skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 50763 Find in a Library
Title: SHOCK PROBATION - A LITTLE TASTE OF PRISON
Journal: CORRECTIONS MAGAZINE  Volume:3  Issue:4  Dated:(DECEMBER 1977)  Pages:49-55
Author(s): J POTTER
Corporate Author: Correctional Information Service, Inc
United States of America
Date Published: 1977
Page Count: 7
Sponsoring Agency: Correctional Information Service, Inc
New York, NY 10017
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: OHIO'S SHOCK PROBATION PROGRAM--A MECHANISM FOR 'TRAUMATIZING' YOUNG FIRST OFFENDERS INTO LAW-ABIDING BEHAVIOR BY EXPOSING THEM TO SHORT PRISON TERMS--IS DISCUSSED.
Abstract: WHEN OHIO PASSED ITS SHORT-TERM INCARCERATION STATUTE IN 1965, THE PURPOSE WAS TO ALLOW JUDGES TO REVIEW THEIR SENTENCES AND, IF THEY FELT THE SENTENCE WAS TOO HARSH OR IF NEW INFORMATION HAD COME TO LIGHT, TO PLACE AN OFFENDER ON PROBATION. THE 'SHOCK' CONCEPT WAS COINED IN A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE. THE USE OF SHOCK PROBATION HAS INCREASED IN OHIO FROM 85 CASES IN 1966 TO 1,478 IN 1976. OFFICIALS CONTEND THAT ONLY 10.3 PERCENT OF THOSE RELEASED UNDER THE SHORT-TERM INCARCERATION LAW HAVE BEEN RETURNED TO PRISON, BUT THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN CHALLENGED. SOME STATE CORRECTION OFFICIALS LAUD THE PROGRAM AS A WAY FOR THE COURTS TO IMPRESS OFFENDERS WITH THE SERIOUSNESS OF THEIR ACTIONS WITHOUT RISKING THE DELETERIOUS EFFECT OF LONG-TERM INCARCERATION. PROPONENTS OF THE PROGRAM SEE IT AS A WAY FOR CORRECTIONS TO ACHIEVE TWO NORMALLY CONTRADICTORY GOALS: PUNISHMENT AND COMMUNITY-BASED TREATMENT. CRITICS OF THE PROGRAM SAY THAT JUDGES MISUSE THE STATUTE, GRANTING SHOCK PROBATION TO HARDENED REPEATERS RATHER THAN TO YOUNG FIRST OFFENDERS. SOME SAY THE SHOCK VALUE OF THE PROGRAM HAS BEEN DIMINISHED, BECAUSE MOST INMATES WHO APPLY FOR SHOCK PROBATION (INMATES MAY APPLY BETWEEN THEIR 30TH AND 60TH DAY IN PRISON) HAVE A GOOD IDEA OF WHETHER THEY WILL RECEIVE IT. STATISTICS FOR EVALUATING SHOCK PROBATION ARE INADEQUATE, DUE IN PART TO INADEQUATE RESEARCH FACILITIES AND TO DIFFICULTIES IN GATHERING DATA FROM ALL OF OHIO'S COURTS. OHIO JUDGES DIFFER IN THEIR ATTITUDES TOWARD THE EFFECT AND APPLICATIONS OF SHOCK PROBATION. MOST PROBATION OFFICERS AND DEFENSE LAWYERS ARE IN FAVOR OF THE CONCEPT. THE MOST SEVERE OBJECTIONS TO SHOCK PROBATION COME FROM SOME OF THE STATE'S PROSECUTORS, ONE OF WHOM NOTES THAT INMATES ARE NOW SHOCKED WHEN THEY DON'T GET SHOCK PROBATION, NOT WHEN THEY DO. SUMMARIES OF SHOCK PROBATION LAWS IN IDAHO, INDIANA, KENTUCKY, TEXAS, NORTH CAROLINA, AND MAINE, ARE INCLUDED. (LKM)
Index Term(s): Idaho; Incarceration; Indiana; Kentucky; Maine; North Carolina; Ohio; Probation; Split sentences; State laws; Texas
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=50763

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.