NCJ Number
50196
Date Published
1965
Length
49 pages
Annotation
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS IS PRESENTED OF THE HISTORY, POLICY, ORGANIZATION, AND PRACTICE OF PAROLE, PROBATION, AND PARDON IN UTAH.
Abstract
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROBATION IN UTAH IS FOLLOWED BY A DISCUSSION OF PRESENTENCE REPORTS AND THEIR CONFIDENTIALITY, PROBATION AGREEMENTS, SUPERVISION OF PROBATIONERS, PROBATION VIOLATION, UTAH'S PARTICIPATION IN THE UNIFORM ACT FOR OUT-OF-STATE SUPERVISION (THE INTERSTATE COMPACT), AND THE COSTS OF PROBATION. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT PROBATION JUSTIFIES ITSELF IN ECONOMIC TERMS AND PROVIDES A RELATIVELY SUCCESSFUL APPROACH TO REHABILITATION. STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES IN A SYSTEM THAT GIVES THE COURTS SOLE DISCRETION TO GRANT PROBATION OR ISSUE A COMMITMENT ARE NOTED, AS IS UTAH'S NEED FOR MORE PROBATION AND PAROLE AGENTS AND CLERICAL EMPLOYEES. A REVIEW OF UTAH'S EXPERIENCE WITH INDETERMINATE SENTENCING POINTS TO CONFLICTS OF JURISDICTION BETWEEN THE COURTS AND THE BOARD OF PARDONS. IT IS ARGUED THAT DETERMINANT SENTENCING DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR CHANGES IN THE OFFENDER--FOR BETTER OR WORSE. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT BOTH SOCIETY AND THE OFFENDER WOULD BE BETTER SERVED IF ALL FELONIES CARRIED AN INDETERMINATE SENTENCE OF 1 YEAR TO LIFE. UNDER SUCH A SYSTEM, NORMAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE WOULD RESULT IN THE TERMINATION OF SENTENCES WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME FOR ALL OFFENDERS WHO DID NOT DISPLAY OVERT ANTISOCIAL ACTIVITY. A REVIEW OF THE ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION OF THE UTAH BOARD OF PARDONS, PAROLE DEPARTMENT, AND BOARD OF CORRECTIONS CONCLUDES THAT ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES ARE SOUND, THAT EMPLOYMENT PLACEMENT FOR PAROLEES IS AND PROBABLY WILL REMAIN A MAJOR PROBLEM, AND THAT CERTAIN ASPECTS OF RECORDKEEPING ON UTAH OFFENDERS ARE DUPLICATIVE AND REQUIRE CHANGE. TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS ON PROBATION, IN PRISON, AND DURING PAROLE IS SAID TO BE INADEQUATE. UTAH'S USE OF CONDITIONAL TERMINATION--RELEASING INMATES UNDER THE CONDITION THAT THEY WILL LEAVE AND NEVER RETURN TO UTAH--IS DISCUSSED, AND COURT DECISIONS PERTAINING TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THIS PRACTICE ARE REVIEWED. IT IS NOTED THAT AUTHORITIES IN UTAH AND OTHER STATES HAVE HAD TO RESORT TO CONDITIONAL TERMINATION BECAUSE THEY LACK THE FUNDS TO ENFORCE PAROLE AND TO SUPERVISE TRANSIENTS. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT, BECAUSE CONDITIONAL TERMINATION IS CONTRARY TO CONSTITUTIONAL VALUES, STATE LEGISLATURES MUST PROVIDE ADEQUATE FUNDS FOR SUPERVISION WITHIN THE STATE. SUPPORTING DATA ARE INCLUDED. (LKM)