This paper examines shock probation, a split-sentencing practice that combines brief incarceration with a monitored probation period. Beginning with the program's origins in Ohio in 1965, the paper explains how shock probation differs from traditional sentencing, who is eligible, and how boot-camp-style pre-release programs operate. It then evaluates the program's viability, weighing the original low recidivism rates against documented failures caused by the improper expansion of shock probation to repeat and violent offenders. The paper concludes that shock probation can be effective when applied selectively to low-risk, first-time offenders but poses serious public safety risks when misapplied due to prison overcrowding.
The term shock probation refers to a practice that combines short-term incarceration with a probation program. "Shock probation allows defendants an opportunity to receive probation after a short period of time in a correctional facility" (U.S. Legal, 2012). The idea is that shock probation can be used on either first-time offenders or petty offenders who have escalated in criminality, in order to show them the reality of prison life without prolonged exposure. "The typical amount of time spent in a correctional facility varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and case to case. A typical term of incarceration in a shock probation sentence is 30 days or less" (Broemmel, 2012).
Shock probation began in Ohio in 1965. This pilot program involved 4,014 prisoners who served only the initial 60 to 90 days of their original sentences (Pasquesi, 2012). This initial program showed some success, which led other jurisdictions to adopt shock probation programs. For example, the recidivism rate among these prisoners was 9%, which was lower than the national average of 65% at that time (Pasquesi, 2012). This led Kentucky and Indiana to adopt shock probation programs in the 1960s (Pasquesi, 2012). Other jurisdictions followed suit, and currently those states, as well as Georgia, Texas, Alabama, Iowa, and Maine, have shock probation programs (Pasquesi, 2012). Even more significantly, any jurisdiction can have informal shock probation, as a judge can structure a sentence in a way that mimics shock probation.
Many judges are reluctant to grant probation to first-time offenders for fear that doing so will reinforce the idea that criminal behavior will be tolerated and will encourage recidivism. However, prison space is also limited in many jurisdictions, making it unrealistic for a judge to impose the full desired sentence. Moreover, there is a concern that sentencing an offender to long-term imprisonment may actually encourage rather than discourage further criminality. Shock probation is meant to expose an offender to the "trauma of incarceration" without requiring them to suffer "its long-term ill effects" (Pasquesi, 2012).
Shock probation is a form of split sentencing. Split sentencing is any legal arrangement that allows a sentence to be divided between incarceration and probation or parole (Pasquesi, 2012). In fact, almost all states allow parole as a possibility for most offenses, which means that nearly all convictions effectively involve split sentencing. Shock probation is a form of split sentencing, but it does not encompass all of split sentencing. "While shock probation is a form of split sentencing, what sets it apart is the brevity of incarceration compared to probation. Also, shock probation includes a required pre-release program as well as an additional appearance before the judge" (Pasquesi, 2012).
One element that differentiates shock probation from the traditional sentencing process is that the defendant is generally involved in seeking the punishment. Generally, one must be a first-time offender convicted of a non-violent felony or misdemeanor to seek shock probation (Pasquesi, 2012). Sex offenders are not eligible for shock probation; it is important to note that this determination is based on the crime for which one has been convicted, not merely on the underlying allegations (Pasquesi, 2012). Shock probation can come about in several different ways: the jury can recommend shock probation for a defendant, the judge can order it, or the defendant can petition the sentencing judge for shock probation instead of extended incarceration (Pasquesi, 2012).
Generally, shock probation does not result in incarceration in a traditional prison. Instead, programs frequently use boot camps in lieu of prison settings. If a prisoner is accepted into a shock probation program, "the prisoner will immediately enter a 'bootcamp-style' pre-release program, usually involving strenuous physical exercise, work/vocational assignments, classes in decision making, education and drug rehabilitation. After successfully completing this program (30–90 days long), the prisoner reappears before the judge to be sentenced to probation. During this hearing, the terms of probation are set and the prisoner is released into the community" (Pasquesi, 2012). Once released on probation, the terms are similar to those one would generally encounter on probation; however, due to the brevity of the time served, the probationary period often exceeds that which follows other sentences (Pasquesi, 2012). It is also important to understand that shock probation is not a suspended sentence or deferred judgment. The conviction is a real conviction that will remain on the defendant's criminal record (Pasquesi, 2012).
"Who qualifies and how judges evaluate candidates"
"Success rates, failures, and dangers of misapplication"
Split sentencing has been part of the criminal justice system since the beginning of formal incarceration programs, and shock probation — a form of split sentencing — has been in use for more than 50 years. There is significant debate about the efficacy of these programs: some shock probation programs are linked to high rates of recidivism and offender violence, while others demonstrably reduce recidivism. The important point is that not all programs labeled as shock probation actually follow the guidelines established in the 1960s. Properly designed shock probation programs involve exposing a defendant to a prison-type environment followed by a period of highly monitored probation. These programs were never intended for defendants who were unlikely to be deterred by brief exposure to a correctional environment — including those who had previously served time or had other felony charges pending.
You’re 54% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.