Chapter 11 Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections
The number of probation or parole clients assigned to one probation or parole officer for supervision.
A sentencing style that represents a movement away from traditional confinement options and in increased dependence upon correctional resources available in the community.
A sentencing alternative that requires offenders to spend at least part of their time working for a community agency.
conditions of parole (probation)
The general and special limits imposed upon an offender who is released on parole (or probation).
intensive probation supervision (IPS)
A form of probation supervision involving frequent face-to-face contacts between the probationary client and probation officers.
The use of split sentencing, shock probation and parole, home confinement, shock incarceration, and community service in lieu of other, more traditional sanctions, such as imprisonment and fines.
A sentence that requires that a convicted offender serve weekends (or other specified periods of time) in a confinement facility (usually a jail) while undergoing probationary supervision in the community.
The status of an offender who has been conditionally released from prison by a paroling authority prior to the expiration of his or her sentence, is placed under the supervision of a a parole agency, and is required to observe conditions of parole.
A state patrolling authority.
parole (probation) violation
An act or failure to act by a parolee (or probationer) that does not conform to the conditions of his or her parole (or probation).
The administrative action of a paroling authority to remove a person from parole statues in response to a violation of lawfully required conditions of parole including the prohibition against commission of a new offence, and usually resulting in a return to prison.
A sentence of imprisonment that is suspended. Also, the conditional freedom granted by a judicial officer to an adjudicated adult or juvenile offender, as long as the person meets certain conditions of behavior.
A court order in response to a violation of conditions a probation, taking away a person's probationary status, and usually withdrawing the conditional freedom associated with the status.
A court requirement than an alleged or covicted offender pay money or provide services to the victim of the crime or provide services to the community.
A hearing held before a legally constituted hearing body (such as a parole board) to determine whether a parolee or probationer has violated the conditions and requirements of his or her parole or probation.
A sentencing option that makes use of "boot camp" type prisons to impress upon convicted offenders the realities of prison life.
The practice of sentencing offenders to prison, allowing them to apply for probationary release, and enacting such release in surprise fashion.
A sentence explicitly requiring the convicted person to serve a period of confinement in a local, state or federal facility followed by a period of probation.
Bearden v. Georgia
(1983) Probation could not be revoked for failure to pay a fine and make restitution
Gagnon v. Scarpelli
(1973) Probationers were entitled to two hearings, the first a preliminary hearing to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that there was violation to his crime and second a more comprehension prior to the making of the final revocation decision.
Griffin v. Wisconsin
(1997) Probation officers may conduct searches of a probationer's residence without a search warrant or probable cause.
Greenholtz v. Nebraska
(1979) Parole boards don't have to specify the evidence used in deciding to deny parole.
Kelly v. Robinson
(1986) A restitution order cannot be vacated by a filing of bankruptcy.
Mempa v. Rhay
(1967) Both notice and a hearing were required for revocation of probation.
Minnesota v. Murphy
(1984) The burden of invoking the 5th amendment privilege against self incrimination lay with the probationer.
Morrissey v. Brewer
(1973) Probationers have the right to a lawyer provided they claimed that either (1) they had not committed the alleged violation, (2) they have substantial mitigating evidence to explain their violation.