Many state and local governments are bringing awareness to the connection between elevated revocation rates and correction population expansion. Many state and local governments are proposing new legislations that will assist in plummeting revocation rates by placing limits on the court’s and prison agencies’ authority to utilize imprisonment as a direct sanction for violating the terms of their release. Research- based evidence and practices reflect the rate of success the implementation of such policy changes will garner. Adjusting the current policies for community supervision will allow the overall purpose of the criminal justice process to be more effective in reducing recidivism which directly impacts the issue of mass incarceration. A great percentage of the current prison population are repeat offenders who have returned to the
…show more content…
Probation instantaneously became a widespread disposition. Studies from the 1900s indicate that almost half of all convicted criminals were sentenced to probation. During the late twentieth century, criminal justice policies and processes became more corrective and the use of probation and community supervision became more prevalent. “In 2001, 60% of those under correctional supervision were serving terms of probation. This development is best explained by changes in supervisory practices. Throughout the 1980s and ’90s, jurisdictions developed “intensive supervision” programs, imposed more restrictive conditions, and increased rates of revocation.” Many of the new reformations allowed probation to continue consistent with the philosophy of the times. This shift transitioned far from its simple and plain origins, rotating it into a more formal consent than the traditional alternative of probation that was initially
Probation instantaneously became a widespread disposition. Studies from the 1900s indicate that almost half of all convicted criminals were sentenced to probation. During the late twentieth century, criminal justice policies and processes became more corrective and the use of probation and community supervision became more prevalent. “In 2001, 60% of those under correctional supervision were serving terms of probation. This development is best explained by changes in supervisory practices. Throughout the 1980s and ’90s, jurisdictions developed “intensive supervision” programs, imposed more restrictive conditions, and increased rates of revocation.” Many of the new reformations allowed probation to continue consistent with the philosophy of the times. This shift transitioned far from its simple and plain origins, rotating it into a more formal consent than the traditional alternative of probation that was initially