Community corrections and social control: The case of Saskatchewan, Canada

Hylton, John H.

doi:10.1007/bf00728412

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Rather than shifting borderline cases down from incarceration to probation, sociologists argued that expanding "alternative" sanctions like probation induced court actors to shift cases on the margin between sanctions with no supervisory component (such as community service, fines, or a warning) up to probation supervision-thus "widening the net" of carceral control. These studies found that diversion programs were used in those cases where prosecutors were unwilling or unable to secure a conviction for imprisonment and that incarceration rates increased when community corrections programs expanded (Harcourt 2001;Blomberg and Lucken 1994;Blomberg, Bales, and Reed 1993;Chan and Ericson 1981;Hylton 1981;Miller 1980;Blomberg 1977). 5 Rather than driving down the average severity of punishments, these scholars found expansions in "alternatives" often increased punishment (Lucken 1997).…”

Section: Perspectives On Probationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite the confident tone of this emerging policy consensus, the socio‐legal literature on probation suggests that while probation is often framed or intended as a prison alternative, in practice probation expands the “net” of formal social control. This literature began in the late 1970s as states and counties were beginning to expand probation as part of a larger effort to “decarcerate.” Analyzing these early initiatives, researchers often found that expansions in probation increased overall punishment by drawing in more low‐level cases (who might otherwise have been sentenced with community service hours, fines, or other more less invasive punishments) and making these individuals more likely to be incarcerated in the future due to increased restrictions and monitoring (Tonry and Lynch ; Blomberg and Lucken ; Blomberg, Bales, and Reed ; Chan and Ericson ; Hylton ; Miller ; Blomberg ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Paradox of Probation: Community Supervision in the Age of Mass Incarceration

Phelps¹

2013

Law & Policy

188

168

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After four decades of steady growth, U.S. states’ prison populations finally appear to be declining, driven by a range of sentencing and policy reforms. One of the most popular reform suggestions is to expand probation supervision in lieu of incarceration. However, the classic socio-legal literature suggests that expansions of probation instead widen the net of penal control and lead to higher incarceration rates. This article reconsiders probation in the era of mass incarceration, providing the first comprehensive evaluation of the role of probation in the build-up of the criminal justice system. The results suggest that probation was not the primary driver of mass incarceration in most states, nor is it likely to be a simple panacea to mass incarceration. Rather, probation serves both capacities, acting as an alternative and as a net-widener, to varying degrees across time and place. Moving beyond the question of diversion versus net widening, this article presents a new theoretical model of the probation-prison link that examines the mechanisms underlying this dynamic. Using regression models and case studies, I analyze how states can modify the relationship between probation and imprisonment by changing sentencing outcomes and the practices of probation supervision. When combined with other key efforts, reforms to probation can be part of the movement to reverse mass incarceration.

show abstract

Section: Perspectives On Probationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Paradox of Probation: Community Supervision in the Age of Mass Incarceration

Phelps¹

2013

Law & Policy

188

168

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As early as the 1960s, criminologists began to question whether community supervision represented a true alternative to imprisonment rather than simply another form of control. Researchers in Canada led the charge, showing that as community supervision expanded in the 1960s and 1970s, prison populations also increased (Chan & Ericson, 1981;Hylton, 1981; though see rebuttal by McMahon, 1992). In the United States, researchers including Thomas Blomberg (1977), Andrew Scull (1984), and others (Garland & Young, 1983;Klein, 1979;Lemert, 1981;Lowman, Menzies, & Palys, 1987) argued that community-based punishment produced net widening, expanding the scope of control for lower-level cases, rather than providing a true diversion for prison-bound cases.…”

Section: Date: 11 May 2019mentioning

confidence: 99%

Supervision in the Community: Probation and Parole

Phelps¹,

Curry²

2017

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past half-century, the number of adults under criminal justice supervision increased precipitously in some Western countries, with carceral control in the United States reaching an unprecedented scale. While much of the scholarly attention has been focused on the development of mass incarceration, new research focuses on the parallel expansion of mass probation and, more broadly, mass supervision. In the United States, the number of adults on probation and parole supervision increased from one million in 1980 to a peak of nearly 5.1 million in 2007, more than double the number of inmates in local, state, and federal jails and prisons. Estimates from Europe in the late 2000s suggest that there were approximately 3.5 million on community sanctions, compared to 2 million incarcerated. Individuals on these sanctions serve out their initial sentences (or remaining time after release from jail or prison) while residing in the community under the supervision of a probation or parole officer. As scholarship increasingly focuses on the expansion of community supervision, we are learning more about this form of punishment. Probationers and parolees are subject to a variety of conditions, including reporting regularly to their supervising officers, finding and maintaining employment, avoiding drug use and re-arrest, participating in therapeutic programs, and paying fines and fees. Failure to comply with the demands of supervision may result in variety of penalties, up to a return to custody for the entire length of the suspended prison sentence. Thus, while probation and parole are often framed as acts of leniency—allowing individuals to avoid incarceration and/or exit early—they can be experienced as quite punitive. In other words, the official discourses and everyday practices of supervision blend both punitive and rehabilitative elements. The composition of this blend varies significantly across countries, states, local departments, individual officers, and the officer-supervisee relationship. This variation has produced a kaleidoscope of different practices, all under the banner of community supervision.

show abstract

“…5 See, for example, Hylton (1981); Chan and Zdenkowski (1986); Hudson (1984). In the UK, right-wing conservative governments since 1979 have still, although completely unsuccessful, tried to limit the growth of the prison population.…”

Section: Prisons In the Communitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Dilemmas of the alternative to custody concept: Implications for New Zealand penal policy in the light of international evidence and experience

Pratt

1987

Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Community corrections and social control: The case of Saskatchewan, Canada

Cited by 8 publications

References 1 publication

The Paradox of Probation: Community Supervision in the Age of Mass Incarceration

The Paradox of Probation: Community Supervision in the Age of Mass Incarceration

Supervision in the Community: Probation and Parole

Dilemmas of the alternative to custody concept: Implications for New Zealand penal policy in the light of international evidence and experience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About