Lesson Proper for Week 1 (CA2)

COMMUNITY-BASED CORRECTION AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction to Community-based Correction
At present, correction as a pillar of our justice system is in front of so many problems and controversies. Among
of its palpable problems are overcrowded jails and prison facilities. Despite of public clamor, the government
cannot afford to lock-up all convicted individuals. Society has all the reasons to condemn convicts but in so
doing, they are just pushed for the continuance of their unlawful activities. Study shows that many convicted
persons who have been incarcerated in jails or prisons, when they return to community are mostly reengage to
the same kind of offense or to some other type of anti-social activities which if not with the same degree with
the first offense, is more serious. It is also an accepted fact that putting all convicted individuals in jail or prison
facilities will definitely prejudicial to the government considering that they consume so much of government
funds and resources. These are the common reasons for the promotion of community-based correction approach
in lieu of institutional correction.
Community-based corrections are non-institutional based corrections which are being considered as the best
alternative for imprisonment. It is a non-incarcerate system of correction. It is described as a method of
rehabilitating convicted felons without a need of placing them into jail or prison facilities. It is likewise refers to
any sanctions in which convicts serve all or a portion of their entire sentence in the community. Community
based correction is a program which deal with supervised rehabilitation of convicts within the community.
The idea behind non-institutional correction programs is that, most convicts can be effectively held accountable
for their crimes at the same time that they can fulfill legitimate living standards in the community. Most
convicts do not pose an imminent danger to themselves or to others and can therefore remain in the community
to maintain relationships. Rehabilitating convicts within the community confers several benefits such as:
1. The convict will remains in the community in which he or she has responsibilities.
He can continuously engage to his legitimate sources of livelihood to support himself and his family and the
government can collect taxes from him;
2. Convicts under community-based correction are more capable to compensate their victims through
restitution or to pay-back the community through community service, and
3. Community-based corrections programs do not expose convicts to the subculture of violence existing in
jails and prisons.

There is now a principle in Non-institutional Correction that works for the reintegration of convicted individuals
to society which is known as restorative justice. What Restorative Justice advocating is the alteration of the
behavior of convicts through the use of holistic but non-incarcerate methods of rehabilitation, Braithwaite
(1900-1990). It is like helping the convicts to enter the society in a way where they can be accepted by the
sciety. This system has its impact on the society in general as well, as it helps the society understand and accept
the fact that convicts are also a part of the society. (EzineArticles.com)
Community-Based Correction Programs

1, Probation - Is a disposition, under which a defendant after conviction and sentence, is released subject to the
conditions imposed by the Court and to the supervision of a probation officer.

2. Parole- A conditional release from prison of a convicted person upon service of the minimum of his
indeterminate penalty.

3. Pardon- A form of executive clemency which is exercise exclusively by the Chief Executive. Pardon may be
given conditionally (conditional pardon) or unconditionally (absolute pardon). For the purpose of Non-
Institutional Correction. it is the Conditional Pardon with parole conditions is under consideration.

Other Community-Based Correction Programs

In other jurisdictions, parole, probation and conditional pardon have always been a way of community
correction, but with technological advancement and considering the psychology of convicted people, correction
programs have widened to accommodate the following:
1. Work releases;
2. Day fine programs;
3. Electronic monitoring,
4. Home confinement;
5. Community service;
6. Half way houses;
7. Boot camp prisons;
8. Restitution;
9. Check-in programs;
10. Mediation;
11. Curfews;
12. Restorative justice centers;
13. Drug checks;
14. Alcohol checks; and
15. Other methods where there is a certain level of trust between the offenders and the
16. People involved. (EzineArticles.com)
B. Entities of the Government task for providing Community-Based Correction

1. Parole and Probation Administration (PPA)

Conduct investigations of all cases in relation to parole, probation and pardon Responsible for the supervision
of all parolees, probationers and conditional pardon grantees
2. Board of Pardon and Parole (BPP)

Authority in granting parole Responsible for recommending the grant of pardon and executive clemency to the
president
3. Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD)
Handling cases of Child in Conflict with the Law (CICL)
C. Benefits of Community-based Corrections
1. Strengthening family ties through avoidance of broken family relationships- The Treatment and
rehabilitation of convicted offender is done outside the institutional Facilities hence, family members will not
suffer broken family due to imprisonment of one of its member;
2. Prevention of Influence Contamination -Putting convicted felon to prison may expose him to hardened
criminals who might influence him to be a more hardened criminal than before;
3. Engagement of Community Involvement - Rehabilitation can be more effective with the help of the
members of the community;
4. Assurance of Individualized Treatment Approach - These programs provide individualize treatment
program for the convicts which is if not available, it is hard to attain in correctional institution;
5. It is more economical than institution-based correction on the part of the
Government.

D. Purposes
1. Facilitating Convicts Reintegration;
2. Fostering Convicts Rehabilitation;
3. Providing an Alternative Range of Convicts Punishment
4. Heightening Convicts Accountability
E. Functions
1. Client monitoring and supervision to ensure program compliance
2. Ensuring public safety
3. Employment assistance
4. Individual and group counseling
5. Educational training and literacy services
6. Networking with other community agencies and business
7. Reducing jail and prison overcrowding
Lesson Proper for Week 2 (Ca2)
COMMUNITY-BASED CORRECTION AS SOLUTION TO INMATES CONGESTION IN JAILS AND
PRISONS

Congestion status of bureau of correction: As of june 2017

Current Issues and Concerns on Community-based Correction

1. Public resistance against non-institutional correction
2. Punishment against rehabilitation and reintegration
3. Convicted individual needs safety as well as the public
4. Availability of Rehabilitation Services
5. Education and training for rehabilitation service providers
6. Coping with special needs of the convicts

Evaluating the effectiveness of Community based Correctional Programs

Community-based corrections as alternatives to prison claim to be more effective in reducing recidivism than
traditional prisons, to be cheaper than prisons, and to reduce overcrowding in prisons and jails. A study used a
case study approach of a community based program was conducted by Nancy Marion in the Midwest United
States to determine if those community corrections alternatives achieve those results.
The findings from this case study show that the recidivism rates of community corrections are lower than those
of the prison inmates only in some cases and that the costs are cheaper only in some cases. It also shows that
community corrections serve as a true alternative to prison in some instances but more often only widens the net
and increases the state's control over criminal offenders. (Source: Effectiveness of Community based
Correctional Programs: A Case Study, 2012 Journal Citation Reports, Thomson Reuters, 2013)

Four Ways to Reduce Prison Congestion

1. Review and Reform All Processes
One of the first steps is to determine who is in prison and how their needs can be met. Higher incarceration rates
of adult males skew data to promote resources in their favor, but the lower percentages of women and children
have needs that are unmet and unacknowledged. One major concern is the holding of minors. Nearly 5,000
youth are held in adult facilities according to Prison Policy.org—should law enforcement detain a parent as
well? Can they serve their sentence outside of a custodial institution? Data can be used to decide how best to
care for prisoners overall based on effective—and cost-effective—bases to create more humane environments.
There are factors at each step in the process of incarceration that can be reformed to reduce the number of unjust
sentences for those that commit minor offenses and those based on socially-biased convictions. Settling minor
offenses outside of criminal court with informal or restorative justice solutions prevents the system getting
bogged down unnecessarily, while investments in social policy can ensure that those facing criminal court also
have better access to legal aid before their trials.
The hope is to limit the number of people in prisons to those whose crimes deserve that kind of punishment.
Too often, prisons are crowded with those being held before trial without the ability to bail themselves out,
those with non-violent or non-serious crimes, and those that could better serve their sentence elsewhere.
Frequently, those kinds of prisoners are better off with non-custodial sentences or sentences that do not entirely
take place in prison, like discharges, community service, house arrest and halfway houses.
2. Early Release and Parole
Awarding those with good behavior and/or productive time with early release or parole is a great incentive to
create better environments and outcomes for non-violent prisoners who receive education, rehabilitation or
treatment. Standardizing and reducing sentence lengths can lower overcrowded prisons by routinely cutting
sentences down to more manageable and suitable times. New York and Kansas are currently examining the
benefits of early release; however, many states require a minimum sentence length, making it impossible to
grant early releases to deserving prisoners.
3. Access to Mental Illness and Drug Addiction
Because mental illnesses and drug addiction place many in prison—often times as default—rather than in
institutions that would actually benefit them and reduce recidivism, it is vital to see where the system can be
reformed to help rather than punish those convicts. Most prisons are ill-equipped to meet the needs of
individuals who are mentally ill and create more negative effects that could affect the prisoner once released,
resulting in re-offending. Specialist facilities could reduce prison numbers and decrease the likelihood of re-
offenses by getting the mentally ill and drug addicts better suited to manage their situations. These prisoners
make great candidates for the aforementioned early release programs. New York is in the process of
restructuring the state institution to ensure that punishments suit the crimes by reducing minimum sentences for
first-time drug offenders and increasing sentences for drug traffickers, rather than treating drug addicts as Class
A felons.
4. Reduce Recidivism
Recidivism—the act of re-offending—understandably contributes to high imprisonment rates. Rehabilitation
programs and drug and alcohol courses are at the forefront to help those needing recovery assistance. New York
has found that these types of programs are 15 times more effective than basic imprisonment and those released
commit two-thirds fewer crimes. California’s mass forgiveness program released prisoners by the thousands.
Those non-violent prisoners who were mass-forgiven and participated in the realignment plan were not inclined
to repeat past crimes or get involved in violent behavior.
Lesson Proper for Week 3 (ca 2)

PROBATION

Definition

Probation as a term was derived from the Latin verb "probare" which mean to prove or to test, which was
coined by John Augustus. The law defined probation as a disposition, under which a convicted individual is
released subject to the conditions imposed by the Court and to the supervision of a probation officer

Basic Precepts and Concepts on Probation

1. As a system of instruction- The probationer will be placed under the supervision of probation officer who
shall be directly in charge of supervising and monitoring the progress of the rehabilitation program based on the
conditions imposed by the court. Such control of the court shall be considered continuing in character until such
time that the court orders the discharge from probation of the convict.

2. Suspended Imposition of Sentence- Probation consists of the conditional suspension of the execution of
sentence while the convict is placed under supervision and is given individual guidance and treatment programs.

3. Provision for Individualize Treatment Program - The basic purpose for probation is to provide an
individualized treatment program offering a first time or unhardened convict as an opportunity to be
rehabilitated without institutional confinement or imprisonment, under the tutelage of a probation officer and
under the continuing power of the court to impose institutional punishment for his original offense in the event
that he abuse such opportunity, and courts have a wide discretion to accomplish such intent.

Predecessors of Probation

1. Money Compensation- which is a precursor of our use of fines and restitution today, introduced by the
Laws of Babylon, Greece and Rome, for those crimes which did not affect the safety of the state. Slaves having
nothing of value to offer as compensation received unmitigated cruel punishments.

2. Cities of Refuge- sanctuaries where the accused was safe pending an investigation of his criminal
responsibility, introduced by the Jewish law for those who killed without premeditation. The Jews also gives
some consideration for the individual in lesser penalties for impulsive offenses than for planned murder.

3. Benefit of the Clergy -seems to be the earliest device for softening brutal severity of punishment. Dating
back to reign of Henry II in the 13h century, it originated in a compromise with the Church which had
maintained that a member of the clergy brought to trial by a King's Court might be claimed from that
jurisdiction by the bishop or chaplain representing him, on the ground that he, the prisoner, was subject to
authority of the ecclesiastic courts only.

Note: The benefit resulting from this compromise which maintained jurisdiction in the King's Court was greater
leniency in sentencing and particularly escapes from death penalty.
4. Judicial Reprieve- a temporary wit holding of sentence, practiced by the English Court in the early I7
century, where they grant reprieves to prisoners under sentence of death on condition that they accept
deportation/transportation

5. Banishment - any description of the treatment of crime in England must include the system of
transportation to her colonies, which grew from the ancient practice of banishment and flourished for more than
200 years as a principal method of disposing of offenders.

6. Recognizance- the direct ancestor of probation, means "binding over for good behavior. " An ancient
practice developed also in England in the 14th century originated as a measure of preventive justice, involving
an obligation or promise sworn to under court order by a person not yet convicted.

Note: Sureties or bail were usually required and the person who stood surety had the power and the duty to
enforce the conditions and return the offender to court if he committed an offense during the specified period or
failed to comply with other conditions of his release

B. Evolution of Probation

· Harsh punishments were imposed on adults and children alike for offenses that were not always of a
serious nature during the middle Ages. Sentences such as branding. Flogging, mutilation, and execution were
common. During the time of King Henry VIII, for instance, no less than 200 crimes were punishable by death,
many of which were minor offenses.

· This harshness eventually led to discontent in certain progressive segments of English society that were
concerned with the evolution of the justice system. Slowly but resolutely, in an effort to mitigate these
inhumane punishments, a variety of measures were devised and adopted.

Royal pardons could be purchased by the accused; activist judges could refrain from applying statuses or opt for
a lenient interpretation of them; stolen property could be devalued by the court that offenders could be charged
with a lesser crime. Also, methods such as benefit of clergy, Judicial reprieve, sanctuary, and abjuration offered
offenders a degree or protection from the enactment of harsh sentences.

· Eventually, the courts began the practice of "binding over for good behavior, form of temporary release
during which offenders could take measures to secure pardons or lesser sentences. Controversially, certain
courts began suspending sentences.

· In the United States, particularly in Massachusetts, different practices were being developed. "Security
for good behavior," also known as "good aberrance," was much like modern bail. The accused paid a lee as
collateral for good behavior Filing was also practiced in cases that did not demand an immediate sentence,
Using this procedure, indictments were "laid on file" or held in abeyance. To mitigate unreasonable mandatory
penalties, judges often granted a motion to quash based upon minor technicalities or errors in the proceedings.
Although these American practices were precursors to probation, it in the early use of recognizance and
suspended sentence that are directly related to modern probation.

Lesson Proper for Week 4

PIONEERS IN THE FIELD OF PROBATION

Two main individuals closely associated for the establishment of Probation

1. Matthew Davenport Hill, an 18th-century English barrister and judge; and

2. John Augustus, a 19th-century Boston boot-maker.

Figure 1: Matthew Davenport Hill (1792-1872)

Father of Probation in England

Source: https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-matthew-davenport-hill-56779740.html

· English lawyer and penologist

· Born on the 6th of August 1792, at Birmingham

· As a young professional in England, Hill had witnessed the sentencing of youthful offenders to
one-day terms, on the condition that they will be returned to a parent or guardian who would closely
supervise them.

· When he eventually became the Recorder of Birmingham, a judicial post, he used a similar
practice for individuals who did not seem hopelessly corrupt. If offenders demonstrated a promise for
rehabilitation, they were placed in the hands of generous guardians who willingly took charge of them.

· Hill had police officers pay periodic visits to these guardians in an effort to track the offender's
progress and keep a running account.

Figure 2: John Augustus (1785- 1859)

Father of Probation

Source: https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Augustus-Roebling

· Augustus was born in Woburn, Massachusetts in 1785.

· Recognized as the first true probation officer.

· By 1829, he was a permanent resident of Boston and the owner of a successful boot-making
business.

· It was undoubtedly his membership in the Washington Total Abstinence

· Society that led him to the Boston courts. Washingtonians abstained from alcohol themselves
and were convinced that abusers of alcohol could ha rehabilitated through understanding, kindness,
and sustained moral suasion rather than through conviction and jail sentences.

· In 1841, John Augustus attended police court to bail out a "common drunkard" the first
probationer. The offender was ordered to appear in court three weeks later for sentencing. He
returned to court a sober man, accompanied by Augustus. To the astonishment of all in attendance,
his appearance and demeanor had dramatically changed.

· Augustus thus began an 18-year career as a volunteer probation officer. Not all of the
offenders helped by Augustus were alcohol abusers, nor were all prospective probationers taken
under his wing. Close attention was paid to evaluating whether or not a candidate would likely prove
to be a successful subject for probation. The offender's character, age, and the people, places, and
things apt to influence him or her were all considered.

· Augustus was subsequently credited with founding the investigations process one of three
main concepts of modern probation, the other two being intake and supervision. Augustus, who kept
detailed notes on his activities, was also the first to apply the term "probation" to his method of
treating offenders.

· By 1858, John Augustus had provided bail for 1,946 men and women. Reportedly, only ten of
this number forfeited their bond, a remarkable accomplishment when measured against any standard.
His reformer's zeal and dogged persistence won him the opposition of certain segments of Boston
society as well as the devotion and aid of many Boston philanthropists and organizations

· The first probation statute, enacted in Massachusetts after this death in 1859, was widely
attributed to his efforts

Following the passage of that first statute. Probation spread gradually throughout the United States.
The juvenile court movement contributed greatly to the development court was established in
Chicago in 1899. Formalization of the intake process is credited to the founders of the Illinois juvenile
court. Soon after, thirty states introduced probation as a part of the juvenile court procedure. Today,
all states offer both juvenile and adult probation.

Other Important Persons and Events in the History of Probation

Figure 3: Governor Alexander H. Rice (1818- 1895)

30th Governor of Massachusetts

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_H._Rice

Gov. Alexander H. Rice signed the first probation law that was passed by the legislature of
Massachusetts on April 26, 1878. The law provided for the appointment and prescribed the duties of
a salaried probation officer for the courts of Suffolk Country.

Note: The first practical demonstration of probation, the first use of term as a court service, and
enactment of the first probation law occurred in Massachusetts.
 Edward H. Savage - an ex-chief of Police Boston named as the first probation officer.

Gardner Tufts (1880) Director of Massachusetts Board of State Charities and Corrections, reported
in an address that the result of probation in cases of juvenile offenders proved so decisively good that
the legislature authorize the City of Boston to appoint a probation officer for adults at the session of
the legislature of the present year, a statute was enacted permitting the appointment of a probation
officer for adult offenders in every city and town in the state

Vermont Act of 1898-second law on probation law were in the incorporated history was with enacted
several in Vermont. Many features of the Massachusetts law were incorporated witch in innovations.
Vermont was the first to adopt the county plan. Each county court was required to appoint a probation
officer whose duty it was to make investigation was to make investigation of accused persons at the
request of any court. They are authorized to recommend of authorized to recommend that such
persons, if convicted, be placed on probation.

All courts were permitted to use probation in any case regardless of offense, after conviction and
imposition of sentence, for such time and upon conditions as it may prescribe. Thus, Vermont unlike
Massachusetts provide for probation only after suspension of sentence.

An important provision was added that the compensation of each probation officer shall be
determined by the court that appointed him, and shall be paid from the state treasury on vouchers
approved by the said court. An unusually liberal provision, quite the opposite of the requirement in
Massachusetts and other states that the probationers must pay trial costs, permitted the officer to
spend for their temporary support and travelling expenses. Such reasonable sum as the court may
deem expedient to be repaid to the officer out of the state treasury on vouchers approved by the
court.

In 1899, Rhode Island the third state that passed probation law. A completely state-administered
system appeared first in Rhode Island. The Act of 1899 empowered the Board of State Charities and
Corrections to appoint a state probation officer and additional probation officers, "at least one of
whom be a woman", to serve all courts in the state. The courts were authorized at any time before
sentence to provisionally place any offender, juvenile or adult, who can lawfully be admitted to bail,
except persons charged with treason, murder, robbery, rape, arson or burglary, under the control and
supervision of a probation officer.

New Jersey The fourth state to pass a general probation law after the New England model in 1900.

New York-The fifth to provide for adult probation.

In 1900- soon after his appointment as secretary of the Prison Association of New York, Sammuel
June Barrows began to campaign for a probation law. His interest stemmed from his work in Boston
where he had seen the effect of probation law. A Unitarian minister and editor of the Christian
Register, he became in 1889, one of the founders of the Massachusetts Prison Association, which
took an active part in extending probation in that state. A practical humanitarian, he thought it a part
pity to send so many persons found guilty of crime to prison.

Notes: The British Probation of First Offender Act of 1887 and Missouri Parole/Probation Law of 1897
are not considered as probation laws. The reason is that the no provision in the above stated laws
that provides for supervision offenders upon their release for the said privileges.
 Figure 4: Calvin Coolidge (1872-1933)

30th U.S. President

Source: https://featherfoster.wordpress.com/2016/05/30/calvin-coolidge-and-hell/

Calvin Coolidge United States of America President who signed the Federal

Probation Act which is effective on March 4, 1925

Figure 5: John Marshall (1801-1835)

US Chief Justice

Source: https://constitutionallawreporter.com/chief-supreme-court-justices/john-marshall/

John Marshall- United States Chief Justice who used his discretion in modifying the prescribed
penalties and gradually developed more humane methods of dealing with violators of law.

History of Probation in the Philippines

1. Probation was first introduced in the Philippines during the American colonial period (1898-
1945) with the enactment of Act No. 4221 of the Office Philippine legislature on August 7, 1935. This
law created a Probation Office under the Department of Justice.

2. On November 16, 1937, after barely two years of existence, the Supreme Court of the
Philippines declared the Probation Law unconstitutional because of some defects in the laws of
procedural framework.

Figure 6: Teodulo Natividad

Father of Probation in the Philippines

Source: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Blas_Ople

In 1972, House Bill No. 393 was filed in Congress by Congressman Teodulo Natividad (considered
as the father of Probation in the Philippines) of Bulacan, which would establish a probation system in
the Philippines. This bill avoided the objectionable features of Act 4221 that struck down the 1935 law
as unconstitutional. The bill was passed by the House of Representatives, but was pending in the
Senate when Martial Law was declared and Congress was abolished.

In 1975, after 18 technical hearings over a period of six months, the draft decree was presented to a
selected group of 369 jurists, penologists, civic leaders and social and behavioral scientists and
practitioners sponsored by the national Police Commission and University of the Philippines Law
Center. The group overwhelmingly endorsed the establishment of an Adult Probation System country.
 Figure 7: Ferdinand E. Marcos (1917-1989)

source: http://malacanang.gov.ph/ferdinand-marcos/

On July 24, 1976, Presidential Decree No. 968, also known as Adult Probation Law of 1976, was
signed into Law by the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos

The start-up of the probation system in 1976-1977 was a massive undertaking during which all
judges and prosecutors nationwide were trained in probation methods and procedures; administrative
and procedural manuals were developed; probation officers recruited and trained, and the central
agency and probation field offices organized throughout the country. Fifteen selected probation
officers were sent to United States for orientation and training in probation administration. Upon their
return, they were assigned to be trainers for the newly recruited probation officers

The probation system started to operate on January 3, 1978. As more probation officers were
recruited and trained, more field offices were opened