8.5.1: Intermediate Sanctions

In response to the rising prison rates during the 1960s and 1970s (Tonry, 1995), policymakers sought alternative punishments to incarceration. The increasing number of inmates not only strained state budgets but also highlighted the inadequacies of existing punishment options—imprisonment, probation, or fines—each of which was not always suitable for all types of criminal offenses. Imprisonment was generally considered costly and excessively harsh for many crimes, whereas probation and fines were often viewed as too lenient. To address these concerns, a variety of intermediate sanctions were developed, offering a range of midrange, alternative punishments.

According to retribution and deterrence theories, effective punishments must align in severity with the perceived seriousness of the crime. Intermediate sanctions meet these criteria by offering a range of options to help ensure punishments are proportionate to the offenses committed, thereby reducing the likelihood of both over-punishment and under-punishment of individuals convicted of criminal offenses.

Today, judges have a variety of intermediate sanctions at their disposal to determine appropriate punishments based on the severity of the crime. The figure below illustrates the sequence of intermediate sanctions, ordered by increasing severity.

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): Progressive Sanctions Flowchart: A Sequence by Severity/ Photo Credit: Kadence C. Maier, CC BY 4.0

Fines are a long-standing form of sanction in the legal system, continuing to be widely used due to their effectiveness in generating revenue and their straightforward application. In 2020, local governments amassed approximately $9 billion from fines and fees, highlighting their significant role in augmenting public finance (Nastasi, 2023). Typically imposed for minor infractions such as traffic violations, fines also play a role in more serious criminal cases, though they are seldom the sole form of punishment in a sentence.

Beyond punitive measures, fines, along with associated court fees and surcharges, are often utilized to restore losses to victims and to cover the costs of court administration and processing (Martin et al., 2018). This dual purpose underscores the importance of fines in maintaining both order and justice within society. However, the imposition of monetary penalties has raised concerns regarding their disproportionate impact on individuals with lower economic status, exacerbating financial instability among those least able to afford them. For example, a substantial fine of $10,000 that might be a manageable expense for a high-income earner, can be financially crippling for someone with a modest income or for incarcerated individuals working for minimal wages of $0.12 an hour. This disparity highlights ongoing concerns about the fairness and equity of monetary sanctions within the justice system. Despite these challenges, fines remain a prevalent tool in the criminal justice system, balancing the objectives of punishment, deterrence, and revenue generation.

Forfeiture is a legal process through which the government seizes property involved in or derived from criminal activity. This process takes two forms: civil forfeiture and criminal forfeiture. Civil forfeiture empowers the government, typically law enforcement agencies, to seize assets suspected of criminal involvement, including houses, vehicles, cash, and other items. The government only needs to establish that it is more likely than not that the property was used for or derived from criminal activity, a standard known as “preponderance of the evidence” (Nelson, 2016). If this standard is met, the agency can retain or sell the property and keep the proceeds. Importantly, civil forfeiture operates under a lower burden of proof compared to criminal cases, enabling authorities to take action even if criminal charges against individuals are not pursued or successful.

In contrast, criminal forfeiture occurs only after an individual has been convicted of a crime. Following a conviction, the government can seize any property or assets linked to the criminal offense, which may then be used or sold, often to fund law enforcement efforts or provide victim restitution. This type of forfeiture requires a higher standard of proof aligned with the criminal conviction itself.

Both civil and criminal forfeitures are integral to law enforcement strategies aimed at disrupting criminal enterprises by depriving them of their assets, thereby dismantling the financial infrastructure supporting illegal activities. While forfeiture is a potent tool in combating crime, it raises significant legal and ethical considerations concerning due process and potential impacts on individuals with legitimate claims to seized property. Consequently, the use of forfeiture remains a contentious issue, subject to ongoing scrutiny and debate within legal and policy circles, balancing the pursuit of justice with safeguards for individual rights.

Community service emerged as a popular alternative to imprisonment and fines for lower-level offenders in the 1960s (McDonald, 1986). Initially conceived as a standalone penalty, it has since been integrated into a broader spectrum of sanctions, often in conjunction with fines, probation, or post-incarceration measures. The essence of community service lies in requiring offenders to perform a specified number of hours of unpaid labor as part of their sentence, tailored to both the needs of the community and the capabilities of the offender (Bouffard & Muftic, 2006). Community service tasks range widely, from environmental projects like cleaning up trash and building walking trails, to providing assistance in homeless shelters and community centers.

Integrating community service into the criminal justice system offers several advantages. Firstly, it provides communities with additional labor resources that can address local needs and improve public spaces. Secondly, it offers offenders an opportunity to contribute positively to society, fostering a sense of accountability and community engagement. Moreover, engaging in meaningful work through community service can promote rehabilitation among these individuals by imparting new skills and fostering a deeper understanding of the consequences of their actions on society.

Community service represents a multifaceted approach to justice that not only addresses the immediate consequences of offenses but also seeks to rehabilitate individuals under correctional supervision and strengthen community bonds. Its flexibility and potential for positive societal benefit make it a valuable component of the criminal justice system.

Community Corrections

Community corrections have changed dramatically over the last half-century. Due to a rapid and overwhelming increase in the incarcerated population, largely based on policy changes, we have witnessed an immense increase in the use of sanctions at the community level; this includes probation. Probation is a form of a suspended sentence in that the jail or prison sentence of the convicted individual is suspended for the privilege of serving conditions of supervision in the community. We will discuss probation in further detail in the coming sections. One thing to note is it has only been within the most recent 15 years that we have seen a decrease in community corrections.

Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\): Decrease from 2005–2020 of those on parole, probation, and community supervision.

As noted in the Bureau of Justice’s article, the number of individuals on probation hovers around three million, with another million in some form of community-level control, for a total of about four million under community supervision, probation, or parole (Kaeble, 2021). Because of the sheer volume of these intermediate sanctions, it is important to put this in perspective of jails and prisons. In the figure below, you can see this breakdown more clearly.

Figure \(\PageIndex{3}\): The breakdown of correctional control populations. Probation makes up more than 50 percent of the overall total.

The figure above does not include the volume of people in the community corrections outside of regular probation or parole (which is about another million) (Kaeble, 2021). Still, it sheds light on just how much probation is used. It is important to understand that most individuals under correctional control are not in prisons and jails in the United States. Many people within correctional control fall under sanctions like probation, intensive supervision probation, post-prison supervision, parole, boot camps, drug courts, and transitional housing, among others. This section will discuss the history and effectiveness of some forms of intermediate sanctions used in the United States, as well as the inequities that affect some populations as a result.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, there was a fundamental shift in corrections. This is largely due to the “Nothing Works” dogma in rehabilitation. Many reforms were made toward the housing of individuals. Some liked this idea because they did not trust the government’s attempts at rehabilitation. Others were pleased as there was more of an emphasis placed on control. Rooted in deterrence theory and, to a lesser extent, incapacitation, intermediate sanctions promised greater control over the growing incarcerated population at a reduced cost. Because of these promises, such programs were quickly welcomed across the nation. However, upon review, we can see that these approaches failed to fulfill these promises to their full extent.

Probation

Probation is arguably the oldest, and certainly the largest, of the intermediate sanctions. Its roots stem from concepts of common law from England, like many of our other legal/correctional practices. Probation is a form of a suspended sentence in that the jail or prison sentence of the convicted individual is suspended for the privilege of serving conditions of supervision in the community. Conditions of probation often include reporting to a probation officer, submitting to random drug screenings, not associating with known felons, paying court costs, restitution, and damages, attending treatment/programming, and other conditions. Probation lengths vary greatly, as do the conditions of probation placed on an individual. Almost all individuals on probation will have at least one condition of their probation. Some have many conditions, depending on the seriousness of the conviction. In contrast, others have just a blanket condition that is imposed on all in that jurisdiction or for that conviction type.

Juvenile probation departments were established within all states by the 1920s, and by the middle of the 1950s, all states had adult probation. Probation officers usually work directly for the state or federal government but can be assigned to local or municipal agencies. Many counties have a community justice level structure where probation offices operate. Within these offices, probation officers are assigned cases (caseload) to manage. The volume of cases in a probation officer’s caseload can vary from just a few clients, if they are high-need or high-risk clients, to several hundred individuals. It depends on the jurisdiction, the local office’s structure, and the probation officers’ abilities.

The role of the probation officer (PO) is complex and sometimes diametrically opposing. A PO’s primary function is to enforce compliance of individuals on probation. This is done through check-ins, random drug screenings, and enforcement of other conditions that are placed on the individuals. Additionally, the PO may go out into the field to serve warrants, conduct home checks for compliance, and even make arrests if necessary.

However, at the same time, a probation officer is trying to help individuals on probation succeed. This is achieved by helping individuals secure jobs or education, enter substance or alcohol treatment programs, and providing general support. This is why the job of the PO is complex, as they are trying to be supportive but also enforce compliance. Many equate this to being a parent. Recently, there has been a movement within probation to have probation officers act more like coaches and mentors rather than just disciplinarians.

Another primary function of a probation officer is to complete pre-sentence investigation reports on individuals going through the court process. A pre-sentence investigation report or PSI is a psycho-social work-up on a person headed to trial. It includes basic background information on an individual, such as age, education, relationships, physical and mental health, employment, military service, social history, and substance abuse history. It also has a detailed account of the current offense, witness or victim impact statements of the event, and prior offenses (criminal records), which are tracked across numerous agencies. The PSI also has a section that is devoted to a plan of supervision or recommendations, which are created by the PO. These usually list the conditions of probation recommendations if probation is to be granted.

Individuals on Probation

Several million people are on probation, serving various lengths of probation and under numerous types of conditions. Additionally, the convictions that place individuals on probation vary, including misdemeanors and felonies. Individuals serve their probation at the state level or federal level.

Probation is a privilege, but it most certainly comes with conditions. Due to how cheap probation is, relative to jail or prison, and the ability for lower-risk individuals to maintain connections within their community, millions of people will be on probation in the United States at any given time.

Other important factors that help to decide if a person warrants probation are found within the PSI and other risk and need assessments (RNA). RNAs are tools used to assess the risk and need of a person to recidivate or commit new crimes. If the person is prosocial, has an education, a job, and a family, these are all considered as ties to the community, making them lower risk than those who do not have these ties. These ties to the community could weaken or break if a person were incarcerated. Providing an alternative to incarceration and instead imposing a sanction while allowing the person to stay in the community is often the approach utilized within probation and other intermediate sanctions.

There are mixed reviews about probation. Recently, the Bureau of Justice Statistics listed the successful completion rate at about 43 percent in 2020 (Kaeble, 2021). In 2008–2013, this number was reported to be higher, upwards of 65 percent (Huberman & Bonczar, 2014). There are a host of reasons listed for unsuccessful completion, which include being incarcerated on a new sentence or charge, placement for the current sentence or charge, absconding (fleeing jurisdiction), being discharged to warrant or detainer, other unsatisfactory reason, death, or some other unknown or not reported reason.

Unsuccessful completion can often include a concept called tourniquet sentencing. Tourniquet sentencing occurs when the restriction levels of a sanction are increased, due to non-compliance, to force compliance. There have been disparities in how the revocations and sanctions are imposed, as outlined in this study titled, Examining Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Probation Revocation

Intensive Supervised Probation

Intensive Supervision Probation (ISP) began in the late 1950s and early 1960s in California. The basic premise was to allow caseworkers (POs) to have smaller caseloads and increase the level of treatment across individuals. Many promised multiple success measures. If an individual was revoked due to a technical violation resulting from increased control, they were not considered a failure. They were seen as a success because of the way the public was served by the recidivism. However, this went directly against the notion that ISPs could save money. Over time, the earlier forms of ISPs became less popular.

In the 1980s, a newer model of the ISP was created in Georgia. More emphasis was placed on the control aspect rather than on treatment. Further, less emphasis was placed on the reduction of money saved.

ISP and regular probation are similar, except for the frequency of contacts with POs, the increases in surveillance and monitoring, and usually the volume of conditions. Rather than meeting a PO once a month in regular probation, a person on ISP would likely be meeting with their PO weekly or even more frequently. Additionally, individuals on ISP normally submit drug screens weekly. The increased conditions of supervision more frequently include more substance abuse treatment, either in the form of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), Narcotics Anonymous (NA), or some other residential or outpatient substance abuse treatment programs. Thus, the core difference concerns increased surveillance and control over the individual on the ISP.

While initial praise of the newer model for its increased control was evidenced by its rapid spread through the States, some researchers questioned its effectiveness. One of the largest studies of ISPs was conducted in conjunction with the RAND Corporation. They examined the effectiveness of ISPs in reducing recidivism and saving costs. In a random sample of fourteen cities across nine states, they evaluated the reductions of recidivism against a sample of individuals on regular probation. Their findings indicated higher rates of technical violations, likely substance violations, with no significant differences between control-centered ISPs and regular probation in terms of new arrests. Moreover, when looking at outcomes over three years, they found that recidivism rates were slightly higher for these ISPs (39 percent) vs. regular probation (33 percent) (Petersilia & Deschenes, 2004). Also, there were no substantive cost savings.

Other studies have produced similar findings regarding the effects of non-treatment-oriented ISPs. While these findings might be better than prison recidivism rates, there were no reductions in prison overcrowding, defined as the number of individuals incarcerated exceeding the available prison bed space, meaning there was no impact on the number of individuals incarcerated and thus still insufficient resources, which was one of the goals of implementing ISP.

Boot Camps of Shock Incarceration

Another form of intermediate sanction may be seen in the creation of boot camps, also known as shock incarceration facilities. Developed in the 1980s in Georgia, boot camps were targeted at youths and adults and seen as a way to alter individuals through a “shock” effect. Essentially, boot camps are programs designed to reduce recidivism rates through physical transformation. Designed around a militaristic ideal, boot camps operated on the assumption that a regimen of strict physical exercise would teach structure and discipline to youths. Once again, because of a high level of face validity (this looks like it will work, so it must work), boot camps flourished in the 1980s and 1990s.

Figure \(\PageIndex{4}\): Jail without Walls – How does that work?! | Free Doc Bites | Free Documentary [Streaming Video] Transcript.

While there are some positive results, generally, boot camps fail to produce the desired reductions in recidivism, as noted in a research study published by the National Institute of Justice (Parent, 2018). For prosocial individuals, structure and discipline can be advantageous. However, when individuals of differing levels of antisocial attitudes, antisocial associates, antisocial temperament (personality), and antisocial (criminal history) are all mixed together, reductions in recidivism generally do not appear.

In boot camps, criminogenic needs are often not addressed. They fail to reduce recidivism for several reasons. First, since boot camps fail to address criminogenic needs, they tend not to be effective. Second, because of the lower admission requirements of boot camps, individuals are generally “lumped” together into a start date within a boot camp. Therefore, high-risk individuals and low-risk individuals are placed together, building a cohesive group. Thus, lower-risk individuals gain antisocial associates that are high-risk. Finally, when boot camps emphasize the increase of physicality rather than behavioral change, it generally does not reduce aggressive behavior (antisocial personality & recidivism). A recent meta-analysis (a study of studies of a topic) published by the Campbell Systematic Reviews found this to be the case (Wilson et al., 2003).

House Arrest / Electronic Monitoring

House arrest is when an individual is remanded to stay home for confinement as a punishment in lieu of jail or prison. There are built-in provisions allowing individuals to attend places of worship, places of employment, and food places. Otherwise, individuals are expected to be home. It is difficult to assess how many are on house arrest at any given time, as these are often short stents given during the early stages of probation or pretrial release.

A component that is often paired with the house arrest model is electronic monitoring (EM). This electronic bracelet or device is equipped with Global Positioning Systems (GPS). The individual wears the device, and an agency official tracks their actions and locations to ensure they only travel and move within the confines of their conditions.

House arrest without electronic monitoring carries relatively little to no cost, especially when comparing house arrest to intensive supervised probation. In all, house arrest would probably best serve individuals with low criminogenic risks and needs. However, it is also argued that those individuals already need little sanctions to be successful. Thus, the utility of house arrest is debatable.

The cost of pairing house arrest with EM can be similar to that of a cell phone contract payment each month, and these costs often fall on the individual and not the agency to cover. This can cause financial hardship on the individual, and outside of tracking the person’s location to ensure they are where they are supposed to be, the agencies must impose additional rules. Due to the rise of the use of EM during the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been quite a few critics of EM, as noted in George Washington University Law School’s research titled, The Electronic Prisons: The Operation of Ankle Monitoring in the Criminal Legal System.

Community Residential Facilities

Community Residential Facilities (CRFs) have long been used to control and house individuals. Dating back to the early 1800s from England and Ireland, halfway houses began around 1820 in Massachusetts. Initially, they were designed to help a person “get back on their feet” and were generally funded benevolently by non-profit organizations like the Salvation Army.

Currently, halfway houses are typically used as a stopping point for individuals coming out of prisons to assist with reentry into the community. Still, they have also recently been used as more secure measures for monitoring individuals in place of going to prison. They are even used as a test measure of parole. With the creation of The Electronic Prisons: The Operation of Ankle Monitoring in the Criminal Legal System in 1964, halfway houses have become an integral part of every state, with mixed but more promising results than ISPs or boot camps. The core design of a halfway house is meant to be a place where individuals can get back on their feet after being released from prison. However, as stated, their uses have evolved, becoming residential or even partial residential places where individuals under correctional control can check in and find reprieve or assistance to rejoin society as normal functioning members.

There are some issues regarding the examination of halfway houses. The IHHA breaks down halfway houses into four groups along two dimensions. As discussed, halfway houses were initially funded by private non-profit organizations. However, many halfway houses today (in part due to the IHHA) are both privately and federally (and State) funded. Additionally, halfway houses are also divided into supportive and interventive groups. That is, halfway houses that serve only a minimal function (a place to stay while reintegrating back into society) are generally labeled supportive, whereas interventive halfway houses typically have multiple treatment modalities and may have up to five hundred beds. However, most halfway houses fall somewhere in the middle of these two continuums.

Other forms of Community Residential Facilities (CRFs) are often called Community Correctional Centers (CCCs), Transition Centers (TCs), or Community-Based Correctional Facilities (CBCFs), among other names. From this point, these variations will all be considered CRFs, as there are many varieties of facility types and names. However, even two community residential facilities with the same name can be different, as the functions of CRFs can be multifaceted. CRFs can function similarly to halfway houses, or they can provide a stop for individuals just checking in for the day before they go off to their jobs. They can be used for outpatient services, even residential services, where there is a need for public control/safety.

The overall benefit of CRFs is their ability to have an increased focus on rehabilitation at a lower cost than a state institution. This is where their greatest effect can materialize if there is adherence to the principles of effective intervention. As we touched on in the first section on punishment, the principles of effective intervention have been demonstrated to have the best impacts on reductions in recidivism. Collectively, these are called the Principles of Effective Intervention or PEI. These include proper identification of criminogenic risks and needs of individuals, using evidence-based practices that address these items, matching and sorting clients appropriately, and responsivity in terms of programs and services.

The National Institute of Corrections defines evidence-based practices as “the objective, balanced and responsible use of current research and the best available data to guide policy and practice decisions, such that outcomes for consumers are improved” (2022). Based on this definition, Corrections agencies employ evidence-based practices to use the best techniques possible to help individuals who have committed crimes make positive changes. For an optional detailed account of how the PEI integrates into community corrections, see this detailed report by the National Institute of Corrections under the U.S. Department of Justice: Implementing Evidence-Based Practice in Community Corrections: The Principles of Effective Intervention.

Restorative Justice

The process of restorative justice (RJ) programs is often linked with community justice organizations and is normally carried out within the community. Therefore, RJ is discussed here in the community corrections section. Restorative justice is a community-based and trauma-informed practice used to build relationships, strengthen communities, encourage accountability, repair harm, and restore relationships when wrongdoings occur. As an intervention following wrongdoing, restorative justice works for the people who have caused harm, the victim(s), and the community members impacted.

Working with a restorative justice facilitator, participants identify harms, needs, and obligations, then make a plan to repair the harm and put things as right as possible. This process, restorative justice conferencing, can also be called victim-offender dialogues. It is within this process that multiple items can occur. First, the victim can be heard within the scope of both the community and the scope of the offense discussed. This provides the victim(s) an opportunity to express the impact on them and understand what was happening from the perspective of the transgressor. At the same time, it allows the person committing the action to potentially take responsibility for the acts committed directly to the victim(s) and the community as a whole. This restorative process provides a level of healing that is often unique. In figure below, you can see the different processes that can occur during the different types of dialogues within restorative justice conferences. [To learn more about the restorative process, review the Defining Restorative].

Figure \(\PageIndex{5}\): Venn Diagram of Restorative Justice showing the unions and intersections of victim reparation, communities of care reconciliation, and offender responsibility.

For over a quarter of a century, restorative justice has been demonstrated to show positive outcomes in accountability of harm and satisfaction in the restorative justice process for both offenders and victims. This is true for adults, as well as juveniles, who go through the restorative justice process. Recently, there have been questions about whether a cognitive change occurs in the thought process of individuals completing a restorative justice program. A growing body of research demonstrates cognitive changes that may occur through the successful completion of restorative justice conferencing. This will be an area of increasing interest for practitioners as restorative justice continues to be included in the toolkit of actions within the justice system.

Parole and Post Prison Supervision

Parole is an individual’s release (under conditions) after serving a portion of their sentence. It is also accompanied by the threat of re-incarceration if warranted. Parole today has greatly evolved based on American values and concepts. Parole in the United States began as a concept at the first American Prison Association meeting in 1870. At the time, there was much support for corrections reform in America. Advocates for reform helped to create the concept of parole and how it would look in the United States and plans to develop parole grew from there. Parole authorities began to be established within the states, and by the mid-1940s, all states had a parole authority. Parole boards and state parole authorities have fluctuated over the years, but the concept is still practiced to varying degrees today. It is different from probation, which often operates under the judicial branch. Parole typically operates under the executive branch and is aligned with the departments of corrections, as parole is a direct extension of prison terms and release.

Many states operate a post-prison supervision (PPS) addendum to their sentencing matrix for the punishment of individuals. This addendum is similar to parole in that the individual’s release (under conditions) occurs after serving their prison sentence. In the figure below, the gray PPS section represents the recommended times for parole (post-prison supervision).

Figure \(\PageIndex{6}\): The Two-Tier System: State Parole (left, red) - for serious/violent offenders and high-risk sex offenders, supervised by CDCR state agents. Post-Release Community Supervision (right, green) - for non-serious, non-violent offenders, supervised by county probation. Key Differences Shown: Who supervises: State agents vs. county probation officers; Duration: Varies by offense (state parole) vs. maximum 3 years (PRCS); Who qualifies: Based on offense type and risk level; Violations: Where heard and what consequences apply.

Today, there are three basic types of parole in the United States: discretionary, mandatory, and expiatory. Discretionary parole refers to the process where an individual is eligible for parole or goes before a parole board prior to their mandatory parole eligibility date. It is at the discretion of the parole board to grant parole (with conditions) for these individuals. These individuals are generally well-behaved people who have demonstrated they can function within society (have completed all required programming). Discretionary parole had seen a rapid increase in the 1980s but took a marked decrease starting in the early 1990s. In more recent years, it has returned as a viable release mechanism for over 100,000 individuals a year, as noted in a Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report (Hughes et al., 2001).

Mandatory parole occurs when an individual hits a particular point in time in their sentence. When a person is sent to prison, two clocks begin. The first clock is forward counting and continues until the individual’s last day. The second clock starts at the end of their sentence and starts to work backward, proportional to the “good days” an individual has had. Good days are those when a person is free from incidents, write-ups, tickets, or other rule infractions. For instance, for every week that an individual maintains good behavior, they might get two days taken off of the end of their sentence. When these two times converge, this would be the point at which mandatory parole could kick in for them. This must also be conditioned by truth-in-sentencing legislation, or what is considered an 85 percent rule.

Many states have laws in place that stipulate that an individual is not eligible for mandatory parole until they hit 85 percent of their original sentence. Even though the date for the good days would be before 85 percent of a sentence is served, they would only be eligible for mandatory parole once they had achieved 85 percent of their sentence. Recently, states have begun to soften these 85 percent rules as another way to reduce crowding issues. As discretionary parole went down, mandatory parole went up.

Figure \(\PageIndex{7}\): The three types of parole releases from state prisons between 1980–2000.

Perhaps most troubling is the expiatory release. We see a slow increase of expiatory release in the chart, which continued to climb in the 2000s. Expiatory release (a similar idea to post-prison supervision) means that a person has served their entire sentence length and is being released to the community, not because of their warranted behavior change, but based on the end of their sentence and the need to accommodate incoming individuals. This sometimes means the person has misbehaved enough to nullify their “good days.” This is unfortunate because of the three types of release—it could be argued that these are the individuals who need the most post-prison supervision, and yet, these are the individuals who are typically receiving the smallest amounts of community supervision because the majority of their sentence was completed while incarcerated. With the newer idea of post-prison supervision, individuals are serving their entire sentence behind bars and then have a set amount of time on post-prison supervision in the community following the incarcerated sentence.

Successful parole completion rates hover around 50 percent, depending on the year being reported. In the Hughes et al. (2001) article, successful completion was roughly 42 percent in 1999. The same issues for failure that are found in probation completion are found in parole completion, including revocation failures, new charges, absconding, and other infractions. This lower-than-expected success rate has prompted many critics to argue against parole. It is suggested that we are too lenient on some while keeping lower-level individuals in prison for too long. It is also argued that we are releasing dangerous individuals into the community.