Probation revocations were examined for six months in Hays County, Texas, USA, to determine whether probationers were revoked and sentenced to jail or provided with an alternative sanction. The results indicate that 55 per cent of the revocations result in prison or jail without an intermediate sanction. This outcome is compared to the state-wide revocation percentage and discussed in terms of the goal of Texas Department of Criminal Justice – Community Justice Assistance Division (TDCJ–CJAD) of sanctioning probationers who violate the terms of probation, in lieu of sentencing them to prison. The impact of revocations on criminal justice policy is discussed.
Burke, P. (1997) Policy-Driven Responses to Probation and Parole Violations. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
2.
Farrington, D.P. and P.A. Langan (1994) ‘Changes in Crime and Punishment in America, England and Sweden Between the 1980s and the 1990s’, Studies on Crime and Prevention3 (1): 104-104.
3.
Harris, P., R. Peterson and S. Rapoza (2001) ‘Between Probation and Revocation: A Study of Intermediate Sanctions Decision-Making’, Journal of Criminal Justice29: 307–318.
4.
McLaren, J. and J. Stickels (2003) Texas Intermediate Sanctions 2003 Bench Manual. Austin: Texas Department of Criminal Justice – Community Justice Assistance Division.
5.
Morris, N. and M.Tonry (1990) Between Prison and Probation: Intermediate Punishments in a Ratio Sentencing State. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6.
Petersilla, J. and P. Deschenes (1994) ‘What Punishes? Inmates Rank the Severity of Prison vs. Intermediate Sanctions’, Federal Probation58: 63–71.
7.
Piar, D. (2003) ‘A Uniform Code of Procedure for Revoking Probation’, American Journal of Criminal Law31: 117–174.
8.
Sieh, E. (2003) ‘A Theoretical Basis for Handling Technical Violations’, Federal Probation67: 28–32.
9.
Spelman, W. (1995) ‘The Severity of Intermediate Sanctions’, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency32: 107–135.
10.
Taxman, F. and R. Cherkos (1995) ‘Intermediate Sanctions: Dealing With Technical Violators’, Corrections Today57: 46–54.
11.
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 42.12 (1997).
12.
Texas Criminal Justice Policy Council (2003) The Second Biennial Report on the Performance of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Rehabilitation Tier Programs. URL (consulted 9 March 2005): http://www.cjpc.state.tx.us/reports/adltrehab/2ndBiennial.pdf
13.
Texas Department of Criminal Justice – Community Justice Assistance Division (2001) Strengthening Community Supervision Sanctions & Services, a Local-State Partnership. URL (consulted 9 March 2005): http://www.tdcj.statetx.us/publications/cjad/tech-violations-rprt.pdf
14.
Texas Department of Criminal Justice – Community Justice Assistance Division (2003) Community Supervision in Texas, Summary Statistics. URL (consulted 9 March 2005): http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/publications/cjad/statsum2002%20PDF%20Report.pdf
15.
Texas Department of Criminal Justice – Community Justice Assistance Division (2005) Overview of Probation for the 79th Legislature. URL (consulted 9 March 2005): http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/publications/cjad/Overview_of_Probation.pdf
16.
Tonry, M. (1998) ‘Intermediate Sanctions in Sentencing Guidelines’, Crime and Justice23: 199–253.
