Modern Penology

Philosophical justification
Many things can be justified: beliefs, actions, emotions, claims, laws,
theories and so on. Epistemology focuses on beliefs. This is in part because of
the influence of the definition of knowledge as "justified true belief" often
associated with a theory discussed near the end of the Socratic dialogue
Theaetetus. More generally, theories of justification focus on the justification of
statements or propositions.
Justification is the reason why someone properly holds a belief, the
explanation as to why the belief is a true one, or an account of how one knows
what one knows. In much the same way arguments and explanations may be
confused with each other, so too may explanations and justifications. Statements
which are justifications of some action take the form of arguments. For example
attempts to justify a theft usually explain the motives. It is important to be aware
when an explanation is not a justification. A criminal profiler may offer an
explanation of a suspect's behaviour. Such statements may help us understand
why the person committed the crime, however an uncritical listener may believe
the speaker is trying to gain sympathy for the person and his or her actions. It
does not follow that a person proposing an explanation has any sympathy for the
views or actions being explained. This is an important distinction because we
need to be able to understand and explain terrible events and behavior in
attempting to discourage it.
1

Further, it is a part of epistemology that attempts to understand the
justification of propositions and beliefs. Epistemologists are concerned with
various epistemic features of belief, which include the ideas of justification,
warrant, rationality, and probability. Of these four terms, the term that has been
most widely used and discussed in the past twenty years is "warrant". Loosely
speaking, justification is the reason why someone (properly) holds the belief, the
explanation as to why the belief is a true one, or an account of how one knows
what one knows.
2

Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that places the locus of right
and wrong solely on the outcomes (consequences) of choosing one action/policy
over other actions/policies. As such, it moves beyond the scope of one's own
interests and takes into account the interests of others.
Bentham's Principle of Utility: (1) Recognizes the fundamental role of pain
and pleasure in human life, (2) approves or disapproves of an action on the basis
of the amount of pain or pleasure brought about i.e, consequences, (3) equates
good with pleasure and evil with pain, and (4) asserts that pleasure and pain are
capable of quantification (and hence 'measure').
In measuring pleasure and pain, Bentham introduces the following criteria:
INTENSITY, DURATION, CERTAINTY (or UNCERTAINTY), and its NEARNESS
(or FARNESS). He also includes its "fecundity and its "purity" (its pleasure won't
be followed by pain & vice versa). In considering actions that affect numbers of
people, we must also account for its EXTENT.
John Stuart Mill adjusted the more hedonistic tendencies in Bentham's
philosophy by emphasizing (1) It is not the quantity of pleasure, but the quality of
happiness that is central to utilitarianism, (2) the calculus is unreasonable --
qualities cannot be quantified (there is a distinction between 'higher' and 'lower'
pleasures), and (3) utilitarianism refers to "the Greatest Happiness Principle" -- it
seeks to promote the capability of achieving happiness (higher pleasures) for the
most amount of people (this is its "extent").
3

Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful and persuasive approaches to
normative ethics in the history of philosophy. Though not fully articulated until the
19th century, proto-utilitarian positions can be discerned throughout the history of
ethical theory.
Though there are many varieties of the view discussed, utilitarianism is
generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that
produces the most good. There are many ways to spell out this general claim.
One thing to note is that the theory is a form of consequentialism: the right action
is understood entirely in terms of consequences produced. What distinguishes
utilitarianism from egoism has to do with the scope of the relevant
consequences. On the utilitarian view one ought to maximize the overall good
that is, consider the good of others as well as one's own good.
The Classical Utilitarians, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, identified
the good with pleasure, so, like Epicurus, were hedonists about value. They also
held that we ought to maximize the good, that is, bring about the greatest
amount of good for the greatest number.
Utilitarianism is also distinguished by impartiality and agent-neutrality.
Everyone's happiness counts the same. When one maximizes the good, it is the
good impartially considered. My good counts for no more than anyone else are
good. Further, the reason I have to promote the overall good is the same reason
anyone else has to so promote the good. It is not peculiar to me.
All of these features of this approach to moral evaluation and/or moral
decision-making have proven to be somewhat controversial and subsequent
controversies have led to changes in the Classical version of the theory.
4

Retributivism
In the early period of all systems of code the redress of wrongs takes
precedence over the enforcement of rights, and a rough sense of justice
demands the infliction of proportionate loss and pain on the aggressor as he has
inflicted on his victim. Hence, the prominence of the "lex talionis" in ancient law
came up. The Bible is no exception: in its oldest form it too included the "lex
talionis," the law of "measure for measure". In the 19th century, philosopher
Immanuel Kant argued in Metaphysics of Morals, that the only legitimate form of
punishment the court can prescribe must be based on retribution and no other
principle. "Judicial punishment can never be used merely as a means to promote
some other good for the criminal himself or for civil society, but instead it must in
all cases be imposed on him only on the ground that he has committed a crime."
5

Kant regards punishment as a matter of justice, and it must be carried out
by the state for the sake of the law, not for the sake of the criminal or the victim.
He argues that if the guilty are not punished, justice is not done.
6
Further, if
justice is not done, then the idea of law itself is undermined. There are two
distinct types of retributive justice. The classical definition embraces the idea that
the amount of punishment must be proportionate to the amount of harm caused
by the offence. A more recent version advocated by the philosopher Michael
Davis dismisses this idea and replaces it with the idea that the amount of
punishment must be proportionate to the amount of unfair advantage gained by
the wrongdoer. Davis introduced this version of retributive justice in the early
1980s, at a time when retributive justice was making resurgence within the
philosophy of law community, perhaps due to the practical failings of reform
theory in the previous decades.
Many more jurisdictions following the retributive philosophy, especially in
the United States, follow a set tariff, where judges impose a penalty for a crime
within the range set by the tariff. As a result, some argue that judges do not have
enough discretion to allow formitigating factors, leading to unjust decisions under
certain circumstances. In the case of fines, the financial position of an offender is
not taken into account, leading to situations where an unemployed individual and
a millionaire could be forced to pay the same fine, creating an unjust situation;
either the fine would be too punitive for the unemployed offender, or not large
enough to punish the millionaire.
7
In some countries, such as Finland, fines are
fixed as percentages of the offenders personal income, rather than a certain
monetary amount. This allows for the law to remain fair, in that it applies to all
citizens equally, yet prevents the wealthy from simply paying to break the law
without suffering any substantial punishment.
Social defense
Social defense is generally understood as the protection of society against
crime through a systematically organized and coherent action by both the State
and civil society. Though this term has long been in use in the criminological and
penological literature, the modes and modalities of achieving its inherent
objective have been shifting with the advancement in social sciences and
behavioural disciplines. Even today, because of the complexity of issues
involved, it has not been possible to evolve a wholly satisfactory theoretical
framework for policy formulation and programme development in this field. It is
true that crime is essentially an offshoot of the disorganizational process of
society itself and, as such, it is difficult of visualize a system that could
completely neutralize an aggression which originates from within. Then, in the
absence of any fool-proof theory of crime causation, it is beyond human capacity
to create a society entirely free from crime. Moreover, the definition of crime itself
may vary from country to country and within the same country from time to time,
in keeping with the changes in social structure, cultural values and normative
expectations and no single system can hold good for different situations. Despite
this position, there is a candid awareness that the objective behind social
defense cannot be realized merely by focusing on individuals who are recognized
as offenders; it inevitably requires also reaching out to those who are vulnerable
to crime. Thus, the social defense approach aims not only at perfecting the
system that deals with offenders but also at forestalling conditions that generate
criminality. In this process, it closely interacts with various sectors of socio-
economic development in creating an environment conducive to the prevention of
crime and in mobilizing resources appropriate for the treatment and rehabilitation
of offenders in the totality of their life situations.
8

It is used to describe non-military action by a society or social group,
particularly in a context of a sustained campaign against outside attack or
dictatorial rule - or preparations for such a campaign in the event of external
attack or usurpation. There are various near-synonyms, including "non-violent
defence", "civilian defense", "civilian-based defense", and "defense by civil
resistance". Whatever term is used, this approach involves preparations for and
use of a range of actions - which can be variously called nonviolent resistance
and civil resistance - for national defense against invasion, coup d'tat and other
threats.
9




Deterrence
Proponents of deterrence believe that people choose to obey or violate
the law after calculating the gains and consequences of their actions. Overall,
however, it is difficult to prove the effectiveness of deterrence since only those
offenders not deterred come to the notice of law enforcement. Thus, we may
never know why others do not offend.
10
There are two basic types of
deterrencegeneral and specific. General deterrence is designed to prevent
crime in the general population. Thus, the states punishment of offenders serves
as an example for others in the general population who have not yet participated
in criminal events. It is meant to make them aware of the horrors of official
sanctions in order to put them off committing crimes. Examples include the
application of the death penalty and the use of corporal punishment.
Since general deterrence is designed to deter those who witness the
infliction of pains upon the convicted from committing crimes themselves,
corporal punishment was traditionally, and in some places is still, carried out in
public so that others can witness the pain. Although outlawed in the United
States, public punishment is still used in other countries. For instance, in August
2001, Nigeria introduced sharia, or Islamic law, that allows the application of
corporal punishment. That same month, Iran sentenced 20 people to be caned
for consuming alcohol. In November 2001, Saudi Arabia lashed 55 youths for
harassing women. Likewise, Human Rights Watch reports that under Saddam
Husseins regime in Iraq, those who violated military orders or committed other
crimes could be punished by amputation of arms, legs, and ears. Finally, in
England and the United States, hangings were once carried out in public. The
public and family members were allowed to attend so that they could see what
happened to those who broke the law. Today, some advocates call for televised
executions as a way of deterring murder.
The deterrence theory of punishment can be traced to the early works of
classical philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes (15881678), Cesare Beccaria
(17381794), and Jeremy Bentham (17481832). Together, these theorists
protested against the legal policies that had dominated European thought for
more than a thousand years, and against the spiritualistic explanations of crime
on which they were founded. In addition, these social contract thinkers provided
the foundation for modern deterrence theory in criminology.
Reductivism

Probation
In criminal law is a period of supervision over an offender, ordered by a
court instead of serving time in prison. In some jurisdictions, the term probation
only applies to community sentences (alternatives to incarceration), such
as suspended sentences. In others, probation also includes supervision of those
conditionally released from prison on parole.
11

An offender on probation is ordered to follow certain conditions set forth by
the court, often under the supervision of a probation officer. During this testing
period, an offender faces the threat of being sent back to prison, if found
breaking the rules.
Offenders are ordinarily required to refrain from possession of firearms,
and may be ordered to remain employed, abide to a curfew, live at a directed
place, obey the orders of the probation officer, or not leave the jurisdiction. The
probationer might be ordered as well to refrain from contact with the victims
(such as a former partner in a domestic violence case), with potential victims of
similar crimes (such as minors, if the instant offense involves child sexual abuse),
or with known criminals, particularly co-defendants. Additionally, the restrictions
can include a ban on possession or use of alcoholic beverages, even if alcohol
was not involved in the original criminal charges. Offenders on probation might
be fitted with anelectronic tag (or monitor), which signals their whereabouts to
officials. Also, offenders have been ordered to submit to repeated alcohol/drug
testing or to participate in alcohol/drug or psychological treatment, or to
perform community service work.
12

The concept of probation, from the Latin, probatio, "testing," has historical
roots in the practice of judicialreprieve. In English common law, prior to the
advent of democratic rule, the courts could temporarily suspend the execution of
a sentence to allow a criminal defendant to appeal to the monarch for a pardon.
Probation first developed in the United States when John Augustus, a Boston
cobbler, persuaded a judge in the Boston police court in 1841 to give him
custody of a convicted offender, a "drunkard," for a brief period and then helped
the man to appear rehabilitated by the time of sentencing. Even earlier, the
practice of suspending a sentence was used as early as 1830 in Boston,
Massachusetts, and became widespread in U.S. courts, although there was no
statutory provision for such a practice. At first, judges, most notably Peter
Oxenbridge Thatcher of Boston, used "release on recognizance" or bail and
simply refrained from taking any further action. In 1878 the mayor of Boston hired
a former police officer, the ironically named "Captain Savage," to become what
many recognize as the first official probation officer. By the mid-19th century,
however, many Federal Courts were using a judicial reprieve to suspend
sentence, and this posed a legal question. In 1916, the United States Supreme
Court, in the Killets Decision, held that a Federal Judge (Killets) was without
power to suspend a sentence indefinitely. This decision led to the passing of the
National Probation Act of 1925, thereby, allowing courts to suspend the
imposition of incarceration and place an offender on probation. Probation
developed from the efforts of a philanthropist, John Augustus, who looked for
ways to rehabilitate the behavior of criminals.[3]
Massachusetts developed the first state-wide probation system in 1880,
and by 1920, 21 other states had followed suit. With the passage of the National
Probation Act on March 5, 1925, signed by President Harry Truman, the U.S.
Federal Probation Service was established. On the state level, pursuant to the
Crime Control and Consent Act of 1936, a group of states entered into an
agreement wherein they would supervise probationers and parolees who reside
in each other's jurisdictions on each other's behalf. Known as the Interstate
Compact For the Supervision of Parolees and Probationers, this agreement was
originally signed by 25 states in 1937. By 1951, all the states in the United States
of America had a working probation system and ratified the Interstate Compact
Agreement. In 1959, the new states of Alaska and Hawaii, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Muerto, and the territories of the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American
Samoa ratified the act as well.
13

Research on social and psychological punishment
Punishment by a court (poena forensis) can never be inflicted merely
as a means to promote some other good for the criminal himself or for civil
society. It must always be inflicted on him only because he has committed a
crime.He must previously have been found punishable before any thought can
be given to drawing from his punishment something of use for himself or his
fellow citizens. The law of punishment is a categorical imperative (Metaphysics
of Morals 6:331).
Young adult offenders, aged between 18 and 30, most likely to be
nonviolent offenders and who in all probability are serving their first sentence of
incarceration are the usual clients of the boot camp (Mathios, 1991). In fact there
are clear parallels between the boot camp and the short, sharp shock detention
centre regimes (re)introduced for adolescent and young adult offenders in Britain
in the early 1980s: the uniform, the pointless labour, humiliating haircuts, instant
obedience to commands, Spartan living conditions and so on.
In reconviction terms, the success rate of the boot camp is significantly
less than for the non-custodial supervisory penalties which some offenders at
least might otherwise have been sentenced to - in just the same way, perhaps,
that the new detention centre regimes in Britain were shown to be ineffective as
a deterrent, which had been part of their formal justification (Home Office, 1984).
But to cite such matters as evidence of the illogicality of the policy itself, or as
evidence of the sheer wilfulness and vindictiveness of the politicians who favour
these measures is to miss their significance. The era of the criminal justice
expert, proficient in normalizing skills and who could authoritatively judge the
success or failure of particular initiatives6 on these terms, is largely over. The
justification for boot camps and their like is their very unpleasantness rather than
their crime-reducing potential. As one boot camp manager explained, being
scared is the point... we keep them busy from the time they wake up until they fall
asleep with chores that include such silliness as cleaning latrines with a
toothbrush (Morash and Rucker, 1990: 206).
In Britain, as we have seen, such regimes became impossible to enforce
during the post-war welfare era, since they were in such conflict with the then
prevailing punishment mentality. However, their reintroduction in that country
from the early 1980s and the current Boot Camp development frenzy (Little
Hoover Commission, 1995) in the United States seems to signify another shift in
the penal culture of modern society. Such explicitly unpleasant regimes have
now become tolerable and sustainable - they reverse the long-standing trend
towards the amelioration of penal sanctions. The common sense that the
regimes invoke and their nostalgic appeal to a military form of governance that
belonged to a supposedly golden era when social rules were unquestioningly
obeyed makes them popular with a public that seeks assurances to crime
problems and anxieties that seem beyond the reach of the existing system of
governance (Simon, 1995) and the penal culture that had shaped it.
Cultural Significance of Punishment in A Society
The sociology of punishment offers a framework for analysing penal
institutions that, potentially at least, can give a fuller and more realistic account
than the punishment-as-crime-control approach of penological studies or the
punishment-as-moral-problem approach of the philosophy of punishment.
Sociological perspectives view as a morality-affirming, solidarity-producing
mechanism grounded in collective sentiments. Marxist studies depict punishment
as an economically conditioned state apparatus that plays an ideological and
political role in ruling class denomination. Foucalts work focuses on the specific
technologies of power-knowledge that operate in the penal realm and links them
to broader networks of discipline and regulation. The work of Norbert Elias points
to the importance of cultural sensibilities and the civilizing process in the
shaping of modern penal measures. Elements of these interpretative traditions
can be brought together to a multidimensional account of punishments social
forms, functions, and significance that can, in turn, help promote more realistic
and appropriate objectives for penal policy and a fuller framework for its
normative evaluation.
14

4. Case study one (1) Profile of an offender.
Objectives of Probation
Develop and maintain public safety through supervision standards
in conjunction with the Regional Chief Probation Officers. Provide for public
safety through supervision of adult felons in Probation and Parole jurisdiction.
Standardize Probation Officer training and the delivery of probation/parole
services throughout the state.
Establish uniform risk management tools for general offenders and sex
offenders.
Increase supervision of high-risk sex offenders. Continue to develop the
Interagency Sex Offender Working Group to improve interagency coordination,
policy, practices and other methods for managing sex offender risk to victims and
potential victims.
Maintain and enhance communications with the criminal justice system
throughout the state.
Research and develop alternatives to incarceration while providing
protection for the public. Identify and implement intermediate sanctions programs
statewide.
Continue to explore the application of neighborhood-based
supervision/community policing system.
Expand the use of minimum banks and 1-900 telephone numbers for low-
risk probation and parole clients.
Provide supervision to offenders to assist them in dealing with problems
that may have led to their arrests and convictions.
Improve officer safety and increase specialized training.
Increase offender accountability to victim and the community by
implementing victim impact classes for offenders across the state; developing a
pool of interagency facilitators and speakers to increase information, resources
and support for victims; and increase in offender restitution/fine collection and
community work service hours.
Improve victim services in the Division of Probation and Parole by a)
increased community education programs on victim services; b) identification of
current victim services; and c) development of materials, forms, and policy
changes as needed to insure they are more victim sensitive.
Preserve and enhance agricultural assets through farm rehabilitative
programs.
Provide adult basic educational and life skills to offender population.
Provide substance abuse education/counselling to offender population.
15

Trends and Issues in Probation
Probation and parole play an essential and critical role in the
administration of both criminal and juvenile justice. They supervise the vast
majority of offenders, and their caseloads continue to grow. In response to the
pressures of increased workload, static or declining budgets, and limited public
and political support, six strategic trends have emerged. These trends
characterize the efforts of probation and parole to meet their mandates and
improve their effectiveness. Probation and parole are integral to criminal and
juvenile justice in the states. They provide a wide variety of services that are
critical to the effective and efficient operation of almost every aspect of the justice
system, ranging from law enforcement to sentencing to the release of offenders
from confinement into the community. While these community corrections
agencies conduct investigations to support judicial and parole decision making,
operate residential and secure custodial facilities and provide free labor to local
organizations through community service programs, probation and parole are
best known for their role in the supervision of offenders in the community.
This community supervision function is responsible for the bulk of the
correctional population in the United States. At the end of 2003, some 4.8 million
adults were on probation and parole, compared with approximately 2.1 million
adults in jail or prison. Seventy percent of the adult correctional population is
under the jurisdiction of probation and parole officers. Juvenile court statistics
reveal that probation is imposed in 62 percent of adjudicated delinquency cases
and that some 675,000 juveniles are under probation supervision. It is
challenging to try to describe or discuss probation and parole in this country, not
only because of the scope and scale of its operations, but also because of its
structure and organization. The phrases probation and parole, or community
corrections are used routinely and would imply a single or unified system.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. Probation and parole agencies are a
fragmented, heterogeneous collection of organizations found at the federal, state,
county and municipal levels, housed in the judicial and executive branches.
There are even some private companies and non-profit organizations providing
probation services. There are hundreds of departments and offices and
thousands of staff committed to the mission of community corrections.
In addition, probation and parole agencies are part of a large, complex
and interdependent array of governmental, non-profit and private agencies and
organizations that comprise the criminal and juvenile justice systems. Almost no
aspect of the work of probation and parole can be considered in isolation, as they
are affected by and have an impact on many other agencies.
Despite the challenge of this organizational diversity, it is possible to
identify trends that are affecting probation and parole in the states. As with any
endeavor, not every jurisdiction is affected or involved equally. The trends will be
discussed in two major areas. The first involves trends in the overall operating
environment of probation and parole. The second are trends that can best be
described as the strategic responses of probation and parole as they strive to
accomplish their mission.
16

The environmental factors that have an impact on probation and parole
include organizational structure, workload, resources and funding and
legislative/political initiatives and support. The organizational structure of
probation and parole is stable. Unlike the period of the late 1970s and early
1980s when parole came under attack and was abolished in 16 states, no large
scale efforts are underway in terms of significantly altering the organizational
structure of these community-based correctional agencies. The workload of
probation and parole continues to grow. Since 1995, the number of adults on
probation and parole has increased 29 percent, compared with 2.9 percent for
prisons and 4 percent for jails. The adult probation population has grown steadily
since 1990. The projection for adult probation populations is for continued slow
but steady growth.
The parole population has shown less annual growth over the past
decade, but that is beginning to increase. The huge cohort of offenders
incarcerated under the get toughsentencing laws passed in the 1980s is now
approaching their release dates in large numbers. While the release of many of
those inmates will be mandatory (not on parole), many will still be subject to post-
release supervision of some type. Overall, both probation and parole will continue
to see modest growth for the foreseeable future.
Because of the complex organizational structure of these services, the
resource and funding aspects of probation and parole are complex. The overall
state of the economy contributes to the less than rosy picture as all levels of
government are experiencing fiscal stress to some degree and money is
generally tight. Probation and parole are not popular, high visibility programs with
strong political support. Despite the fact that they handle the vast majority of the
offender population, probation and parole receive less than 10 percent of the
correctional funding from state and local governments. Probation and parole
supervision also lack the constitutional mandates and high public expectations
that drive more adequate and stable funding, such as that provided for prisons
and public schools. The political/legislative arena is difficult to characterize in
brief. The cost of incarceration is an immense burden on the states, which in turn
is forcing changes in release practices. Many legislatures and governors are
taking a hard look at alternatives, including sentencing reforms. Almost any
conceivable response to the incarceration problem will lead to greater reliance
on probation and parole. Depending on how extensive the changes are in
sentencing or release practices, the impact on probation and parole caseloads
and resources could be substantial.










ENDNOTES

1
William W. Bartley: Rationality versus the theory of rationality. In Mario Bunge (Ed.): The Critical
Approach to Science and Philosophy (The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964)

2
David Stove. Popper and After: Four Modern Irrationalists. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1982.
3
Bentham, Jeremy (1907). [PML] An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.,
Oxford: Clarendon Press.

4
Rosen, Frederick (2003). Reading Hume Backwards: Utility as the Foundation of Morals, in
Frederick Rosen (ed.), Classical Utilitarianism from Hume to Mill, London: Routledge, 29-57.

5
Cicero's De Legibus, 106 BC; see also Ronen Perry, The Role of Retributive Justice in the
Common Law of Torts: A Descriptive Theory, 73 Tenn. L. Rev. 177 (2006); Ronen Perry, The
Third Form of Justice, 23 Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence (2010)

6
Cavadino, M & Dignan, J. (1997). The Penal System: An Introduction (2nd ed.), p. 39. London:
Sage.

7
Rachels, James (2007). The Elements of Moral Philosophy

8
Adam Roberts, ed. The Strategy of Civilian Defence: Non-violent Resistance to Aggression,
Faber, London, 1967. (Also published as Civilian Resistance as a National Defense, Stackpole
Books, Harrisburg, USA, 1968; and, with a new Introduction on "Czechoslovakia and Civilian
Defence", as Civilian Resistance as a National Defence, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, UK,
and Baltimore, USA, 1969.

9
Gene Sharp, Social Power and Political Freedom, Porter Sargent, Boston, 1980, pp. 195-261.
ISBN 0-87558-093-9 (paperback); and Civilian-based Defence: A Post-military Weapons System,
Princeton University Press, 1990.

10
Akers, R. L. (2000). Criminological theories. Los Angeles: Roxbury

11
"Probation and Parole in the United States, 2011". Bulletin. U.S. Department of Justice.
November 2012. Retrieved 12 November 2013.

12
The American Probation and Parole Association's Perpsectives, Managing the Risks Posed by
Offender Computer Use, Perspectives, December 2011

13
Sweeney, Emily (November 28, 2012). "Probation 2.0: How Technology is Changing Probation
Work". Boston.com

14
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc.

15
http://www.correct.state.ak.us/probation-parole/goals-objectives

16
Joan Petersilia, A Crime Control Rationale for Reinvesting in Community
Corrections, Prison Journal 74, no. 3 (1995): 479-96.