U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services System

Last updated

The U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services System, also called the Office of Probation and Pretrial Services, part of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, is the probation office of the federal judiciary of the United States. It serves the United States district courts in all 94 federal judicial districts nationwide and constitutes the community corrections arm of the Federal Judiciary. It administers probation and supervised release under United States federal law enforced by probation officers.

Contents

History

The first legislation for Federal Probation Law was introduced in 1908, one of which was prepared by the New York State Probation Commission and the National Probation Association (later known as the National Council on Crime and Delinquency) and introduced before Congress by United States Senator Robert L. Owen of Oklahoma. The bill provided for a suspension of a sentence, in U.S. District Court, and a sentence of probation. The bill also provided for compensation of $5 per diem for Federal Probation Officers. This first attempt did not pass and through 1909 to 1925 there were 34 bills introduced to establish federal probation law.

In 1915 Attorney General T. W. Gregory selected a case from the Northern District of Ohio where Judge John M. Killits suspended "during the good behavior of the defendant" the execution of a sentence of 5 years and ordered the court term to remain open for that period. The defendant, a first offender and a young man of reputable back ground, had pleaded guilty to embezzling $4,700 by falsifying entries in the books of a Toledo bank. He had made full restitution and the bank's officers did not wish to prosecute. The Government moved that Judge Killits' order be vacated as being "beyond the powers of the court." The motion was denied by Judge Kiliits; A petition for writ of mandamus was prepared and filed with the Supreme Court on June 1, 1915. Judge Killits, as respondent, filed his answer October 14, 1915. He pointed out that the power to suspend sentence had been exercised continuously by Federal judges, that the Department of Justice had acquiesced in it for many years, and that it was the only amelioration possible as there was no Federal probation system. In one circuit, incidentally, it was admitted the practice of suspending sentences had in substance existed for "probably sixty years." [1]

In 1925, the Federal Probation Act was introduced by Senator Copeland as S.1042 and Representative Graham as H.R. 5195. The U.S. Senate passed in unanimously but the House passed the law by a vote of 170 in favor and 49 opposed. On March 4, 1925, President Calvin Coolidge, a former Governor of Massachusetts and very familiar with the benefits of a functioning probation system, signed the bill in law. This Act gave the U.S. Courts the power to appoint Federal Probation Officers and authority to sentence defendants to probation instead of a prison sentence. It later gave U.S. Probation Officers the responsibility of supervising offenders granted parole by the United States Parole Commission, military offenders and pretrial supervision. The responsibility of the United States Probation Service was first under the United States Department of Justice, under the supervising authority of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, however, in 1940 the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts was established and assumed the responsibility.

U.S. Pretrial Services came along more than 50 years later, in 1982, with the Pretrial Services Act of 1982. It was developed as a means to reduce both crimes committed by persons released into the community pending trial and unnecessary pretrial detention. Twenty three districts have both separate U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services Offices. In the remaining 71 districts, the probation office provides pretrial services to the court.

Federal probation officers

United States Probation Officers (USPO), also referred to as Federal Probation Officers, are the largest cadre of federal law enforcement officers in the federal judiciary (after the small division of US Supreme Court Police who serve to protect the U.S. Supreme Court and its justices). [2]

Most districts require that all new officers attend the Probation and Pretrial Services National Training Academy at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center soon after coming on board. Officers are eligible for a 20-year retirement and must be appointed prior to their 37th birthday because the mandatory separation age is 57. Almost all districts require prior experience in a similar field, a background suitability investigation, drug test, and medical examination as a pre-requisite for hiring.

Districts

Federal Probation is unique[ citation needed ] to other federal law enforcement agencies in that they are regionally aligned to their judicial districts, rather than a single headquarters element. All officers within a district report to their Chief Probation Officer or Chief Pretrial Services Officer, who in turn serves the Chief District Judge. The national element is the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC, which provides administrative support to the courts, including staffing and other resources, and enforces policies promulgated by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policy-making body of the Federal Judiciary.

Many districts have split their Probation Officers into Pre-Sentence Investigation Units and Supervision Units. Pre-Sentence Investigators conduct comprehensive investigations into the background of defendants convicted of federal crimes. Upon completion of their investigation, they are required to employ the sentencing guidelines and submit a sentencing recommendation to the presiding judge. Often, they are also asked to confer privately with judges regarding their recommendation. Officers assigned to Supervision Units supervise felons convicted of federal crimes who are released into society on either Supervised Release or Probation. Supervision Officers must enforce court ordered conditions and are mandated to use their discretion and skills to mitigate the offenders risk to society. Both Supervision Officers and Pre-Sentence Investigators deal with a wide range of offenders, many of whom have extensive criminal histories. Federal Probation Officers also represent the United States Department of Justice in the performance of duties connected with federal parole.

See also

Related Research Articles

The judiciary of Germany is the system of courts that interprets and applies the law in Germany.

Probation in criminal law is a period of supervision over an offender, ordered by the court often in lieu of incarceration.

Mandatory sentencing requires that offenders serve a predefined term of imprisonment for certain crimes, commonly serious or violent offenses. Judges are bound by law; these sentences are produced through the legislature, not the judicial system. They are instituted to expedite the sentencing process and limit the possibility of irregularity of outcomes due to judicial discretion. Mandatory sentences are typically given to people who are convicted of certain serious and/or violent crimes, and require a prison sentence. Mandatory sentencing laws vary across nations; they are more prevalent in common law jurisdictions because civil law jurisdictions usually prescribe minimum and maximum sentences for every type of crime in explicit laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial system of Finland</span> National court system of Finland

Under the Constitution of Finland, everyone is entitled to have their case heard by a court or an authority appropriately and without undue delay. This is achieved through the judicial system of Finland.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Probation and parole officer</span> Officials who supervise the conduct of offenders on community supervision

A probation or parole officer is an official appointed or sworn to investigate, report on, and supervise the conduct of convicted offenders on probation or those released from incarceration to community supervision such as parole. Most probation and parole officers are employed by the government of the jurisdiction in which they operate, although some are employed by private companies that provide contracted services to the government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Magistrates' court (England and Wales)</span> Lower court in England and Wales

In England and Wales, a magistrates' court is a lower court which hears matters relating to summary offences and some triable either-way matters. Some civil law issues are also decided here, notably family proceedings. In 2010, there were 320 magistrates' courts in England and Wales; by 2020, a decade later, 164 of those had closed. The jurisdiction of magistrates' courts and rules governing them are set out in the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation</span> Law enforcement agency in California, US

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) is the penal law enforcement agency of the government of California responsible for the operation of the California state prison and parole systems. Its headquarters are in Sacramento.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Administrative Office of the United States Courts</span> Administrative agency of the US federal court system

The Administrative Office of the United States Courts, or the Administrative Office (AO) for short, is the administrative agency of the United States federal court system, established in 1939. The central support entity for the federal judicial branch, the AO provides a wide range of legislative, administrative, legal, financial, management, program, and information technology support services to the federal courts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New Hampshire Department of Corrections</span> Government agency in the U.S. state of New Hampshire

The New Hampshire Department of Corrections is the government agency in the U.S. state of New Hampshire charged with overseeing the state correctional facilities, supervising probation and parolees, and serving in an advisory capacity in the prevention of crime and delinquency. The largest correctional facility in the United States is the New Hampshire State Prison for Men in Concord, which is managed by the New Hampshire Department of Corrections. The agency has its headquarters in Concord.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000</span> United States Act of Congress

The DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 is a United States Act of Congress that primarily allows US states to carry out DNA analyses for use in the FBI's Combined DNA Index System and to collect and analyse DNA samples.

A presentence investigation report (PSIR) is a legal document that presents the findings of an investigation into the "legal and social background" of a person convicted of a crime before sentencing to determine if there are extenuating circumstances which should influence the severity or leniency of a criminal sentence. The PSIR is a "critical" document prepared by a probation officer via a system of point allocation, so that it may serve as a charging document and exhibit for proving criminal conduct. The PSIR system is widely implemented today.

A diversion program, also known as a pretrial diversion program or pretrial intervention program, in the criminal justice system is a form of pretrial sentencing that helps remedy the behavior leading to the arrest. Administered by the judicial or law enforcement systems, they often allow the offender to avoid conviction and include a rehabilitation program to prevent future criminal acts. Availability and the operation of such systems differ in different countries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States federal probation and supervised release</span> Concept from US criminal law

United States federal probation and supervised release are imposed at sentencing. The difference between probation and supervised release is that the former is imposed as a substitute for imprisonment, or in addition to home detention, while the latter is imposed in addition to imprisonment. Probation and supervised release are both administered by the U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services System. Federal probation has existed since 1909, while supervised release has only existed since 1987, when it replaced federal parole as a means for imposing supervision following release from prison.

Art Bowker is an American author and cybercrime specialist in corrections. His first book, The Cybercrime Handbook for Community Corrections: Managing Risk in the 21st Century, describes the process of supervising cyber-offenders. Bowker, along with Todd G. Shipley, wrote a book called Investigating Internet Crimes, 1st Edition: An Introduction to Solving Crimes in Cyberspace, which provides step-by-step instructions for investigating Internet crimes.

Pretrial services programs are procedures in the United States to prepare cases for trial in court. In most jurisdictions pretrial services programs operate at the county level. Six US states operate and fund pretrial services programs at the state level. The US federal courts system operates pretrial services in all 94 federal districts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Massachusetts Probation Service</span> Law enforcement agency

The Massachusetts Trial Court Probation Service, more commonly referred to as the Massachusetts Probation Service (MPS), is the Commonwealth's primary supervisory law enforcement agency. Created in 1878, it is the first Probation agency established in the United States. The service was created based on the work of John Augustus, the Boston area bootmaker who is credited as the "Father of Probation".

Bail in the United States refers to the practice of releasing suspects from custody before their hearing, on payment of bail, which is money or pledge of property to the court which may be refunded if suspects return to court for their trial. Bail practices in the United States vary from state to state.

United States v. Haymond, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), is a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence for certain sex offenses committed by federal supervised releases under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k) as unconstitutional unless the charges are proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined Gorsuch's plurality opinion, while Breyer provided the necessary fifth vote with his narrow concurrence that began by saying he agreed with much of Justice Alito's dissent, which was joined by Justices Roberts, Thomas, and Kavanaugh.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lifetime probation</span>

Lifetime probation is reserved for relatively serious legal offenders. The ultimate purpose of lifetime probation is to examine whether offenders properly maintain good behavior as well as capability of patience under lifetime probation serving circumstance. An offender is required to abide by particular conditions for rest of their entire life in order to nurture superior social behaviour as a punishment for their criminal offence. Condition of probation orders contain supervision, electronic tagging, reporting to his or her probation or parole officer, as well as attending counselling. The essential component of lifetime probation carries the sense of being examined for well-being character and behaviour for life term period. Legislative framework regarding probation may vary depending on the country or the state within a certain country as well as the duration and condition of probational sentencing.

Mont v. United States, No. 17-8995, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the proper interpretation of "supervised release" under 18 U.S.C. §3624(e). The case involved a prisoner who was convicted on drug distribution charges and was sentenced to imprisonment and supervised release. While on supervised release, he was charged and pleaded guilty to various state-law offenses, but due to administrative delays, his sentence was not entered until after the day on which his supervised release was to end. He was nonetheless charged with violating the terms of his supervised release, and he sought to challenge the court's jurisdiction to hear the case, arguing that his pretrial detention for the later offenses. The question in the case was whether a term of supervised release for one event can be tolled (paused) by imprisonment for another offense.

References

  1. ↑ Evjen, Victor H. (December 2014). "The Federal Probation System: The Struggle To Achieve It and Its First 25 Years" (PDF). Federal Probation. 78 (3). The Administrative Office of the United States Courts: 27. ISSN   0014-9128.PD-icon.svg This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain .
  2. ↑ Koerner, Brendan I. (3 May 2004). "Who protects David Souter?". Archived from the original on 2019-08-23. Retrieved 2007-04-27.


This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.