Crime & Delinquency

Preoccupation with due process has tended to obscure the substantive issues of probation administration. Courts give little attention to purposes of probation, impose numerous unnecessary and vague conditions, and tend to use probation solely as a token punishment. Consequently, the probation officer is compelled to decide which conditions to emphasize, with the result that administrative convenience has too much influence on supervision and the decision to seek revocation proceedings. In particular, using probation as a token punishment may lead to unjust revocation and imprisonment for noncriminal probation violations of an offender whom the court originally found no retributive need to imprison. In plea bar gaining and sentencing, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges should concentrate on setting specific goals of probation in individual cases and articulating the conditions necessary to achieve these goals. This can be assisted by presentence reports that are more focused on specific probation goals and involve more participation by the probation officer—preferably at the plea bargaining stage. Restraint is an important goal of probation; it can be better realized by (1) setting specific, enforceable probation con ditions to limit the probationer's opportunity for further crime and to make his activity more visible, and (2) revoking probation only if the probationer cannot abide by reasonable restraints. When a rehabilitative program is a condition of probation and the probationer fails to partici pate in or respond to it, probation should not be revoked unless the court in its original judgment found the supervision and service provided by the program a necessary substitute for the complete restraint of imprison ment. While restitution to the victim is a valid goal of probation, it can be better attained if carefully adjusted to the probationer's ability to pay before the probation judgment is imposed. When a probationer commits a new crime while on probation, the best response is to concentrate on sentencing him for the new crime, taking his probationary status into consideration along with other relevant factors, rather than to revoke pro bation and imprison him for his earlier offense.

Just what is the proper definition of the role of the probation or parole officer? This is an issue that is always alive, never entirely resolved. It has many subtle facets which most probation and parole officers quietly re solve to their own satisfaction on almost a day-to-day basis.

Sane defendants are subject to the imposition of sanctions by the criminal justice system for reasons of punishment, "just deserts," deterrence, pro tection of society, and rehabilitation. In Pennsylvania and most other states, defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity are diverted to the mental health system, from which they are usually released within a relatively brief time, often unsupervised and on heavy doses of psycho tropic medication. They have rarely gained any insight that would reduce the probability of a repetition of criminal conduct, given the same circum stances that precipitated the earlier criminal act.

In 1973, Oklahoma State Penitentiary exploded in the costliest prison riot in American history. In the wake of that riot, Oklahoma adopted a Master Plan which called for lowering populations in the overcrowded prisons, primarily by reducing the state's incarceration rate-then as now twice the national average—and partly by new prison construction. Since 1975, Oklahoma has built 2,000 new spaces for prisoners, but its harsh sentenc ing policies remain unchanged; for several years, use of parole decreased instead of increasing, and, with the exception of a restitution program, community-based nonincarcerative alternatives are minimal. As a result, the building program has not kept pace with the rising commitments, and the prison system still does not provide humane, constitutionally adequate living conditions. A court order in September 1978 required the state to rebuild or shut down the two major institutions and to meet a timetable for upgrading prison living conditions. In May 1979, the court approved a compromise plan submitted by the state and extended the deadlines for compliance. The last of the deadlines must be met by January 1982.

This paper presents recent evidence, obtained from a review of the liter ature on correctional treatment published since 1973, appealing the ver dict that correctional rehabilitation is ineffective. Questions are raised about the quality of the research that led to the conclusion that "nothing works." Recent research on family intervention, contingency man agement, counseling, diversion, and biomedical techniques is discussed, as is the efficacy of treatment of such problems as alcoholism, drug addic tion, and sexual deviations. It is concluded that there are several types of intervention programs that have proved successful with offender popu lations. These intervention programs illustrate pointedly why there have been so many failures reported in correctional treatment.

"Crimesim" is a new computer simulation model that can be adapted for use in any criminal justice system or agency without extensive knowledge of computers or computer languages. The model is designed to be used by researchers, planners, and decision makers. Crimesim models a system by allowing one to determine which of available alternatives will provide the greatest benefit, in terms of stated priorities and cost effectiveness. The model can be used as a tool in decision making by helping the user to organize and analyze information and assess possible alternatives.

Family intervention is shifting from an informal alternative in the treat ment of juvenile offenders to a formal adjudicatory option, a trend il lustrated by legislation recently passed by the state of Florida. The politi cally expedient move of making family participation in treatment man datory in some cases was not based on conclusive empirical data indicat ing the family's crucial role in causing and resolving delinquent behavior. It appears that state intervention in family matters is likely to increase. Without evaluation of family intervention strategies, such strategies are likely to proliferate with little control over possible unfortunate consequences.

This article is a response to Gottheil's criticism of an earlier article by the author, in which it was suggested that most criminal justice programs have not been effectively evaluated. This problem was discussed in the context of a pretrial diversion program in Illinois. Gottheil offered several criticisms of the author's assessment of reasons for a nonexperimental attitude on the part of program personnel, and also criticized the author's suggestions for a research methodology for future evaluations. In this article, the author responds to these criticisms and, in particular, points to some of the problems that might arise when policy implications are drawn from methodologically unsound evaluations.