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: 72219 Add to Shopping cart Find in a Library
Title: Combining Incarceration and Probation
Journal: Federal Probation  Volume:44  Issue:2  Dated:(June 1980)  Pages:3-12
Author(s): N Parisi
Date Published: 1980
Page Count: 10
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice/
Rockville, MD 20849
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
NCJRS paper reproduction
Box 6000, Dept F
Rockville, MD 20849
United States of America
Publisher: https://www.uscourts.gov 
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: The judicial combination of incarceration and probation is traced historically, and views of major commissions and model sentencing acts toward these judicial alternatives are reviewed.
Abstract: The combination of incarceration and probation is available to all U.S. judges, either before or after beginning service of the incarceration sentence. The growth of these alternatives is due partially to the desire for flexibility in sentencing. Judicial support for these provisions may derive in part from skepticism about parole boards. In addition, judicial support for these provisions may come from efforts to avoid restrictions in the sentencing structure, such as mandatory minimums or parole guidelines that specify a longer period of confinement than desired or provide no parole because of the length of the sentence. The combinations of split or mixed sentences, shock probation, intermittent confinement, jail as a condition of probation, judicial parole, or diagnostic study followed by probation, are all sentencing provisions that allow the judge rather than the parole board to make the release decision. In a sentencing scheme built mainly on the indeterminate sentence and parole, these provisions are notable exceptions. As parole decisionmaking continues to come under attack, the role of these combinations may change. In Maine, where parole has been abolished, it will be interesting to see if split sentences take its place. California has moved to presumptive sentencing without a parole board and there appears to be a decrease in the use of jail as a condition of probation. Yet, even if supervision following release from confinement (parole supervision) is eventually seen as needless, it is unlikely that supervision at sentencing will suffer the same fate. As long as probation and incarceration exist as the predominant options at sentencing, there will be a need for a hybrid sentence in presumptive sentencing schemes and judicial sentencing guidelines. Included are 115 footnotes. (Author abstract modified)
Index Term(s): Alternatives to institutionalization; Judicial decisions; Probation or parole decisionmaking; Sentencing guidelines; Sentencing reform
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=72219

*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.