Criminology

The philosophical ideas of the punishment on crimes can be generally divided into two schools of thought Reductivisim and retributivism. While the utility of punishment is mainly grounded on the idea of crime control, it must, however, be supported by a moral authority. This moral authority comes into play when deciding on whether the punishment is appropriate to the crime committed, and can be interpreted in the two schools of thought on punishment.

Reductivisim vs. Retributivism
Reductivism refers to the philosophy that punishment is carried out to prevent or to discourage future crimes from the offender or as an example to possible offenders. Reductivism is largely supported by the philosophy of moral utilitarianism, that any discomfort experienced by the offender must be outweighed by the fact that his punishment will result in less discomfort for those who may have been the offenders future victims. Its perspective is forward-looking, to prevent future crimes from being committed.

Retributivism refers to punishment as simply an outcome from the offenders wrongdoing. Older codes of law are usually based on this moral authority, sometimes known as just desserts (Carrabine, 2004, p. 236). However, liberal thinkers began to protest this route in punishing crimes, as it values the powers of state over each individuals rights. Retributivism also appealed to feelings of revenge andnaturallyretribution, which does not fit in todays idea of justice. Todays idea of justice usually follows that the sentence must follow the offender, and not the offense (Carrabine, 2004, p. 236), which is against the idea of retributivism.

The modern justice system clings to neither school of thought but rather takes elements of both in a series of compromises. Many may argue that despite the archaic nature of retributivism, it still strongly manifests itself into our justice system, especially in the persistence of capital punishment. Reductivism on the other hand has proven itself ineffective History and experience has shown us that punishment and indeed, the threat of punishment is not enough to deter potential offenders, especially those who live in poverty-stricken areas. In fact, the number of prisoners continues to rise steadily over the years, triggering debates on whether this was caused by public expenditures being focused on physical prisons rather than welfare or rehabilitation of offenders (Carrabine, 2004, p. 233).

Restorative Justice
With the steady disillusionment in the justice system, and the active debate between social scientists, victims rights groups and prisoners rights group, a new school of thinking has arisen Restorative justice. Restorative justice aims to address the gap between the offender and the victim by having the offender compensate for any wrongdoing or damage they have done, effectively having them acknowledge their own fault and in doing so forming a relationship with their victim. Restorative justice can also involve family group conferences, reparation orders for offenders 10 years and older, and consultation with the victims family or group prior to reparation (ibid. p. 238).

Criticism of restorative justice has ranged from those claiming that offenders have little to no protection against pious moralizing to accusing this form of justice as a way to tighten social control. Regardless, it is quite clear that the current trend is, simply put, not working at all. We are approaching a time when the prison will only be used for those whose character is deemed unfit to be at large (Spalding, p.3). As such, the increasing prison population and crimes demands us to consider alternatives to simply putting away offenders and forgetting about them. Restorative justice encourages a system that effectively reintegrates offenders into becoming more productive members of society while at the same time addressing some of the justice systems problems with prison population and crime acceleration.

The Probation System What You Need to Know
The probation system encourages offenders to reintegrate and become healthier and more productive members of society. While the probation system is under the executive branch of government, it is the local judiciary who oversees probationary cases in most states.

The probation system is seemingly simple Once the trial has been heard, the judge will consider the crime, the background of the offender, and the statements of the offenders family on how the crime has affected them, before the judge decides on whether to sentence the offender to be under the probation system. Offenders are then undergo risk classification what their individual needs are and the risks the offender will present to the community under probation. The risk classification will then result in getting the probation officer most suited for the offenders needs. Once the probation has been served and the requirements set, the judge will declare the sentence served and the offender released back into society.

The probation system affords the offender a sense of freedom by allowing the offender to live at home. However, the system also encourages participation with the greater community by having the offender report to their probation officers, who act both as a supervisor and a counselor. Probationers are also given access to social services in housing, education, housing and finances.
 
Other methods used in probation include intermediate sanctions, which are administered to more serious offenses but not serious enough to warrant long-term imprisonment, or to those who show little risk of recidivating or showing any future threat to society. Intermediate sanctions can take the form of home confinement, intensive supervision probation, and shock incarceration, more commonly known as boot camps. Like probation, intermediate sanctions aim to lessen prison congestion and at the same time adjust the punishment to fit the crime on a ladder of scaled punishments (Siegel, 2005, p.542).

While the number of probation officers vis--vis the number of probationers is stretched thin (and is source of discussion on whether or not probation is still effective in the sheer number of offenders), supporters of this system still claim that this is still the best way to reintegrate minor offenders mainly due to two important points Economic gain and recidivism. Advocates of probation cite that sparing prisons and its facilities from congestion is a bigger economic gain. It also helps keep those who have committed minor crimes from those in prison, who may influence them into bigger crime, or in some cases, a lifetime of crime. Probation is also a better way of expressing rehabilitation vs. mere punishment. 
 
The Exception of Serious Crimes
Probation is largely imposed on misdemeanors, but how effective could it be on more serious crimes A 1985 study by Joan Petersilia on imposing probations on felony crimes yielded interesting results. 65 were rearrested, 51 were convicted, and 34 were incarcerated within the number of cases that were included in the study. 75 of the new crimes the study group committed were more serious crimes and 18 were for serious, violent crimes. While the numbers may show a failure on the part of probations rehabilitative potential on offenders, the studies also show that offenders with the most serious of crimes are most likely to recidivate in comparison to those who were sent to prison (Criminology, 2005, p. 542).

The exception of serious and violent crimes, like murder, from the probationary process is one that almost goes without saying, but what of matters such as juvenile crime In most judiciary process, serious crimes committed by juveniles are studied and handled very carefully by everyone involved. Despite the stance of most states to adopt a more inclusive, conciliatory stance to allow the offender to reintegrate into society while improving their own chances at success, the most common trend for serious and violent crimes committed by juveniles is to continue to try them and punish them as adults. This speaks very strongly of the judicial systems view on whether probation should be utilized for those who have committed serious and violent crimesprobation is hardly used, and traditional punishment such as long-term imprisonment is still the preferred punishment for perpetrators of such crimes. This is probably because probation is viewed as a tool or a method that is most effective for those who have lesser likelihood with recidivity and pose smaller risk to the community once the probation period is over. It is assumed that with perpetrators of serious and violent crimes, the likelihood for recidivity is high and they also pose a high risk to the population if released. Whether an acceptable probation method will be developed in the future for cases such as these is yet to be seen.

Setting the Standards
The probation system is generally considered a new system within the judicial system, and currently there are no set or fixed standards on to which particular misdemeanors or offenses warrant probation and how to implement probations on varying individuals with different offenses under different circumstances.

The question of standards in imposing and implementing probation behooves us to look back into the moral philosophy and justification of punishment. Why do we punish those who have committed crimes Why did probation arise from collective judicial experience as a nation Let us recall that the current school of thought in regard to the idea of justice arose mainly from the failure of reductivism and retributivism, and that today, many believe that the punishment should fit the crime. There is also a leaning towards re-integrating misdemeanor offenders back into society, with an aim to bridge the gap between offender and victim.

It goes without saying that those who have committed crimes should be punished, and as stated earlier, punishment geared towards reformation for misdemeanor offenders is deemed most effective as it encourages them to become more useful members of society at the same time it helps protect society by giving offenders a higher chance of reintegrating successfully with them.

However, for any society to have a working probation program, certain standards must be established within its judicial system. Early criminology scholars have listed said standards and they still ring true today. According to John Lewis Gillin, the state must have the following prerequisites before implementing probation, and they are 1) Accurate and scientific methods of identifying offenders, such as fingerprinting, criminal records, and crime labs 2) A police force trained to respond towards the philosophy of restorative justice 3) Appropriate places of detention 4) An effective system of bail bonds that will lessen the necessity of jail detention 5) Reformation of the judiciary system that ensures a speedy and efficient trial and 6) Proper institutions and infrastructures that will ensure that probations and offenders will be properly dealt with and receive individualized treatments to allow them to reintegrate successfully back into society (Gillin, 1926, p.853).

Yet every crime is different, and in taking the route of reformative justice means that each form of punishment must be individualized to ensure its efficacy on each offender. To ensure that efficacy, standards should also be set and followed by those in the judicial system. Unfortunately, the prerequisites that should be established in each state that were mentioned earlier and the standards in carrying out probations are not fixed and vary from state to state. In the United States, probation is not a right but the prerogative of the judge. Different laws in different states also complicate matters by having removing the option of probation entirely on certain misdemeanor offenses. There is also the problem of the lack of institutions such as hospitals and schools that are specifically aimed to deal with individuals whose ignorance or are victims to negative influences led them to commit offenses. Currently, there are neither set standards nor specific prerequisites for states to have these institutions in place before implementing probation, and whether these prerequisites will be integrated within the system remains to be seen.

Another crucial point in the success of probation lies in the proper training of qualified individuals as probation officers. The recommended number of cases to every probation officer (or counselor for juvenile offenders cases) is 50 cases for every officer. However, this number is not always followed due to the overwhelming number of probation cases vis--vis the number of probation officers available. While the prescribed timeframe for probationary period spans from six months to a year, the sheer number of cases means that any probationary officer at any time may be handling more than the prescribed number of cases than they should and the more the number of cases, the less chances of applying an individualized method effectively to each of the probation officers client.

As for the standards of the probation officers themselves, the National Probation and Parole Associate cite the following A BA or equivalent, at least a years worth of paid fulltime experience under competent supervision in an approved social agency and the possession of good character and sound judgment (Rouek, 1958, p.279). However, it s quite clear that it needs more than those general qualities to become an effective probation officer. For one thing, probation officers need to cultivate and encourage dynamic interaction between offender and probation officer. They must be prepared to deal with varying backgrounds, psychological problems and other mental problems of their clients. While they are expected to guide their clients into a healthier and more useful lifestyle, they are expected not to do everything for them, nor to coddle them. Being a probation officer is a careful balance between authority figure, counselor and at times, friend. One must not mishandle authority as not to ruin the starting point of any probation officer and their clientone of hostility or unfriendliness. At the same time this authority can be used to make rewards for good behavior much more effective if they have regained the trust and respect of their client.

It is a probation officers failure if they do not inculcate and show a genuine interest and concern for their clients, and disinterested and perfunctory checkups result into an unchanged attitude for the offender. An ineffective probation officer also casts a bad light on the probation process as it may convince taxpayers and upstanding citizens to think that, based on the unchanged attitudes of the offender, that probation in and of itself have no merit whatsoever. Less public support means less support in general for the probation system, and less support for the probation system means less resources laid aside for the system. In a sense, the crucialand the most meaningfulphase of the probation period is the participation and relationship of the offender and the probation officer.

The Role of the Judge
The role of the judge within the probation system is to act as oversight towards individual cases. It starts with the sentencing. The judge can only sentence on terms that are authorized by statue, that it is not discriminatory and that it draws distinctions on sentencing schemes. For those whose cases can fall under probationary status, the probation office will present the judge with background of the offender, including family, psychological profile, education and criminal record. Families of the victim can also speak at court about the crime committed by the offender or other aspects of the crime committed and how it has affected their family in the form of victim impact statements (Feinman, 2000, p.326). The judge will then review the report of the probation office, together with the victim impact statements, and will ultimately have to decide within the prescription of the legislature.

Depending on the judges discretion, first-time offenders may find themselves doing community service or diversion programs. For those with misdemeanors, probation or probation combined with a reduced jail time is much more common.  Probation means meeting requirements, and should the offender fail to meet these requirements or should the offender not finish the probationary period, the judge may order the probation to be suspended, which may have the offender having to serve out the rest of his or her punishment in jail. If the offender meets all the requirements and has served out his probation time, the judge can declare the sentence met, and the offender will then be allowed to be released and reintegrated back with the rest of society.

The role of a judge is crucial. While laws may get in the way of a judge sentencing an offender more fairly (for examples, some states may have laws that dictate that those carrying illegal firearms will automatically get jail time, which leaves many first time offenders with no choice but to be jailed when probation would have been more appropriate), the inflexibility of the judge may also get in the way from getting probation utilized in some cases. These usually happen in cases where serious and violent crimes have been committed, and the stigma of these crimes usually dictates the sentence, no matter how exceptional the behavior of the offender shows in prison that may show a warrant for the offender to go in intermediate sanction.

Intermediate Sanction
Intermediate sanction, as mentioned earlier, refers to the method used in most probation processes that combine traditional imprisonment and traditional probation methods. Intermediate sanction is looked upon favorably by advocates who state that 50 of those imprisoned will likely to be jailed again while those under probation have a high revocation rates due to the inability to meet requirements (Siegel, 2009, p. 542). Many view intermediate sanction as the best way to solve some of the problems caused by the prison system,   and to have an alternative to incarceration should regular probation be revoked but the crime itself not too grievous as too warrant incarceration. For example, would you automatically someone throw someone with a misdemeanor offense in jail due to a revoked probation The reasonable answer would be no, but certainly a more stringent punishment would be appropriate. Intermediate sanction, as mentioned earlier, uses several methods to impose stricter conditions of the offender. Combined with jail time, intermediate sanction can also be used for felony offenders. The heightened surveillance on those under intermediate sanction may also discourage those under probation to hidden recidivity. About a 14th of those under regular probation have admitted to committing at least one offense and 34th admitted to going to at least four offenses (Siegel, 2009, p.382).  Regular probationers who have learned to go around the system may be guarded more closely under intermediate sanctions.

Intermediate sanction may prove itself to be a bigger economic gain as it helps limit the use of jail cells to incarcerate offenders. Since intermediate sanction can be used to include a vast number and variety of offenses, it seems unwise for the judicial system to leave the possibilities of a system made up of intermediate sanctions, leaving jail cells to those who are most dangerous to society.

Implications for the Future
For what is the use of punishment if we do not use a more inclusive method that gives bigger hope for offenders to be reintegrated back into society In our 20th century laws, and methods of punishment, time and time again we have stressed on the importance of rehabilitating offenders over getting the retribution of the few on them. While critics may point out the probation system and intermediate sanctions make no significant difference on recidivity of the offenders, the probation system and intermediate sanction are truer to our ideals of rehabilitation for prisoners and offenders. While there is a 50 chance of those under probation, intermediate sanctions and even intensive probation supervision to fall into recidivity, the success of the other half of those in reintegrating with society should be considered as well. This other 50 have been able to lead healthy, successful lives as productive members of society with only a small percentage of likelihood of recidivity. And while it is not a bigger percentage, the success of reintegration is something to think about.

Conclusion
The overall prison system, simply put, has failed. All we have now are overcrowded jails which do not serve as deterrents for future offenders. There is also a question of the limited resources and facilities that we have for jails. The fact is, theres not enough to go around for everyone, and alternatives should be considered carefully. For now, probation is still largely considered an alternative to jail time, but is steadily increasing in becoming of the more appropriate method of corrective measures for many misdemeanor and even felony offenders.

Of course, the drive towards promoting probation as the preferred form of punishment comes with its own issues. Theres the question of the standards used across states when it comes to implementing probation, if the necessary infrastructures and institutions are in place and if they are ready to accommodate the many and varied cases in the probation cases. Theres also the question of qualified probation officers and whether they are fully-equipped to respond meaningfully and effectively towards those under the probation system. Another issue is whether other members of the judicial system or those involved in them, like judges, policemen and the like, have been properly trained and sensitized to the needs of those under the probation system as well as whether they can themselves overcome their own personal preferences or prejudice against criminals and the probation system to realign themselves into truly believing and advocating the cause of real restorative justice.

The role of society towards probation and restorative justice is just as important as those who directly deal with it. Public opinion matters greatly in the matters of state and reform, and for now public opinion still greatly leans towards a retributive form of justice, having little knowledge of the complexity of crime and punishment. While its clear that the general public would rather criminals to be cleanly tucked away from their minds, perhaps this only means that its high time for them to get involved. Probation, among other things, bridges the gap between offender and the rest of society, and in doing so it encourages rehabilitation with participation with the rest of the community. With the proper safeguards in place and checks and balances, the possibility of the greater public participating in the rehabilitation of offenders shows a truer sense of the restorative justice that the modern system claims to be following. The road to individualized rehabilitation efforts for offenders, for the punishment fitting the crime, is far from realized but is showing great promise in the steps we as a nation have begun to take.