cost of probation compared to incarceration

Probation Cost
Name
Institution Affiliation

Abstract
The central purpose of this research paper is to have a comparison of the cost incurred in probation to incarceration. The paper highlights the cost benefits of using probation as a method of punishing offenders as compared to imprisonment. It has been established that in many countries, the cost of probation is much less. Furthermore, it ensures that there are offender rehabilitation programs, reinforces the safety of the general public and addresses problems that are associated with overcrowding. The paper further explores different types of intermediate sanctions used in various countries in the world such as intensive supervision programs, fines Daily Reporting centers, and drug addict treatments. The research paper concentrates on how various states can save money if they adopt probation as a method of punishment. Such finances can in return be diverted to income generating projects. The paper has finally concluded that the cost benefit associated with probation is more when compared to Incarceration.
PROBATION COST
INTRODUCTION
In 2008, United States had over 2.3 million inmates; one in every nine working-age men was in prison. The amount of money used to take care of the welfare of 2.3 million prisoners in local government and federal states stood at $75 billion annually. If the number of non-violent offenders was reduced by half the bill would lower by $16.9 billion annually. The number of people incarcerated in the United States has grown steadily for the past 30 years.

According to American Bureau of Statistics, since 1990 over 500,000 inmates have been released every year from state and federal prisons. Additionally, about 5 million petty offenders were on probation. This means that at a point in life, these prisoners will return to their native communities. Some ex-offenders, unfortunately, end up back to prison after committing similar or different crimes. For instance, in 2005, three-quarters of ex-offenders returned to criminal justice system within five years of their release. Thus, the best programs are the ones that aim at helping the offender to live together with other members of society.
Hartigan, R. S. (1985) Cost-effectiveness of misdemeanant probation in Hamilton County, Ohio, 1981-1982. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research
Hartigan argues that ex-offenders can be released to the community using different mechanisms. Individuals who are convicted of serious crimes imprisonment can be directed to serve their native communities under supervision. In the process of probation, the offender should adhere to certain rules and conditions. If the conditions of probation are violated, criminal sanctions should be subjected to him. For example, the offender can be punished by a mixed term of imprisonment and probation. By doing this, the government will be in a position to reduce the cost that would have been incurred by the prisoner during the sentence.
Rice, R. E., Adam, S., & Duran, M. (1976). The correctional cost of serviced and unserviced juvenile gangs and evaluation of a detached worker program. Glen Rock, NJ: Microfilming of America.
In 1975, cost per year of placing an offender in federal prison was discovered to be about eight times when compared to putting the same offender on probation. Expenses incurred by each prisoner were almost ten times to supervision cost experienced during probation. Moreover, the oversight cost has continued to decrease not because of fewer cases but because very few officers are needed to supervise them. Most important, cheaper treatment and monitoring services are required. On the other hand, supervisors can recommend early termination of probation in the case; the offender can meet judicial conference approved criteria. The supervisors also select most cost-effective treatment options to the offender depending on the location and evaluation technologies. The process of correction must not only be done by supervisors under payroll, but it can also be performed by members of the society e.g. clergy hence reducing the cost significantly.
Frazier, R. L. (2002). Incarceration and adult felony probation in Texas: A cost comparison. Huntsville, TX
According to Frazer, many controversies surround the use of prisons in the process of correcting offenders. Consequently, it is an expensive method, and the offenders may return to the Societies worse off. Due to budget constraints, various governments have adopted alternative ways of handling prisoners rather than imprisonment. In this, the government aims to reduce the crimes in the most cost efficient manner. The government can come up with day reporting centers whereby offenders are ordered to participate in community development projects. In day reporting care centers, the offenders are supervised by trained supervisors and at the end of the day they receive counseling services. In day reporting centers, the offender is supposed to check in daily and participate in prescribed treatment. Criminals are forced to adhere to rules and regulations, submit to regular tests and perform community services. Moreover, the government can opt to use home detentions within specific hours. To monitor them, the government can use the modern technology such as CCTV cameras. Use of modern cameras will significantly reduce supervision cost.
.Duffy, B. P. (1985). A cost-effectiveness analysis of the Maryland state restitution program.

Duffy in his article argues that majority of states in the United States have to deal with the significant budget shortfall. The high number of case offenders has led to deficient resources. To mitigate this problem, the state of Maryland has come up with a more cost-effective method to deal with drug prisoner’s population. Statistics shows that 53 percent of people convicted of drug-related offenses are likely to commit similar crimes once they are released from prison. Providing the offender with the necessary treatment is a cheaper way of solving the problem of drug-related offenses. The state has come up with drug alternative treatment to Prison program. The program aims at drug offenders to plead guilty of their crimes, and then they are subjected to therapy treatment for two years as a substitute to jailing. After a period, the program realized very significant results. First, less amount of money was used, and also it increased the ability of young people to seek future self-employment. Alongside these results, the program reduced the cost of imprisonment by half. Most importantly, the treatment program as an alternative to jail is already saving money for the state. Additionally, the program also has other social benefits since it helps young people to continue their education, seek employment or even get married. All these social benefits could not have been achieved if imprisonment took place. However, the process of treatment is not an overnight event; it requires patience, willingness, and hard work from drug addict so as to receive any positive results.
Mair, G., & Burke, L. (2011). Redemption, rehabilitation, and risk management: A history of probation. New York: Routledge.
Mair, G complains that majority people have a notion that probation is not adequate punishment for crime offenders. In return, they believe that imprisonment is the only adequate punishment for criminal offenses. Alternatively, probation has been proving as an effective way of pushing the offenders as well as saving the taxpayers money. According to research conducted by Long Reach American correction, $79.00 was used to cater for the welfare of the prisoner daily, in comparison $3.42 for the probationer. Also, other benefits associated with probation are that it provide rehabilitative measures to the offender as well as maintain the safety of the public. The probation officer guides the offenders and helps them to have good relations with the general public. In the process of monitoring his client, the probation officer has opportunities to point out problems that the probationer can be facing and assist accordingly. These problems may be health issues or drug and substance abuse. When such problems are identified various programs are put in place so as to rehabilitate the probationer.
McDonald, D., Schuman, A. M., & Riveland, C. (1989). The cost of corrections: In search of the bottom line. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections
Mc Donald says probation is a punishment that gives the offender a second chance, comes back to senses and change for the better. Some offenders prefer imprisonment to probation since it is a more severe sentence. Consequently, probation officers are always very keen, and they discourage the violation of conditions of probation. If the terms of probation are dishonored probation officer calls to the attention of court prosecutor who will take the necessary action. It’s right to note that prisons in many parts of the world act as a warehouse to prisoners. They only protect the convicts to the rest of citizen. They do not provide a good chance to rehabilitate the convicted person. The government should weigh out the cost and benefits of probation as compared to a reformatory. Probation is far much cost effective means of punishment to an offender. When it emanates to long term security to the members of the public, probation wins again by a significant margin as a more active program to diminution recidivism.
. Kiessling, J. J. (1985). The Ottawa Volunteer Program: An interim report on operations and preliminary cost-benefit analysis March 31, 1975. Kanata, Ont.: Micro-Can.
According to Kiessling, the current trends in USA justice have shown that there need to come up with intermediate sanctions with the aim of closing the gap between imprisonments and probations. To be able to close the gap in the criminal justice system intermediate sanctions can be used. The increase in crime always increases the number of convicts and which finally leads to greater population in correctional services. Also, probation is at times viewed as a method used to relieve pressure in the already overcrowded correctional services. Moreover, in USA criminal justice system, probation has been used to reduce the cost that is associated with correctional services. Intermediate sanctions programs when they are compared to incarceration have notable merits in that they offer alternatives, the reason been prisons have proved to be very costly to the taxpayers. Most importantly, research conducted Criminal Justice Organizations has shown that they do not necessarily eliminate crime recidivism. The majority of the convicts tend to commit similar crimes after they are released. American Bureau of Statics has shown that about two-thirds of released prisoners are more likely to be arrested again by law enforcers in the duration of three years. Above statistic shows that correctional services have used a lot of money yet, in the long run, the outlined objectives of imprisonment are not achieved. On the other hand, the use of probation offers an opportunity to the justice system to generate income since the offenders are used in community income generating projects. This income generated is used to cut down the cost that is mostly associated with imprisonment. Fairness is also promoted since it is not always right to convict both petty thieves and rapists. Justice in probation is administered depending on the crime which was committed by an individual. Therefore, probation is seen as the most cost-effective way of meeting aims and objectives of criminal justice system.
Olive, B., Rice, R. E., & Adams, S. (1976). The cost of a juvenile gang a nine-year follow-up of law enforcement, court, and correctional expenditures. Glen Rock, NJ: Microfilming of America.
Olive, B, explores various types of probation used in criminal justice system. For example, the use of drug courts whereby they are used to reduce drug and substance abuse and also to ensure that they are rehabilitated. Drug courts are given authority to offer treatment, sanction, and most importantly reward the offenders in most cost effective way. In the United States, Research has shown that drug courts have helped to reduce the cost from $7 million to $ 9 million per year. Additionally, the society has shown a lot of concern and support that is needed in monitoring drug treatment provided in the drug courts. The community provides the needed human resources thus significantly reducing rehabilitation cost.
Thalheimer, D. J. (1978). Cost analysis of correctional standards: Community supervision, probation, restitution, community service. Washington: National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, U.S. Dept. of Justice.
Thalheimer argues that fines have also been used as a method of punishing petty offenders. Fines are also employed in the form of monetary penalty to the offender who is deducted to their salary at the end of every month. Fines are regarded as cost-effective since they increase revenue to the government. The offender can be forced to unpaid working hours to the society. These fines are subjected to the offenders until when it is observed that they have completely changed their bad ways. Fines are more likely to deter the offender from performing the same offense in future. This method is more cost effective since it does rehabilitate not only the offender but also generate revenue for the government. However, the method may not be used for serious offenses such as murder. The government can also use the assistance of the community to guide and correct offenders. By doing so, citizens are involved in ensuring that there are more effective correctional programs. In this program, the offenders are given permission to leave work, and in return, they are provided with vocational educational programs aimed at rehabilitating them.
Caputo, G. (2004). Intermediate sanctions in corrections. Texas: University of North Texas Press.
According to Caputo G. reformers are currently campaigning in reducing the cost of imprisonment. They are encouraging judicial systems to sentence more offenders to probation so as to reduce the enormous cost utilized in the process of prison rehabilitation. In their argument, the average annual cost for imprisonment is estimated to be over ten times the cost of probation supervision. In the USA there are over 2000 probation agencies which have unique features shaped by local cultures. They have insisted that cost must play a legitimate role in sentencing decisions.This will be crucial not to divert all tax burdens to the taxpayer. The cost must be considerate, and cheaper methods of administering justice must be upheld at all times. In return, such money can be used to fund projects such as the construction of roads and hospitals.
In conclusion, there is a general feeling that there are various benefits that are associated with probation as a method of administering justice. Therefore, probation can be used to reduce congestion as well as to reducing criminal rehabilitation cost. Above that, the use of probation will help to reduce overcrowding in prisons. Reduction of prisoners will finally contribute to reduction widespread of sexually transmitted diseases. However, various structures need to be put before implementation of probation programs. More supervisors and probation officers should be educated. More money should be channeled toward such programs so as to purchase rehabilitation equipment and medicine. Furthermore, people should be educated on judicial processes and their human rights as a way of reducing the number of crimes committed. Finally, all the stakeholders should play their roles towards ensuring justice is administered to the offender and the offended.
REFERENCES
Caputo, G. (2004). Intermediate sanctions in corrections. Texas: University of North Texas Press.
Duffy, B. P. (1985). A cost-effectiveness analysis of the Maryland state restitution program.
Frazier, R. L. (2002). Incarceration and adult felon probation in Texas: A cost comparison. Huntsville, TX.
Hartigan, R. S. (1985). Cost-effectiveness of misdemeanant probation in Hamilton County, Ohio, 1981-1982. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.
Kiessling, J. J. (1985). The Ottawa Volunteer Program: An interim report on operations and preliminary cost-benefit analysis March 31, 1975. Kanata, Ont.: Micro-Can.
Mair, G., & Burke, L. (2011). Redemption, rehabilitation, and risk management: A history of probation. New York: Routledge.
McDonald, D., Schuman, A. M., & Riveland, C. (1989). The cost of corrections: In search of the bottom line. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections.
Olive, B., Rice, R. E., & Adams, S. (1976). The cost of a juvenile gang a nine-year follow-up of law enforcement, court, and correctional expenditures. Glen Rock, NJ: Microfilming of America.
Rice, R. E., Adam, S., & Duran, M. (1976). The correctional cost of serviced and unserviced juvenile gangs and evaluation of a detached worker program. Glen Rock, NJ: Microfilming of America.
Thalheimer, D. J. (1978). Cost analysis of correctional standards: Community supervision, probation, restitution, community service. Washington: National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, U.S. Dept. of Justice.