Beyond Bars: The Hidden World of Parole and Probation

Send us a text

Probation and parole represent distinct forms of criminal supervision in the United States, each with its own purpose and impact on millions of Americans caught in the justice system. We explore the key differences between these alternative sentencing approaches and trace their evolution from the 1840s to today's complex implementation challenges.

• Probation functions as punishment itself, allowing offenders to remain in the community under supervision rather than going to prison
• Parole operates as a reward system, providing early release for prisoners who demonstrate rehabilitation
• John Augustus, a Boston cobbler, pioneered probation by bailing out minor offenders and helping them find jobs in the 1840s
• The term "parole" comes from the French word for "word of honor" and began in New York's corrections system in the 1870s
• Approximately 3.6 million Americans are on probation and 878,000 on parole according to most recent data
• Supervision systems face significant challenges including inadequate resources, overwhelming caseloads, and racial disparities
• Nearly half of state prison admissions result from probation and parole violations rather than new crimes
• Dual diagnosis (concurrent substance use and mental health disorders) requires specialized treatment often unavailable to those on supervision
• Technology like ignition interlocks and electronic monitoring plays an increasing role in supervision systems
• Evidence-based practices including cognitive behavioral interventions show promise for improving outcomes and reducing recidivism

Download our episodes and tell your friends about Deviant Criminology to help us grow! Visit our website at www.deviantcriminology.com or find us on social media.

www.deviantcriminology.com

Episode Transcript

Speaker 2 (00:39):
All right.
So this week I wanted to figureout if I pass, go collect $200,
if I go to jail or if I canjust visit jail.
So this is an episode ofDeviant Criminology.
I'm Richard.

Speaker 3 (00:52):
I'm.

Speaker 2 (00:52):
Heather.
And this week I kind of wantedto look into and get your
feedback, heather, on somethingthat's come up in class a lot
and I always know the basics butI'm not a lawyer enough to be
able to kind of explain how itbecame this way and then how we
use probation and parole, kindof what the differences are and
what they mean.
So this week we're going tokind of cover the topic of

(01:13):
probation and parole a littlebit more criminal just to see
than kind of the traditionaltrue crime that we try to cover.
But it's about the systemitself.
Let's just go ahead and getright into it, defining the
basics of probation and parole.
So let's start with thefundamentals.
Probation and parole are twodistinct forms of criminal
supervision in the United States, each with its own kind of

(01:36):
purpose and implementation.

Speaker 3 (01:37):
We're going to go over the differences here in a
minute.
But you can think of it as whenyour parents say you're on
probation, it meant that theywere watching you and you better
not screw up again.
But if you did, then you weregrounded, which would be the
same as incarceration.
If you say it on your bestbehavior, you might get out of
being grounded to do somethingspecial, like go to a friend's

(01:58):
birthday party, or maybe youjust convince them that you
learned your lesson, and thenthey say then they say well, ok,
you're good, we'll unground you, but if you do anything at all,
you're going to be right backhere and you're going to be
grounded, and that would be likeparole.

Speaker 2 (02:15):
And so and these kind of come in.
This is after you've gone totrial, so this would be after
sentencing, correct?

Speaker 3 (02:21):
Correct At sentencing and after sentencing, but house
arrest is usually usedpre-trial.
It can go either way.
You can use it pre-trial or youcan like.
We used to refer it as anklemonitoring.
As part of your sentence, youcan be put on an ankle bracelet
and that is especially used whenthere's somebody for some
reason they don't want in thejail.

(02:43):
For example, if you haveuncontrolled diabetes or, at
least 20 years ago, if you hadthe pump the external pump that
they would surgically put onyour body, the jail did not want
those people there because itwas just too much of a liability
.
If you know, prisoners got in afight, that pump could be
ripped out.
You know they have nurses there, but they don't have doctors.
So a lot of times the jailwould say we really don't want

(03:05):
this person to be here, becauseit's just not safe for them to
be here.
So then they put them on anankle monitor and it'd be
similar to house arrest.
Or you could have a workrelease program or something
similar where you could leavefor doctor's appointments or you
go to work, but other than thatyou had to be at home.

Speaker 2 (03:25):
Okay, one of my favorite things I saw recently
was, of course, a video on theinternet, but where somebody had
a flask that was designed tolook like an ankle monitor, and
I thought that was absolutelyhilarious, like, let's take
prison, jail and the criminaljustice system seriously enough
to turn it into a drinking game,right?
So probation I'm not sure if wealready kind of went over that,

(03:45):
but probation is acourt-imposed sentence that
allows offenders to remain inthe community under supervision
instead of going to jail.
It's typically granted by ajudge at sentencing and often
for less serious offenses orfirst-time offenders.

Speaker 3 (04:02):
And just for clarification.
I know you said jail.
Probation can still have jail,just not prison, and that's
another thing.
People get a mismatch with whatjail versus prison is.
Jails are usually local level.
It's like if you have a cityjail or a county jail, when you
get arrested for DUI or anything, you go to jail.
Then you go to court, you getprocessed, you stay in jail

(04:24):
until your case is finished andthen at the conclusion of your
case you could either go to jailor prison.
Typically, if it's less than ayear, you'll serve it at the
jail, If it's more than a year,you go to prison, and typically
prison is reserved for felonies,not misdemeanors.

Speaker 2 (04:39):
That's kind of how I always explain it to my students
is like 364 days or less,you're usually going to jail,
365 or more, you're going toprison.
That's kind of how it wasalways explained to me.
So, and probationers mustfollow specific conditions set
by the court.
These can include regularcheck-ins with a probation

(04:59):
officer, maintaining employment,participating in drug or other
types of rehabilitation programs.
You have to submit to drugtests, which can be very random.
You can just get called and belike hey, you need to come piss
today, and staying out oftrouble, and usually there's
also a restriction on who you'reallowed to associate with.
You can't hang out with knowncriminals or individuals like

(05:22):
that.

Speaker 3 (05:23):
Sometimes, but usually that's more of a parole
thing because that takes moresupervision.
So probation and again, usuallyprobation is more for those
lesser offenses.
So for instance, if you have aDUI you're not going to have a
condition like that.
That's a typical probation case.
Or theft, or I don't say minordomestic violence, because no
domestic violence is reallyminor.
I don't say minor domesticviolence because no domestic
violence is really minor, butsomething that doesn't involve

(05:46):
some type of permanent bodilyinjury or harm or disfigurement,
something like that.
You know, like the pushingshoving type stuff that would be
on probation so usually, butlike no contact orders.
That's a good example when yousaid can't associate with
certain people.
If it's a DV case and they sayyou're not allowed to go within
this many yards of the victim,that would be an order of the

(06:08):
court where you would not beallowed to associate or contact
the victim in the case.
So that would be an example forthat.
Now for parole, it's going tobe a bit different.
It's more of a reward typething.
It's an early release programfor prisoners who've already
served part of their sentenceand usually there's a parole
board involved that decideswhether or not to grant parole

(06:31):
and they consider factors likethe inmates' behavior while
they're in prison, theparticipation in rehabilitation
programs and potential risk topublic safety.

Speaker 2 (06:41):
So, unlike probation, parolees must comply with
certain conditions that are setand also supervise supervision
requirements.
It's important to note thatparole is seen more as a
privilege or opportunity forearly release, while probation
is considered a form ofpunishment in itself or get out
of going to prison in the firstplace.

(07:02):
So I think that's kind of aninteresting way I've never
thought of it is one is thepunishment, the other is a
reward.
I've never looked at it thatway.
That's interesting.

Speaker 3 (07:12):
And that is an interesting nuance to it as far
as like for me, because in mymind they're both punishment,
and I understand that parole isa reward in some sense, but it's
also earned.
It's not just given.
You do have to do things to getparole, it's just not an

(07:32):
automatic OK, your time is up,now you get to go.
Even though you didn't actuallydo your time, there's still
some requirements in there.

Speaker 2 (07:41):
So, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics,
this is as of 2019, whichanybody that has ever looked at
stats in the justice system.
They're usually way behind.
Even the FBI stats that comeout from police departments
reporting are usually two, three, sometimes four years behind
they get published.

(08:01):
So this is really the mostrecent data that we have.
But there were approximately3.6 million people on probation
and about 878,000 on parole inthe United States.
That's a significant portion ofour population under some form
of community supervision andreally kind of one of the big

(08:22):
impacts of that has just beenthe opioid crisis and drugs.
I think they make up a decentamount of those cases.

Speaker 3 (08:29):
I think it's interesting too when you look at
those numbers, because I thinka lot of times people again
think of probation and parole asbeing synonymous, but they're
very different.
And, again, like you mentioned,3.6 million, way more than the
878,000 that we came up with.
And I also kind of wondered howunsupervised probation numbers

(08:51):
were figured in as far as this3.6 million.
Because there is such a thingas unsupervised probation, which
basically means nobody'schecking in with you.
You have certain requirementsthat you have to fulfill, which
usually, like a DUI case,something like that, you have to
submit the paperwork saying Idid the things I was supposed to
do and then at the end of theperiod usually it was the
prosecution would review thefile and see if everything was

(09:14):
in there, and if it wasn't, thenwe would sign a motion to
revoke and file it with thecourt, and then the court would
send a notice to the defendantwith a notice to appear and then
we would have a revocationhearing and then at that point
the judge would re-sentence thedefendant and in Colorado you
could be re-sentenced for theoriginal term.
In New Mexico you could only besentenced for the term remaining

(09:35):
on your sentence, which Ialways thought was interesting
Because to me again probation iskind of a reward versus a
punishment, whereas in NewMexico it was more of a
punishment and so their feelingwas you got day for day credit
for any time you were onprobation.
So if you were on probation fortwo years and one year and 11
months in, you screwed up.

(09:55):
You only had to go to jail forone month, versus in Colorado if
it was two years and one yearand 11 months in, you screwed up
.

Speaker 2 (10:04):
The judge could put you in jail for the whole two
years.
Wow, that's double punishmentalmost, yeah, I mean.
At the same time it kind ofgoes back to the liar, liar
thing of just like stop breakingthe law, asshole.

Speaker 3 (10:17):
Or do what you're supposed to do.
Like I gave you a chance, youscrewed up.
Now you're going to go back anddo the time that I don't want
to say forgave you of, but likeI gave you a pass, I didn't make
you go to jail.
You screwed up Now you blewyour chance.
Now you have to do what I wouldhave given you before.
I gave you this chance.

Speaker 2 (10:37):
And I wonder again, I don't know, we don't do guests
a whole lot.
It would have been interestingto ask somebody that did
probation and parole but wonderhow much like they take into
account if the person tried butthe system failed, so like they
were trying to get a job butthere just weren't any in the
area that they work, like theywere putting in applications and

(10:59):
stuff, or if they were tryingto get into a treatment program
and there just weren't anyavailable, there weren't spaces
or beds at the time how muchthey take that into account.
Or if they punish you like well, that was a requirement.
Uh, it's very interesting,coming from like more of my
social work background, whatthat would look like, but I
don't know on my end.

Speaker 3 (11:20):
If it was an unsupervised probation type
thing, almost always, regardlessof the reason, the judge would
give them a second chance atcompleting.
If it was just like I didn't domy community service or I
didn't do my treatment, italmost always give you a chance
to do your treatment again.
If it was something moreserious like I've been here
three times and I haven'tlearned to do my treatment it
was you're going to do a weekendin jail and then go do the

(11:40):
treatment anyway to try to gettheir attention.
As far as, like the, I can'tget a job.
If it was supervised probation,usually the person who wrote
the report because again, yoursupervised probation officer,
like they have a job to do.
So, even though they're lookingat it and being like, well,
this isn't his fault, they'resupposed to be accountable to
the judge and telling the judgethis is what's going on.
So a lot of times they wouldwrite a report to the court

(12:03):
asking for revocation but at thesame time putting those
mitigating factors in there forthe judge to consider.

Speaker 2 (12:09):
That's yeah, and that's why I thought this would
be an interesting episode,because there are those nuances
that so many people just don'tunderstand.
But now that we're covering thebasics, I think we kind of want
to take a journey, like weusually do, kind of through the
history of this system, becauseit's kind of fascinating.

Speaker 3 (12:28):
It really is, and if you think about it once upon a
time, most of the sentences thatyou had for criminal activity
were some type of an immediateand final sentence.
So you had a lot of hangings,firing squads, beheadings
whether that be the acts of anexecutioner or through the
guillotine and we also had someparticularly wicked ways of

(12:53):
executing people, like beingdrawn and quartered and things
of that nature.
So when we got to our countryhere hence we had the whole no
cruel and unusual punishmentsfor our system.
England also had the debtor'sprison, which we've rejected.
They didn't use prison backthen for things that were felony

(13:13):
type crimes.
It was almost always anexecution if you committed some
type of a felony.
So we moved into usingincarceration here.
But, as we've talked aboutbefore in our episodes about
prison, that's how we moved hereaway from the death penalty for
everything.
This brings us to the questionof how the idea of probation

(13:33):
actually started.

Speaker 2 (13:35):
Which I think, before we get into that, it is
interesting that now we aregoing back to the firing squad
in the United States.
I'm not sure kind of how I feelabout that.
Uh, we won't get into the wholemental health of the
individuals doing it and thefact that it's all volunteer.
But, um, we'll leave that foranother episode.
But probation, uh, in the U Shas its roots in the 1840s, so

(14:00):
this is kind of around the time.
We also see, like the previousepisodes we've done with um.
So this is kind of around thetime.
We also see, like the previousepisodes we've done with Penn
State or Missouri State's prisonsystems and how they were kind
of going more to thisincarceration, even though they
kind of looked different.
And it has its roots in theBoston with a Boston cobbler

(14:22):
named John Augustus.
He started bailing out minoroffenders and helping them find
jobs.
So talk kind of about acommunity hero.
Like here's a guy I'm going tosay maybe a social worker.
Before there were socialworkers who saw that there was
an issue and kind of put hismoney where his mouth was and
said hey, you know, people don'tneed to be sitting in prison
just because they either can'tpay bills or because they've

(14:43):
committed a minor offense tryingto survive.
I will pay off their debts andthen help them find work.
So that's kind of incredible.
So one man's actions kind ofled to a nationwide system.

Speaker 3 (14:57):
So, just like you were saying, one person made a
difference.
It really is crazy, when youthink about it, that his work,
augustus's work, laid thegroundwork for what would become
a modern probation system on anational scale.
He posted bail for nearly 2,000men, women and children between
1841 and 1858, focusingprimarily on minor offenders and

(15:21):
alcoholics.

Speaker 2 (15:24):
So I think that also kind of goes into another
subject that we're not covering,but of like bonds, bail and all
these other things that we heara lot about.
But again, if you're not in thesystem really deep don't make
sense.
But here, if you fast forwardto 1878, massachusetts becomes
the first state to adopt aformal probation system and by

(15:47):
1956, almost 100 years later,again nothing in the criminal
justice system moves fast.
That is something that if youstudy the court systems or true
crime or anything you understand, nothing moves fast here.
But by 1956, every state in thenation had jumped on board and
adopted some form of probation.

(16:07):
And then at the federal levelthe Federal Probation Act was
signed into law in 1925,establishing probation as a
sentence in the federal system.

Speaker 3 (16:18):
Yeah, and that's not the state system, which is worth
noting because that's what mostpeople are familiar with are
state systems.
So, with the juvenile justicesystem that played a significant
role in development ofprobation In the 18, say about
1899, the first juvenile courtwas established in Chicago which
contributed greatly to therecognition of probation as a

(16:40):
legally sanctioned method ofdealing with offenders, which it
seems like probation hasevolved as more as a more humane
alternative to imprisonment,especially for our young
offenders, because hopefully,again, like those people who are
under, say, 22 years of age orso, prefrontal cortex
development, hopefully we canget them back on the right track

(17:01):
and I don't want to say likesave their lives but make it so
that they make better choices,so that their lives can have
more meaning and be morefunctioning within society.
And I think for most of us, whenwe think of juvenile offenders,
we think of being sent off to amilitary school if you were
wealthy, or, you know, to go toa Catholic school with the nuns,
with the rulers and the strictpunishments if you were poor, or

(17:24):
if you were an orphan, whichyou know.
Again, the wealth thing youmentioned, bail bonds and things
.
That's a whole other topic weget into, like for a whole other
episode, but wealth, and wecould maybe do one on wealth and
the legal system in general.
I think that one might be aninteresting one to do.

Speaker 2 (17:46):
Yes, yeah, I definitely think so, because we
talk about how, even a $10 fineto somebody that has no money,
you can spend a lot of time injail waiting for your trial,
where somebody has a lot ofmoney and can be right out.
But I think it also represents ashift towards rehabilitation
rather than pure punishment,which is again kind of what we
saw with getting rid of solitaryconfinement and we're seeing
these developments of trying tomake or give people a chance to

(18:07):
rehabilitate instead of justbeing purely punishment in the
country.
Again, these were ideas thatwere kind of already thought of
in other countries, but this iswhere the United States was kind
of on the front end, where alot of our criminal justice
system we've always kind of beenduplicating what others have

(18:28):
done.
So this is one of the few timesyou'd be like way to go, united
States, you're a little bitahead of the times on stuff.
So, and then when we talk aboutparole, that kind of started in
the 1870s with and I'm gonnamess this person's name up, but
Zebulon Brockway and ElmiraReformatory at Elmira

(18:51):
Reformatory in New York.
So he introduced a two-partstrategy consisting of
indeterminate sentences and kindof a paroled release.

Speaker 3 (19:01):
So one of the things that I find really interesting
is the concept of indeterminatesentences, and indeterminate
sentences are what we use inColorado for some of the sex
defenders specifically, and withan indeterminate sentence, it
means that you don't knowexactly what your sentence is
going to be, so I'll let youexplain indeterminate sentences

(19:24):
and parole releases.

Speaker 2 (19:26):
Okay.
So this approach implied theprisoners could bring their
rehabilitation duringincarceration, which could be
recognized by a parole board.
So if they begin doingrehabilitation and they're
trying to get treatment, thenthey have the chance to go for
parole.
It also emphasizes protectingprisoners from cruel and unusual

(19:48):
punishment.
So I always wonder where we gotthe term parole from.
And in preparing for thisepisode, we kind of learned
something.
And, Heather, I'll let you kindof explain that a little bit
better than I could.

Speaker 3 (20:04):
Just that the term parole itself comes from the
French word meaning word ofhonor, and by 1907, new York had
implemented the firstcomprehensive parole system.
By 1942, all states and thefederal government had adopted
some kind of parole system.

Speaker 2 (20:22):
And the federal parole system underwent
significant changes over theyears, which you would hope it
does.
It would adapt to what we learn.
So in 1910, legislationauthorized the parole of federal
prisoners since the terms ofone year or more.
But then by 1930, a singleboard of parole was created at

(20:43):
the national level replacingindividual institution parole
boards.
So instead of every littlefederal prison kind of having
their own parole boards anddifferent systems kind of like,
we have the 13 kind of appellatecourts that exist.
That was kind of how it was.
Every little area had their own.
Now there's just one majorparole board for the entire
national system.

Speaker 3 (21:04):
And I think in general you see that on a lot of
levels where before things weremore locally organized and
administered because most peoplelived in one place for their
whole life.
So just like we say ignoranceof the law is no excuse, well,
you live there your whole life,you should know what it is
Versus.
Now you might move from youknow, I don't know, we'll just

(21:24):
say California to Nebraska, andall of a sudden you find out
that there's some law that saysyou can't buy alcohol on Sunday.
And what the heck is that about?
I've never heard of that in mylife.
And you say, well, ignorance,what the local community
standards are.

Speaker 2 (21:48):
Well, and I think I think another thing that is kind
of evolved with this we don'tkind of talk about but I think
does make an impact, is theInternet itself, because there's
so much bad information outthere that you get on the
internet.
Like I know, years ago, indianawe used to have a gun permit

(22:08):
system here in Indiana and thenOhio had a gun permit system.
Indiana recognized Ohio's gunpermit but Ohio didn't recognize
Indiana's.
So if you just did a cursorysearch and saw Indiana
recognized Ohio, you might thinkthe same thing.
So you just did a cursorysearch and saw Indiana
recognized Ohio, you might thinkthe same thing.
So you just carry your gun toOhio and suddenly you've
committed a felony and you'relike well, I didn't know.

(22:29):
Well, you're still like yousaid, ignorance of law.
It doesn't matter, you'vecommitted this crime but you
didn't know you were committingthe crime.
Because of the ease oftransportation now and the rapid
changes of laws across states,with every state having their
own laws, but we can easily justgo back and forth.
How easy is it to get caught upin the system?

Speaker 3 (22:50):
Even with that, when I used to travel from Colorado
or New Mexico back to Indiana,just like you were talking about
, I'd have to look up the lawfor each individual state we
were going to drive throughconcerning what any regulations
were for weapons.
So I knew like before we got toIllinois we had to make sure
everything was unloaded andlocked and the ammo was stored
separately from the weapon andthere were all kinds of rules.
Then, as soon as you cross intoIndiana, all that's off.

(23:13):
Like you have a concealed carrypermit, you can do whatever you
want.
And it's interesting too on howthose different things come
about.
Again, not to go down a rabbithole, but some of them have
interstate compact laws whichallow for recognition of one
state's system into another.
So interstate compact can behow gun permits are recognized
from each other.
Also, parole and probation canwork through interstate compact

(23:36):
agreements where if you're onprobation or parole, say, in
Colorado, you could ask Floridaand they'll if it's an
interstate compact, they'llrecognize each other's systems.
However, like what you weretalking about, with Ohio not
recognizing Indiana, that wouldnot be an interstate compact.
That would be someplace whereOhio would have said something
like any state whose permitsystem is more restrictive than

(23:59):
ours will recognize Because inOhio you have to do the
background check.
You have, recognize.
Because in ohio you have to dothe background check, you have
to do a class, you have to do aproficiency test, which is
basically like a shooting testto make sure you can handle your
weapon, and then you get yourpermit.
In indiana, at least 20 yearsago, you just went in.
They did your fingerprints,made sure you didn't have a
felony, and there's yourconcealed carry.
That was it.
They didn't check to make sureyou knew anything weapons.

(24:20):
So it's another interestingthing of the dynamics of how
things work as far as does astate say we're just going to
recognize you because we thinkyou do a good job or you're
doing something better than us,or are we going to actually make
a deal?
We're all recognize you, yourecognize me and we'll be good.

Speaker 2 (24:36):
Yeah, and another, yeah, indiana.
Now they don't even do permitsanymore.
I think you can get one, butyou don't have to, you can just
carry.
It's very interesting to me.
But another area where we'retalking about that and this is
going down a rabbit hole, butI'll pull it back pretty quick,
though I was talking with mystudents and other people it's
just the rapid development ofmarijuana laws in the country

(24:58):
Like Indiana, zero tolerance,like there's none in indiana.
Kentucky, which is very close,depending where you live, is now
medical, and then ohio, whichis also really close.
It's just free reign, like it'smedical and um recreational.
So you talking about like well,if you have a medical marijuana

(25:19):
card in kentucky, you can't doanything in Indiana, but then
you can go to Ohio by as much asyou want, bring it back.
But if you're just a citizen inKentucky, you go into Ohio, use
accidentally, have someonebring it back, then you've
committed a crime.
So just how rapidly thingschange and trying to keep up
with laws and how easily againit is to get caught up and then

(25:39):
end up in this system.

Speaker 3 (25:41):
Well, and even in Ohio that's currently a place to
keep up with laws, and howeasily again it is to get caught
up and then end up in thesystem.
Well, and even in Ohio that'scurrently a place I mean, I'm in
Ohio, so it's a place where thelaw is constantly in flux
because we had medical and thenthere was actually a
constitutional amendment sayingwe would have marijuana as legal
and it was very specific as faras what was going to be
considered legal.
And now the legislature istrying to go back and tailor

(26:02):
that and cut it out and reducehow many plants you can have and
reduce the ability todistribute between people and
things of that nature.
So they're already trying todial it back, even after this
constitutional amendment waspassed in Ohio.

Speaker 2 (26:16):
Once you, once you give people rights, it's really
hard to take them back.
So we could do a wholedifferent discussion on that.
But coming back to where we'resupposed to be, but I do like
that we, you know, going off onthose tangents a little bit.
But one significant moment inthis probation parole
conversation was a creation ofthe United States Parole

(26:38):
Commission as an independentagency within the Department of
Justice in 1976.
And this kind of marked a shifttowards more standardized
decision-making in federalparole cases, because before
this it was a hodgepodge, mixedbag of everybody kind of did
their own thing and there wasn'treally this more evidence-based

(26:59):
, standardized system.

Speaker 3 (27:01):
And of course that's again at the federal level, not
the state level.
So most of the cases that wehear about are involving
state-level sentencing.
So things like basic murder,not like a federal crime murder
that's the type of stuff thatthis system would be addressing

(27:21):
is those big giant federal cases.
And this system with the statehas evolved independently from
the federal system and alsoindependent from the other state
system.
So your specific state mighthave a completely different
history as compared to thefederal system.
So, with that being the historyof it, where are we at now in
the evolution of the system?

Speaker 2 (27:44):
So as of 2025, probation remained the most
common form of correctionalcontrol in the United States.
However, both systems havefaced significant challenges and
reforms over the years.
So parole kind of reached itspeak in the United States in
1977.
So mark that right before thewar on drugs.
So at that time there wereapproximately 72 percent of

(28:07):
prisoners being released onparole.
But high profile crimescommitted by parolees led to a
decline in its use.

Speaker 3 (28:14):
So by 2002, only 39 percent of prisoners were
released on discretionary paroleonly 39% of prisoners were
released on discretionary parole, and even we have criticized
parole on certain individuals.
I think that there was anepisode that we did recently
where there were some murdersthat occurred after somebody had
been released from prison andyou and I kind of said, gee, how

(28:35):
in the heck did that person getout, being critical of that
person having been released.
So when we're talking aboutthat significant, dramatic shift
leading to the reduction in theuse of parole, what factors
carried into that?

Speaker 2 (28:51):
So yeah, I know the David Mouse case that was the
one that we did that really like.
Just I mean, it did havechanges in that system actually.
So there are several factorsthat kind of contributed to that
change.
So in the 1980s states beganpassing more determinant
sentencing statutes to curtailjudicial discretion and
establish fixed sentences forspecific crimes contributed kind

(29:22):
of to this change in the system.
That started around the 1980swhen states began passing more
determinant sentencing statutesto try and curtail judicial
discretion and establish fixedsentences for specific crimes.
That I know had to be kind ofquestionable because judges
don't like when you take awaytheir discretion.
I don't think any group thathas discretion in the criminal
justice system likes having thatdiscretion taken away.

(29:43):
Like we've talked about policediscretion.
Then you get to theprosecutorial discretion and now
you're telling judges likewe're going to take possibility
of parole in federalinstitutions and then replaced

(30:03):
it with a point system for goodbehavior.

Speaker 3 (30:07):
And I think, just like going back to that
conversation you were talkingabout, you can't roll freedoms
back.
I think it's the same thingwith discretion when you tell a
judge you can do whatever youwant and then turn around and
say, oh no, wait, wait, wedidn't really mean that.
Now we want you to do it atleast this way.
I think it's the same type of afeeling, but basically there's
been a shift towards more of astandardized sentencing and

(30:28):
release practice.
Sometimes you hear aboutmandatory minimum sentencing,
which is consistent with thisshift in ideology.

Speaker 2 (30:37):
So many states have moved forward with truth in
sentencing policies and moreprisoners now serve determined
fixed sentences followed by amonitoring period.
In the community, theory wouldbe that that's to try and make

(31:04):
sure that there's some type oftransition period where they're
still getting some monitoring to.
I would hope help them withthat transition instead of just
being you just spent 20 years inprison.
There you go out the door.
Good luck.

Speaker 3 (31:12):
And I think that that is true.
I think we've learned from ourmistakes with that.
That too many times, like yousaid, it was out the door, good
luck.
And then we see those peoplecome back and the people within
the system like you and I wouldsay well, gee, what was this guy
supposed to do?
Like he'd been in there for 20years, we dump him back out.
You know his wife's moved on,his parents have died.
You know his brother and sisterwon't have anything to do with

(31:33):
him because he's a washed uploser.
He has no job home.
What was he supposed to doother than go start stealing
stuff to survive, or break intosomebody's house to spend the
night in their house?
So I think part of that is justwe've learned from our mistakes
that those types of thingsaren't working when we just dump
people back out.

(31:53):
And it's also worth noting, likethe determinate versus
indeterminate sentence.
That's another factor in it.
As far as, like anindeterminate sentence, the
judge could say you're going tobe in prison for two years to
life and you only get out onceyou satisfy these certain
conditions.
So, like with sex offenders,there's, you know,
plethysmographs and things likethat that they have to be able
to pass before they can get backout and the probation parole.

(32:18):
I'm sorry, parole committee orparole board isn't going to want
to let somebody out until theypass those standards and even on
probation they can put you onthose standards to wait to see
if you violate and then, if youviolate, put you in to prison.

Speaker 2 (32:34):
So how has this affected the role of parole
officers?

Speaker 3 (32:46):
of parole officers.
So in some states the role ofparole officers has shifted from
social work to more of anenforcement agency, which in my
opinion is kind of sad becauseI'd like to see more of the
social work aspect of it, whereit's more individualized and
less standardized enforcement.
You screw up.
Now you're back in the system.
There's been an increasedemphasis on post-release
supervision for parolees andfocusing more on monitoring and

(33:07):
compliance rather thanrehabilitation, and I saw a lot
of that on my end in general forboth probation and parole
violations, where we would havesomething like a hot UA, meaning
the person failed a drug testor somehow violated for the
terms of their probation orparole by failing to attend
classes or do community serviceor they would commit another

(33:28):
crime.
But a lot of the cases in myexperience the rehabilitation
side of it wasn't tailored tothe individual but rather a set
curriculum that everyone wentthrough.
For example, if you had amisdemeanor domestic violence
case, you did 36 weeks ofdomestic violence counseling and
it kind of didn't matter ifwhat you did was relatively
minor or more severe like afelony that we pled down to a

(33:49):
misdemeanor because we justcouldn't prove the felony.
You both went to the same classAlcohol evaluations they had,
but almost always they wouldrecommend a level two class, to
the point where a lot of defenseattorneys would say save your
money, don't do the evaluation,just go do the level two classes
.
And I can't remember thespecifics, but it was something
like the difference between 24hours of classes and 12 hours of

(34:11):
classes, but I don't rememberspecifically the number of hours
, but it was basically somethingalong those lines.
So again, if you needed morethan that, along those lines, so
again, if you needed more thanthat, they didn't make you do
more.
And at the same time that'spart of the problem with the
standardized sentencing is thatone size fits all approach and

(34:31):
it's not always best for theindividual.
So, recognizing differencesbetween, for instance, alcohol
and drug abuse andself-medicating, we might send
somebody to the alcohol classes.
But if they're self-medicating,those substance abuse classes
aren't going to help the person,when we have not addressed the
underlying issue and really theyshould have had a mental health

(34:53):
evaluation, not just alcoholclasses.

Speaker 2 (34:57):
And I think that's something even from my own
experience being in lawenforcement, working with
probation and parole officersand stuff, and then going into
social work Like probation andparole officers they are.
They're taught that lawenforcement side where social
workers, you're taught likeresources, how to find resources
and usually have connections inthe treatment programs.
You understand mental healthand how treatment's supposed to

(35:18):
look and even dual diagnoses ofmental health disorders and
substance use disorders, butthat's not something that's
taught to probation and parole.
So, yeah, it does seem like themore we've gone towards this
enforcement side of thatposition, the more we've created
a cycle of failure instead of acycle of setting you up to
succeed.

Speaker 3 (35:39):
So dual diagnosis?
You just mentioned dualdiagnosis.
Can you explain specificallywhat that is, Because I think a
lot of people don't understandit?

Speaker 2 (35:45):
So a dual diagnosis is when you have a substance use
disorder and a mental healthdisorder diagnosis.
So maybe you have alcoholismand you're diagnosed with
bipolar disorder and they maysay, well, one is really leading
to the other.
So the bipolar you're drinkingto try and help with the
symptoms, especially if you'reon that downward side of bipolar

(36:08):
, that you'll drink a lot morewhich can lead to bad decision
making.
Or if you've got anxiety andyou use marijuana, like
marijuana is to help kind ofcalm the anxiety.
So one doesn't exist withoutthe other on one side.
So you kind of have.
And then you know I wouldn't saymarijuana you can become

(36:29):
addicted to.
But you see that with differentinstances of like heroin and
other substance uses where theyhave a mental health disorder
and they're using the substanceto treat the mental health
disorder.
But then when you becomeaddicted to that substance, now
you have addiction issues andyou have the mental health
disorder going on at the sametime and you can't treat one
without treating the other.

(36:50):
But you also run into problemsin the system where you have
some treatment facilities thatwon't take you unless you've got
your mental health undercontrol.
But then mental health placeswon't take you until you've got
your mental health under control.
But then mental health placeswon't take you until you've got
the substance use under control.
So you have a decent amount ofthe population that's sitting in
limbo and ends up more in thissystem, the criminal justice

(37:11):
system, because a lack ofunderstanding in the community
of well we can treat both at thesame time and there's not a lot
of institutions that try to doboth at the same time.

Speaker 3 (37:20):
That was my experience also, so I'm glad
that you were able to explainthat in more detail.
I think when we were inColorado, there was only one
facility that did dual diagnosisand I had so many people who
needed to go there and I just Icouldn't send them because it
was full.

Speaker 2 (37:36):
Yeah, there's just a lack of those facilities and
funding as well.
I mean, that's the biggestthing is somebody's got to fund
this.
So who funds paying the socialworkers and then keeping social
workers?
We've seen that problem andpsychologists do.
I don't want to say that onlysocial workers do this work, but
we've seen this where a lot ofthese are state jobs or state
funded jobs through grants andthings of that nature, and the

(38:00):
pay is just really low.
Funded jobs through grants andthings of that nature, and the
pay is just really low.
So people may come in for ayear or two to get some
experience, to use it as astepping stone to go to the next
place because it just pays solow.
So really, if we want to make adifference in the system, from
my experience it's putting thefunding in to keep good quality
people there for a long time andenhance these services, not low

(38:20):
ball it to say well, we'redoing something, but you're
really not, and I think that'strue across the board, from
police officers to judges toprosecutors.

Speaker 3 (38:29):
So many of those jobs don't pay that much, and it
ends up with us having a crisiswhere we cannot get good people
who actually want to do thatwork to come in and stay.
Like you said, most people comein, they do it until they're
like I can't stay here anymorebecause it's just not paying my
bills, and then they leave.
Or you have people who reallycan't find anything else to do,

(38:50):
and so they land there, and orthey go there for the wrong
reasons and then just camp outand they can't be fired because
you don't have anybody toreplace them.

Speaker 2 (38:59):
Right.
So it's kind of like this weirdinflux exit of people coming in
, going constantly and you neverknow the quality you're getting
.
So a lot of great people doingthe work though I don't want to
take that away by any means butalso a lot of great people
moving on.
Yes, exactly.

Speaker 3 (39:18):
We lose a lot of good people that we should have been
able to retain and keep andcould have really made a
difference in that position.
But they don't have a choice intheir own personal life Because
you know, if you have $100,000in student loan and you have two
kids, you can't do the work youlove.
You also have to consider whatyou're going to do to support
your family, so you might haveto go to private sector and do

(39:39):
something that's less fulfillingbut pays your bills.

Speaker 2 (39:41):
Yeah, which is kind of going down another rabbit
hole, but why?
I don't remember where it was.
I just remember when I wentthrough my MSSW program to
become a social worker, one ofthe things we were always told
if you went and worked for anonprofit or a government agency
and you did it for 10 years,they would wipe your student
debts Kind of a way to getpeople to go to those.

(40:03):
Maybe it's a little less paying, but the flip side is at the
end of that 10 years then youcan wipe your student loan debt
away.
So they kind of tried to comeup with ways to yeah, we can't
pay you as much, but we can giveyou this benefit which I'm glad
they have those now.

Speaker 3 (40:21):
They didn't have them when I was there, but I'm glad
they have those now.

Speaker 2 (40:24):
Yeah, and I don't know how much longer those will
exist, but as of right now thatprogram still exists and that's
just kind of one example of apro and a con.
Is just kind of this revolvingdoor.
But there are other pros andcons to probation and parole,
because everything has itsadvantage and its drawback.
So let's kind of look at those,I think, starting kind of with

(40:45):
the upsides.

Speaker 3 (40:47):
So talking about money like we just were, one of
the positives, first andforemost, is the cost
effectiveness.
Having probation paroleprograms can reduce the cost of
up to 90% compared toincarceration for all of those
people, so that's a significantsavings for the taxpayers.

Speaker 2 (41:07):
Well, and I think part of that probably has to do
with you're not sitting in acell using tax money, like if
you go out you get a job, we canstill monitor you, but now
you're making money yourself,paying for your own food, your
own housing and everything else,and paying taxes back into the
system instead of the other wayaround.
So it makes sense to use thisfrom.

(41:29):
What I like to say is, like theconservative economic
standpoint, like what is goingto save us the most money while
still holding people accountablefor the crimes they committed.
So that's also a reallyimpressive amount, but I know
there are other benefits withthis system as well.

Speaker 3 (41:47):
So we have rehabilitation opportunities
that are going to be more widelyavailable if you're on
probation or parole, becauseoffenders can access community
treatment programs, counselingand support services that
address underlying issues likeaddiction, and these things can
be crucial for success andreintegration into society,

(42:08):
which, of course, are our goals.
We want to get these peopleback into society in a
functional way.

Speaker 2 (42:16):
Okay.
So by keeping nonviolentoffenders out of prison and
releasing inmates, earlyprobation and parole has helped
alleviate the strain on ouroverburden correctional system,
which is I don't know how that'schanged.
The system's going to changeanytime soon.
I know in Indianapolis alone wehad three different jails, so

(42:37):
this is obviously a problemthat's gone on for a long time.
And this is obviously a problemthat's gone on for a long time,
no-transcript.
So here we're seeing thatprobation and parole are kind of

(42:59):
helping alleviate some of thestrain on that system.

Speaker 3 (43:01):
Yeah, and then another important aspect is
maintaining the family andcommunity ties for the offender.
So by having probation andparole, your offenders can
continue working, supportingtheir families and maintaining
those important socialconnections that will keep them
as a functional member ofsociety, and it also helps with

(43:23):
maintaining other key benefitslike government-assisted housing
.
One of the things that I alwayshated when I was dealing with a
case was being faced with acondition where I knew if I sent
somebody to jail or prison, itmeant that they would lose their
government housing assistance.
But I also knew that theirfamily depended on that for a

(43:46):
place to live.
So if I sent the defendant tojail or prison and they lost
those housing vouchers, thenthat also meant that their
significant other and childrenwould then have to find a new
place to live and oftentimesdidn't have the money to just go
find some place.

Speaker 2 (44:03):
And when implemented effectively, these programs can
improve public safety byreducing recidivism through
consistent monitoring,behavioral changes and, again,
access to those outside sourcesthat they couldn't get in prison
.
Do we have any data on howeffective these programs are in
reducing recidivism?
I think we sometimes hear whenthey don't work, which was

(44:24):
primarily you said yourinteractions with this.

Speaker 3 (44:28):
Yes, yes, because basically you don't come back to
see me unless there's a problem, right?
If you go through probation andyou successfully complete it,
the paperwork's filed, at somepoint the jurisdiction on that
for probation parole expires andthe person goes on their way.
So, from my standpoint, if yousuccessfully complete probation
or you move to another state andgo on a crime spree, either way

(44:50):
I wouldn't know whateverhappened to that person.
I only saw people who werecoming back into the system.
So I only saw the cases wherethey were not successful.
So, while results may vary, Ithink there are some studies
have shown good outcomes, forinstance in 2018, a study by the

(45:22):
Bureau of Justice Statisticsfound that probationers had a
lower recidivism rate comparedto those released from prison
without any type of supervision,and that makes sense to me
because you know again wementioned it earlier If you just
throw open the door and tellsomebody get out and they don't
have places to go, they justseem to get into more trouble,
rather than if they have someplace to go and they have a job
set up, it makes it a lot easierfor them to make the changes in
their lives that they need tomake.

Speaker 2 (45:44):
It kind of makes me think of the.
I've seen it a couple of times.
I don't have it memorized, likesome people, but the shawshank
redemption, the movie.
The one guy gets released justout and he just doesn't know how
to cope, like he's been inprison for so long and they just
put him back out.
Then, um, he turns to self-harmand suicide because that's the
only way he saw he could survivewas to just not survive.

(46:06):
So I think that was adepressing turn.
Now let's talk about some ofthe challenges that these
systems can face.
So one of the biggest concernsis the risk to community safety.
There's always a potential riskwhen offenders are released
early, especially if they'reimproperly assessed or don't
have proper supervision.

Speaker 3 (46:27):
And inadequate supervision is a significant
issue in this area, especiallywith the way the system is
overburdened currently.
So what are your thoughts onthat?

Speaker 2 (46:42):
I think the problem is they just put you see it in
social work and I know when Italked to people that were on
probation and parole that workedin that system was just their
caseload is so high so it'sreally hard to properly monitor
what's going on with all yourcases, when maybe you've got 50,
60, 80 cases.
There's only so many hours inthe day and you're supposed to
go out and check on all thesepeople, so it's easy for

(47:03):
somebody to slip through thecracks, and I think the people
that slip through the cracks areprobably the ones that need the
most supervision.
So it's just kind of creating asystem because how big our
prison industrial complex hasgotten that you're just putting
people back out and setting themup to fail to a point because

(47:23):
you're not hiring the amount ofpeople you need to properly
implement these systems.

Speaker 3 (47:29):
And I saw that too in my experience, where the
probation or parole officer wasjust like you said, overwhelmed,
had too many cases, couldn'tkeep up with everything.
And then I would come acrossthe case where, for instance, an
officer would arrest somebodyand the officer would say, hey,
I know this person, I justarrested him this many months
ago.
He's supposed to be onprobation.
He's not even allowed to havealcohol.

(47:51):
I don't know what's going on,why he has this.
And then I would contact theprobation officer and they'd say
I didn't even know that thathappened, or I didn't even know
that he got arrested again,because, like you said, the
caseload is just so large andsometimes there's a failure to
communicate between agencies.
And that was the case with myagency too.
We were not as good at tellingofficers what happened on cases

(48:11):
as we should have been, and Inoticed that, especially in the
small community.
What a difference it made whenI knew all the officers and they
all knew me, and they could say, hey, whatever happened with
Joseph Smith's case, and I couldsay, oh, he got two years
probation, he's not allowed todrink.
And they say, oh, we got twoyears probation, he's not

(48:37):
allowed to drink.
And they say oh, that'sinteresting.
I saw him at Ralph's last nighthaving a beer and I can say well
, next time you see him atRalph's and he's having a beer,
write him up and send me areport and I'll of each other,
and having those very burdensomecaseloads is all have an impact
.
And then, on top of that,there's this issue of a
perceived leniency, where someview probation and parole as too
soft on crime and potentiallyundermining the deterrent effect

(49:00):
of punishment Although I'veoftentimes wondered how much of
a deterrent sentencing really isto other people, because it's
not like the old days whereeveryone gathered out back of
the courthouse for the publichanging and you knew, if I do
this, this is what's going tohappen to me.
But again, you know I don'thave contact with the people who
would have been deterred, as Ionly saw the people after they

(49:23):
made decisions that got theminto trouble and made them meet
me in the first place.

Speaker 2 (49:28):
And I mean, I think there's always people,
especially that work in thesystem, that have cases where
they've seen the system fail.
Like I remember and I rememberthis pretty clearly because it
was the first car stop I madeafter the academy and I got an
individual in possession of agun, drugs, money, so obviously

(49:50):
dealing, and they were on parole.
So we turned it over to theirofficer.
We had to go to court to kindof testify what we had found.
They, you know, do the wholething to get their parole
revoked and the judge said, well, you know what Like I'm not
going to revoke parole right now, I want to we need another
hearing to go over things.

(50:10):
That hearing, I believe, wasscheduled for like three months
later, Not more than a monthlater, we're called to a
homicide scene and it's the sameguy had killed somebody during
a drug deal.
And it always bothered me, likeyou know, if that judge had just
revoked their parole becausethey already were showing that
they weren't following thestipulations of their parole,

(50:33):
then maybe this individual wouldstill be alive.
But that was kind of one ofthose instances that kind of
made me think like the systemfails sometimes, but it does,
and that's the negative I thinkyou get when you work in the
system, where, when you're onthe other side especially in the
social work side that I've beenat, where you can see the flip
and say you know, I see a lot ofpeople that this program has

(50:54):
helped, but, like we kind ofhinted to earlier, you only
really hear those bad stories soyou don't see the good that
comes out of it.
You know, one in a thousand arethat guy, but that's the one
that sticks out with you and Ido think that that's true.
And the flip side of that isthe conditions of probation and
parole can be quite burdensome.

(51:14):
The strict rules andrequirements can be challenging
for offenders to manage,potentially setting them up for
failure.
Like we said, if you don't haveaccess to those services, if
you've got to go to treatmenttwo days a week but you don't
have a car and the bus system'snot working, they're going to
see that that's not.
They're going to say it's yourresponsibility to get there, not
the system's responsibility togive you a car, even if they

(51:36):
give you a bus pass or something.
Well, if the bus doesn't evenrun that day or doesn't show up
now, you violated your probationor parole, though you are
trying to do everything you can.

Speaker 3 (51:46):
And that was more of like what I saw on my end too,
where it wasn't so much.
It was a strict rule that wasasking too much of a person but
they weren't given the tools tobe successful.
So going to a class twice aweek, you know, on the surface
of it that's not that big of adeal, that's not that strict.
But, like you said, if theydon't have the tools, they don't

(52:07):
have the way to get there.
If they can't make it to theclass physically, then they're
not going to be successful.
And it's the same as tellingsomebody who's self-medicating
with alcohol or drugs that theyjust have to stop using
immediately, and we're going todo routine tests to confirm that
you're not using.
But on the flip side, we're notgoing to give you any mental
health resources to address theunderlying problem and we're not
going to give you any type ofmental health medication that
might actually help balance outyour brain chemistry the way it
needs to be, instead of tryingto say, use alcohol or drugs to

(52:30):
balance out that brain chemistryso.

Speaker 2 (52:35):
So, from like your experience, what have you seen
to be like some of the issuesand implementing programs like
this?

Speaker 3 (52:42):
from like the more prosecutorial or that side, so a
lot of it, just like you weresaying.
Transportation when I worked upin the mountains in Colorado,
there was no publictransportation outside of the
city that we were in, and thecity we were in was so small
they didn't have any of thealcohol classes or domestic

(53:03):
violence classes or any of thattype of stuff.
So you had to drive what wasabout 45 minutes to an hour from
there to get to ColoradoSprings or Woodland Park, to get
to those types of resources.
So again you're going back tothat person who has limited
resources.
How are they going to get there?
Can they find somebodydependable to drive them there

(53:24):
twice a week, which then ofcourse means that that person
has to take time out of theirschedule to drive 45 minutes
down, wait for you to do yourhour class and then drive 45
minutes back.
So do you have a friend that'sa good enough friend who's
willing to spend six hours aweek driving you around?
And then again that all getsback to resources.
If there was some way that wehad a shuttle set up, some type
of public transportation set up,where they could use that to

(53:45):
get to classes, then it'd beeasier For people who actually
lived in Colorado Springs, wherethere was a bus system, at
least you could walk to a busstop and try to get to where you
were going, or same with Denver, if you were to the places in
between, like at the time CastleRock.
You couldn't find the classesin Castle Rock.
You had to figure out a way toget to either Denver or Colorado
Springs.
So those are the types ofissues that I saw on my end was

(54:09):
either not having theavailability within the class,
not having the funds to pay forthe class, or not having the
transportation to get to theclass.

Speaker 2 (54:25):
And I think what even enhances that more is I think
in a small rural town it'sprobably easier, from what I've
seen, but especially when youget into bigger towns and cities
where you know the SocialSecurity office.
Well, you got to go get yourSocial Security card and stuff.
Well, that's on the east side.
Well, now you need to go to thelicense branch and get your
license Well, that's on theother side of town.
Oh wait, you don't have yourbirth certificate.
Now you need to go back toanother side of town to get that
.
To come back to here, and bythe time you've done that, you

(54:48):
can get one thing done a dayjust by how much you have to
travel and all the things youneed.
And you just.
It just became a system thatcan sometimes frustrate people,
which makes it even like youknow, I'll just go back to jail,
like I can't, it's not evenworth my time because I'm being
set up to fail.
And on top of that, there arealso disparities really that
have to do with race, economicstatus or geographic area.

Speaker 3 (55:12):
So, for example, in 2016, a study by the Sentencing
Project found significant racialdisparities in probation
probations being revoked Um so Ithink that that's something

(55:42):
we've talked about a lot in thesystem is those, uh, disparities
between people of color, um,people in poverty, which leads
to a revocation andincarceration, and the high
failure rate is a significantconcern to many people.
According to a I'm sorry,according to a 2019 report by
the Council of State GovernmentsJustice Center, nearly half of

(56:03):
state prison admissions are dueto probation and parole
violations, and, of course,that's a significant amount, and
I do wonder how many of thosecases would have been considered
cases with a likely successrate.
To begin with, I know that Ihad cases where I gave up key
parts in a sentencing agreement,knowing the likelihood of

(56:24):
failure with their probationwould be high.
We would refer to that to thecatch them on the backside
philosophy.
So, for instance, we had adomestic violence victim and
they were uncooperative Say theywere in the honeymoon phase of
the relationship cycle.
I might drop the jail conditionknowing that she wasn't going to

(56:47):
come testify and if she did,she would be combative and
because the police were outthere every three weeks, they
were going to get a call to comeback out there next time.
So I might do a plea where theyget no jail time, when they
normally would be going forseveral months but also have a
condition of no alcohol, becauseI know every time he gets drunk
he beats her up.
So then next time when thepolice get called out and he's

(57:09):
drunk and he beats her up, evenwithout having a new case, I can
go after the revocation ofprobation and get him some type
of requirement for jail,domestic violence, counseling or
something else that I wantedthat I couldn't get the first
time around.
So and that's not to say youcan't prosecute a domestic
violence case without a victim.

(57:29):
Obviously, in a murder case youdon't have a victim to testify,
but it makes it far moredifficult, especially if a
defendant's using an affirmativedefense of self-defense.

Speaker 2 (57:41):
And I think, from a social work perspective, like
there needs to be more emphasison issues of limited resources.
That's a big issue of nothaving enough social workers,
not having enough funding.
You know we deinstitutionalizethe systems and we've.
We talk about that a lot.
That's probably one of mybiggest soapboxes I'll ever be
on.
But we didn't create thesystems in the community to help

(58:04):
people in the first place,which has created this cycle of
especially people with mentalhealth issues ending up in the
system in the first place.
But many probation and parolesystems lack adequate funding to
provide the necessary supportservices for successful
reintegration, job trainings,education, mental health
treatment, substance abusetreatment, helping

(58:27):
transportation systems that canhelp people get to work.
If you don't have a car, yourlicense has been revoked, but
you're supposed to have a job,how are you supposed to get to
and from, especially if you have, say, you have that condition
on parole that you can't talk toformer criminals.
Well, if half of your networkthat you had, you know, and the
only person that could take youto work is somebody you know has

(58:48):
got a criminal record, is itnot going to work and risk that
violation, or is it getting aride from your friend that's got
a criminal history as well andrisk that violation, but still
getting to work Like it's just asystem that seems to sometimes
set people up and there's notenough resources to make that
happen.

Speaker 3 (59:09):
So, as we're wrapping up, it's clear that probation
and parole play crucial roles inour justice system, but they're
not without their challenges.
So, as you're looking at this,what do you think the future
holds for these systems?

Speaker 2 (59:26):
I think right now that's a really touchy subject,
Like what does the system looklike?
I think it depends and I mean,you know we try to stay out of
politics and there's a reasonfor that, because that's not
what this is but I really dothink it depends on red states
and blue states.
Like blue states do seem to beputting more towards reform
aspects and trying to decreaseprison populations and part of
do seem to be putting moretowards reform aspects and

(59:47):
trying to decrease prisonpopulations, and part of that
has to do with they just havethe money to do it.
Like they have the money to trynew things and see how they
happen.
Where red states, because ofthe limited budgets they have,
they really have to be morespecific on how they approach
things and they can't reallyafford to take new risks or try
pilot programs or to try andimplement new things, which is

(01:00:10):
like in Indiana, where we see alot of your rural counties.
They don't have access totreatment, so it's the jails
that are trying to somehowprovide those treatment
resources and stuff without thefunding and they become the de
facto drug treatment facilitydrug treatment facility.

(01:00:31):
So I think, like the future, itjust depends on if resources
become available and then howthey're implemented, and taking
risks, working with social workand criminal justice programs at
universities to try and come upwith new creative ideas.
And technology helps as well.
You know we'll see whattechnology brings more.
But you've got the systemswhere you have to breathe into
your ignition before you canstart your car.

(01:00:52):
You have the ankle monitoringsystems.
You have phone tracking systems, so I think the more technology
gains.
I don't know, maybe eventhere's a place for AI to help
with this, to take alleviatesome of the stress off of
probation and parole officers.
I think there's a place for AIto help with this to alleviate
some of the stress off ofprobation and parole officers.
I think there's a lot of goodthat could happen, but I also
could see us very easilyslipping back into just a prison

(01:01:16):
straight form system.

Speaker 3 (01:01:18):
It's interesting that you mentioned the ignition
interlock and it brought upsomething in my mind that I
forgot about, but about oh geez,it's probably been 15, 20 years
ago when we were talking aboutignition interlock because you
were talking about the obstaclesfor people on probation parole.
One of those is you can drive acar but it has to have an
ignition interlock, which meansyou have to do a breath test

(01:01:39):
within the car to make itactually start, and those are
very expensive to get put inyour car.
So go back to that no resourcesCouldn't afford to put in the

(01:02:03):
ignition interlock.
Now I don't have a car, now Ican't get to work.
And I made a comment to one ofmy co-workers about if they just
put those into every carstraight off the because you had
that it would prevent DUIs inthe first place.
So all these fatal DUI crasheswith all these tragic
consequences, let alone like thelittle misdemeanor things,
would be prevented.
And at the time in New Mexicowe'd had like three or four
where people who were drunk goton the interstate going the
wrong way, hit another car.
Both of them are going 80 milesper hour and you know, the

(01:02:25):
whole family in the other car isannihilated.
And you see that and you think,gee, if we just did that, one
little piece of technology, thatwould have prevented this
entire family from being wipedout.
And at the time the person thatwas talking to was mad because
he said it would infringe on hisliberties if they made those
things be required for everyone.
And I was like, well, it's thesame as seatbelts.

(01:02:46):
They make seatbelts required inevery car and there's a reason
for that, because it saves lives.
But there was a friend, adifferent coworker.
She was working with a companythat was working on a technology
I think it was called TrueTouch, but it was supposed to be able
to detect alcohol through yourskin, through your touch.
So instead of it being anignition interlock where you had
to blow into it, there would besomething built into the

(01:03:08):
steering wheel.
When you touched it it would beable to tell if you had alcohol
in your system.
But I don't think they ever gotthe technology to work.
So that's another place wheretechnology could really help us
out.

Speaker 2 (01:03:19):
I knew somebody was going to bring up that you're
encroaching on my liberties.
The other thing I alwaysthought was interesting and I
didn't have a lot of these casesbut we had a couple where
somebody had that technology ontheir car and then they would
have their friend blow into itand then they would drive drunk
and I'm like, but your friendwas sober, why didn't you just

(01:03:40):
let them drive Like it was just?
People will fight so hard toget around a system.
That really makes no sense.
If you have a sober person,just let them drive.
But I also saw where peoplewould have their kids do it for
them that's what I was justgonna say I had three cases
where they had their kids do it.

Speaker 3 (01:03:57):
So you can't exactly let your eight-year-old drive.
But it's.

Speaker 2 (01:04:02):
some people are just always going to try and find a
way around the system instead oftrying to enhance and better
themselves.
And there are somejurisdictions that are
experimenting withevidence-based practices to
improve outcomes as well.
I've been part of some of those.
As a social worker I worked ata treatment facility where if
you were coming out on paroleyou had to go through our 90-day

(01:04:23):
treatment program.
If you were successful, thenyou were granted parole, If not,
you would go back in.
There's also a growing emphasison cognitive behavioral
interventions and othermotivational interviewing
techniques to promote behavioralchange.
Emdr is another one that'sreally kind of grown in this
space to try and address priortraumas that may be leading to

(01:04:44):
some of the maybe substance useissues or disorders that
individuals have, and that it'spromising.
But again, this stuff takesmoney and funding and time.
So it's making and working withthe states and the federal
government to provide that typeof funding.

Speaker 3 (01:05:04):
Maybe we can find another single person hero who
takes on that risk and changesthe system for everybody.

Speaker 2 (01:05:12):
Absolutely so.
I think it's important toremember that probation and
parole it affects millions.
I mean again 2019, we had 3.4million people just on probation
.
So understanding these systemsis kind of crucial for knowing
the system.
Understanding it better whenyou're hearing it in the media
and in the news and how they'rereporting about it, or if

(01:05:32):
they're talking about whatsentence somebody got, why they
may have seen that and kind ofhow this system just developed
over history, I think isfascinating to me.

Speaker 3 (01:05:40):
So, just like you said, it's complex, there's a
lot of moving pieces to it, alot, lot of factors, but it is
something that's very importantand if we don't understand how
things are working, then wecan't take steps to identifying
problems and finding solutionsabsolutely.

Speaker 2 (01:05:57):
I think this has been a great topic and a great
episode.
I want to thank everybody forlistening and I think, if we go
from the beginning to the end,I'm just going to go ahead and
just visit jail and continue onto Park Place.
Thank you for listening.
I want to thank you all so muchfor listening to our little
podcast.
This is created with love andpassion for criminal justice and

(01:06:18):
true crime.
So if you're enjoying thepodcast, please follow us, like
or rate us on whatever systemyou're listening to us on,
subscribe to our podcast anddownload episodes.
Downloads are important for ourgrowth, as is growing our
listeners.
So if you wouldn't mind, takethe time to ask your friends,

(01:06:38):
family, co-workers, tell themabout us through word of mouth,
social media.
I don't care if you even screamat strangers on the streets, to
help us kind of get out therewho we are.
If you're interested inlearning more, you could visit
our website atwwwdeviantcriminologycom.
There you'll find some stuffabout our backgrounds,

(01:06:59):
references, show notes for eachepisode.
You can also follow us on ourFacebook page at Deviant
Criminology.
We also have an Instagram page,which is Deviant underscore
Criminology.
Or find me at Dr Richard Weaveron Instagram.
And as we grow, we hope todevelop a community that will
grow with us.

(01:07:19):
So again, thank you for takingthe time to listen and have a
good week.