NCJ Number
219510
Journal
Federal Probation: A Journal of Correctional Philosophy and Practice Volume: 71 Issue: 1 Dated: June 2007 Pages: 9-15
Date Published
June 2007
Length
7 pages
Annotation
This study explored probation and parole officers (PPOs) preferred responses or discretionary decisionmaking to probationers and parolees who breach the conditions of their community supervision by committing technical and/or criminal violations.
Abstract
Within the probation and parole officers’ (PPOs’) work environment, there were policies and social pressures that might have affected the making of discretionary decisions. For example, about 11 percent of all respondents reported that they worked in agencies that had policies to inhibit formal actions for certain violations. At the same time, a majority of respondents (63 percent) reported that their agencies had policies that required formal actions for certain violations. It would appear as if respondents were more likely to work in agencies that had policies to mandate rather than suppress formal action. Study findings also document a certain amount of social pressure that affected officers’ discretionary decisions. In addition, the vast majority of surveyed officers supported judicial interventions with offenders who directly disobeyed an officer’s verbal warnings and who picked up new charges that had merit. Human error is not the only reason found that the administration of justice is non-uniform in its application. A much larger factor is human discretion or the use of personal decisionmaking and choice when criminal justice professionals carry out their respective duties and responsibilities. This study focused on the preferred responses by PPOs to probationers and parolees who violated the conditions of their community supervision by committing technical and/or criminal violations. The survey targeted line officers and middle managers who supervised adult offenders under pretrial release, probation, parole, or post-release supervision. References, tables