NCJ Number
206066
Journal
Criminal Justice Review Volume: 29 Issue: 1 Dated: Spring 2004 Pages: 23-45
Editor(s)
Michael S. Vaughn
Date Published
2004
Length
23 pages
Annotation
Utilizing a sample of sex offenders under both specialized and standard probation units, this study examined the differences in discretionary judgments made by probation officers and judges about sex offenders on probation when considering decisions to file violation of probation (VOP).
Abstract
Sex offenders are perceived as a threat to public safety which has led to legislation by several States to allow the public access to information about sex offenders living in their communities. Due to the public scrutiny of sex offenders, community corrections professionals have tried to improve the supervision and monitoring of sex offenders sentenced to probation. The supervision of sex offenders can be either standard or specialized. The reporting and monitoring requirements for sex offenders sentenced to standard probation are far less demanding than specialized probation which requires more resources, smaller caseloads, as well as greater emphasis on field visits and searches of the sex offender’s home. This study is two fold. First, it examines whether probation officers in specialized sex offender probation units were more likely to consider offense characteristics related to sexual recidivism, were less likely to make racially biased decisions, and make more uniform, predictable decisions to file a violation of probation petition compared to probation officers in standard units. Second, it examined the extent and conditions under which judges supported probation officers’ requests to revoke probation and whether they were more likely to support revocation requests from probation officers in specialized probation than from probation officers in standard probation. The study sample consisted of 567 sex offenders on standard adult probation and 395 sex offenders on specialized probation. Probation officers in specialized units received intensive training on sex offenders and were given uniform sanctioning guidelines to respond to sex offenders’ noncompliant behavior, whereas probation officers in standard probation did not receive training on sex offenders and had no uniform sanctioning guidelines to assist them in their decision-making. The findings suggest that the training and uniform guidelines might have contributed to specialized probation officers decisions to file a violation of probation (VOP). In addition, judges were more likely to support specialized probation officers’ decisions to request revocation when sex offenders committed a technical violation, treatment noncompliance, general recidivism or violent recidivism, but not sexual recidivism. References