as collection of DNA samples, failing drug tests would result in incarceration pending further investigations, pay up all outstanding fines levied by the court.

Probees must allow search of their properties at all times, not leave their States without notice or permission by probation officers, report to probation officers regularly and submit a true written report to the same officers on every fifth day of each month.

Excessive consumption of alcohol is prohibited as well use or possession or distribution of illicit substances. In addition sex offenders must attend state approved rehabilitation programs, report of any special romantic involvement among other conditions which if violated would mean violation of the terms of probation and thus the offender would have to serve out their sentences as well as any additional sentences.
 
As such the sanctions imposed on probees and parolees are nearly the same but while violation of a parole would automatically lead to an offender serving out their sentence as well as any subsequent sentences, violation of probation would have to be determined by the probation officers or the court.

Revocation of a parole would add to the congestions in prisons translating to a loss of money by the society in maintaining these facilities as well as the loss of valuable community service that parolees may have been rendering to society.