Intensive Supervised Probation
Intensive Supervised Probation
The criminal justice system in the United States is made up of doctrines that govern offenders' punishment and rehabilitation based on the severity of their crimes. An offender who commits a crime is convicted to a prison sentence or probation by the court of law. The offender can either be placed under intensive supervision probation or standard probation (Barnes, & Hyatt, 2018). The intensive supervision probation is a strict structure supervision program whereby the defendant has to comply with more strict probation terms than standard probation with less lenient terms with a lesser reporting schedule. Intensive supervision probation is classified as another alternative form of incarceration (Barnes, & Hyatt, 2018). Statistics from the Bureau of Justice show that as of 2018, there were over five million people under community supervision, either be it parole or probation in the United States. This paper seeks to discuss intensive supervision probation while highlighting a hypothetical case warranting intensive supervision probation.
Evolution of Intensive Supervision Probation
Intensive supervised probation dates back to the early 1980s. It was officially established in July 1990 following grant funding from the Ohio department of rehabilitation and correction. The program was enacted as an alternative for incarceration. Since then, the programs have expanded to other states as a jail diversion component (Boman IV et al., 2019). The programs have since evolved to include treatment and rehabilitation services and other specialized programs to curb recidivism. Also, many states have adopted intensive supervised probation to reduce increased prison overcrowding (Boman IV et al., 2019). Moreover, it maintains a safe environment for the community by addressing offenders' needs.
According to Taylor (2017), intensive supervised probation plays an essential role in the criminal justice system. First, it protects the community as it helps to curb crime. Secondly, it helps reduce recidivism through rehabilitation. This is made possible by closely monitoring the probations, putting them under strict community programs as sex offenders conducting unannounced contacts to ensure compliance (Taylor, 2017). Furthermore, for drug users conducting urine sample tests to ensure that the drug offenders are abstaining from during use. The probationers are put under home detention and GPS monitoring for high-risk offenders such as sex offenders, habitual offenders, and gang members. In some cases, the offenders are required to waive their Fourth Amendment regarding search and seizures to allow for unannounced contacts and electronic monitoring and other cases, satellite tracking (Taylor, 2017).
The probationer is mandated not to change residence and, if so, notifies the probation officers. Their eligibility for intensive supervised probation varies from one jurisdiction to the next. Moreover, a defendant may be sentenced to intrusive supervised probation if he or she has a prior history of violence or a criminal record (Gummelt, & Sullivan, 2016). With a prior criminal record, those who have not previously been on probation are likely to be put on probation by the judge. Therefore, putting them under intensive supervised probation to receive closer monitoring comes in handy as an important requirement.
The defendant has to obey the rules before the convictions, whereby he or she should report to a probation officer as directed by law. These terms include. The defendant should respect the curfew restrictions, stay within the confinement location unless with the probation officer. Additionally, the defendant must complete any community hours assigned (Gummelt, & Sullivan, 2016). If the defends are mandated to pay court fees, the amount is deducted from the community work paycheck. The defendants are put in phases, but the entire probation terms may last between six to two years, depending on the severity of the crimes. The leniency in reporting and supervision is introduced between the phases if they defend qualities of change and reforms (Gummelt, & Sullivan, 2016). The intensive supervised probation prepares the offenders for societal reentry as they integrate with the community during their community service and will have had time to prove their reformation to the public, thus earning their trust.
Violations that Could Lead to Revocation
If the probationer violates the conditions probation terms, the supervisor files a report of a violation. In turn, the district judge determines whether the allegation of violations is merited. If he ascertains that the violations occurred, the court revokes the suspension and imposes a sentence of imprisonment (Smith et al., 2018). The probation officers weigh on the severity to determine the violations' discretion.
With the increase in drug use and abuse among juveniles in the united states, options such as rehabilitation have failed to yield the desired results; therefore, exploring other options is essential. Intensive supervised probation plays an essential role in the supervision of severe substance abuse in juveniles. Mr. Smith has a previous criminal record following a sentencing of counts possession of drugs. He was put on standard probation but violated the rules. Therefore, having intensive, supervises probation is essential. Mr. Smith, the probationer in question to be put under intensive supervision where he will be confined at home, with regular search to ensure he does not have any contraband. Additionally, there will be random urine test samples to ensure that Mr. Smith remains drug-free.
Intensive supervised probation is the most appropriate sentencing option for Mr. smith to ensure that he abstains from drugs and alcohol. Violating the provisions of the probation will lead to eventual jail time for drug abuse. Being a juvenile, intensive supervised probation helps to restrain him from further drug abuse that he would likely be exposed to in prison if given a jail term (Smith et al., 2018). Furthermore, with intense supervised probation, the probation will make unannounced contacts to ensure that Mr. Smith complies with the probation requirement. It employs smaller caseloads to contain such high-risk offenders such as Mr. Smith to make a possible life turnover through frequent contacts and increased surveillance.
Intensive supervised probation has revolutionized the American criminal justice system as it plays an imperative role in reducing crime. It has played a role in reduced recidivism, drug and substance abuse, and overcrowding in prison, resulting in poor prison conditions. With the increase in drug and substance abuse, ISP has helped in reduced cases of drug use. Despite the criticism that it faces questioning its viability, many states that have adopted the intensive supervised probation have had success rates in rehabilitation and crime reduction. In adults, those accused of sexual assaults are put on intensive supervised probation, whereas only juveniles of during and substance abuse are put on the program. Intensive supervised probation has strict terms as compared to standard probation that has lenient terms. However, in case of violation of the probation terms, the probationer may face a jail term.
Barnes, G. C., & Hyatt, J. M. (2018). Intensive Supervision Probation. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice.
Bouchard, J., & Wong, J. S. (2018). Examining the effects of intensive supervision and aftercare programs for at-risk youth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 62(6), 1509-1534.
Boman IV, J. H., Mowen, T. J., Wodahl, E. J., Lee Miller, B., & Miller, J. M. (2019). Responding to substance-use-related probation and parole violations: are enhanced treatment sanctions preferable to jail sanctions. Criminal Justice Studies, 32(4), 356-370.
Gummelt, G., & Sullivan, M. (2016). Evaluating the effectiveness of a juvenile drug court: comparisons to traditional probation. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 67(4), 55-68.
Smith, A., Heyes, K., Fox, C., Harrison, J., Kiss, Z., & Bradbury, A. (2018). The effectiveness of probation supervision towards reducing reoffending: A Rapid Evidence Assessment. Probation Journal, 65(4), 407-428.
Taylor, E. (2017). Intensive Probation. The Encyclopedia of Corrections, 1-3.