PIONEERING INNOVATIONS IN CORRECTIONS - SHOCK PROBATION AND SHOCK PAROLE

• NCJ Number: 55413
• Journal: OFFENDER REHABILITATION Volume: 3 Issue: 2 Dated: (WINTER 1978) Pages: 113-122
• Author(s): J E SCOTT; S DINITZ; D SCHICHOR
• Date Published: 1979
• Length: 10 pages
• Corporate Author: Haworth Press, Inc
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SHOCK PROBATION AND SHOCK PAROLE IN OHIO ARE WEIGHED.

Abstract

OHIO INTRODUCED SHOCK PROBATION IN 1965, SHOCK PAROLE IN 1974. UNDER SHOCK PROBATION, INCARCERATED OFFENDERS MAY PETITION THE COURTS FOR EARLY, SUPERVISED RELEASE AFTER SERVING 30 TO 60 DAYS. THE NUMBER OF SHOCK PROBATION RELEASES GRANTED INCREASED FROM 85 IN 1966 TO 1,292 IN 1972, AND THEN DECREASED BY ABOUT 24 PERCENT WHEN SHOCK PAROLE WAS INTRODUCED AS PART OF A STATUTE THAT INCREASED MINIMUM PENALTIES FOR MOST OFFENSES. SHOCK PAROLE MAKES IT POSSIBLE TO LESSEN INCARCERATION FOR ELIGIBLE INMATES DESPITE INCREASES IN JUDICIALLY IMPOSED MINIMUM SENTENCES. ELIGIBLE INMATES MAY PETITION FOR SHOCK PAROLE AFTER SERVING 6 MONTHS. IN THE FIRST 6 MONTHS OF THE PROGRAM, 40 PERCENT OF PETITIONERS WHOSE CASES WERE DECIDED BY THE PAROLE BOARD WERE GRANTED RELEASE. THE MAJOR ADVANTAGES OF SHOCK PROBATION AND PAROLE ARE THAT THEY REDUCE INCARCERATION AND SHORTEN THE LENGTH OF IMPRISONMENT. THEY ALSO REDUCE CORRECTIONAL COSTS, PROVIDE A BROADER RANGE OF SENTENCING ALTERNATIVES, INCREASE RELEASE OPTIONS, PROMOTE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN CORRECTIONS, EASE STRESSES ON INMATES, AND HELP INMATES MAINTAIN THEIR FAMILY AND COMMUNITY TIES. HOWEVER, SHOCK PROBATION AND PAROLE ALSO HAVE DISADVANTAGES: THE TENDENCY OF JUDGES TO IMPOSE IMPRISONMENT RATHER THAN REGULAR PROBATION, ON THE GROUNDS THAT OFFENDERS CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SHOCK PROGRAMS; GREATER DISCRETIONARY POWER FOR JUDGES AND PAROLE BOARDS; HOSTILITY AND RESENTMENT FROM POLICE, PROSECUTORS, JUDGES, AND CITIZENS WHO SEE THE PROGRAMS AS PRESENTING GREATER LENIENCY TOWARD CRIMINALS; MORE WORK FOR JUDGES AND CORRECTIONAL PERSONNEL; GREATER INSTITUTIONAL INSTABILITY ARISING FROM INCREASING DISCREPANCIES IN TIME SERVED; AND THE FACT THAT MORE HEARINGS INEVITABLY WILL MEAN MORE DENIALS OF FREEDOM. SUPPORTING DATA AND A LIST OF REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED.