One of the problems with parole is that many parole officers, usually the sissy social worker types, must be living in a different world.
In a letter to the Houston Chronicle here is what an “officer and supervisor for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice parole division” offers as a solution to the problem of recidivism:
“………. a program of pre-parole counseling, in which all those being released are given the knowledge of what to expect from their parole officers, is totally ignored. If a prospective parolee knew what to expect from his or her parole officer, recidivism would decrease by enormous numbers. I can attest to the fact that it takes at least two years to fully train a new parole officer to be effective in the field. In the meantime, untrained officers write up thousands of [parole] violations, technical or otherwise, that bring about recidivism rates that are basically unwarranted. Pre-parole counseling of inmates ………. would solve a lot of problems dealing with [prison] overcrowding and recidivism.”
Those remarks would be considered hilarious by those of us who are pragmatists except for the fact that the criminal justice practitioner who made them expects to be taken seriously.
Recidivism would “decrease by enormous numbers” with pre-parole counseling? Is this guy for real? To begin with, this guy simply doesn’t understand the meaning of recidivism! In the case of parole, recidivism refers to a parolee COMMITTING A NEW CRIME, not a technical violation like failing to report to his parole officer.
If a parolees are going to be supervised by “untrained officers,” how can you tell prospective parolees what to expect from their parole officers? You can’t even tell them what to expect from experienced officers because they range from the sissy social workers to the cop-types, with every type in between, each supervising parolees from their respective perspectives.
Is the pre-parole counselor going to be honest and tell those prospective parolees that their parole officer, whether experienced or not, will hardly make any field visits, and the few times he does, it will usually be by appointment, thus giving the parolee time make it appear as if everything is going just hunky-dory? Of course he’s not going to tell them that.
Recidivism is brought about by the parolee’s decision to commit a new crime, not by a parole officer’s decision to write up some bullshit technical violation.
When I was on the faculty of Sam Houston State University, I used to volunteer at the Ferguson Unit of the Texas prison system by doing group counseling for problem inmates and by giving classes (pre-parole counseling if you prefer) to inmates about to be released. I told them how to succeed and how to fail, once they found themselves in the free world. My classes included advise on how to obtain employment, how to dress for a job interview, how to talk to prospective employers – none of that stupid con-lingo or ghetto speak – and how to comply with their parole conditions.
About half of each group appeared to be there because they were really interested in the pre-release classes, while the other half were there only because they were ordered to attend. And that happens to equal the nationwide parole recidivism rate of around 50 percent. Does that mean that the half that didn’t give a shit about the pre-release classes were the ones who committed new crimes? Not at all! Most likely, half from each group – the group that wanted to be there and those who didn’t – would end up being returned to prison for committing new crimes.
I do agree that too many parolees are returned to prison for minor technical violations. Part of the problem is that parole officers who are overwhelmed by unreasonably large case loads may resort to reducing those case loads by returning parolees to prison for bullshit technical violations. Is that practice justified? No! Does it add to prison overcrowding? Of course it does. But that has nothing to do with the recidivism rate, the rate of new crimes committed by parolees.
I would venture to say that there are far more parolees returned to prison for committing new crimes than those who are returned on technical parole violations. The writer of the letter to the Chronicle who believes that recidivism would “decrease by enormous numbers” with pre-parole counseling has got to be hallucinating.
No comments:
Post a Comment