By Ximena Cesa
PHILADELPHIA, PA – Pennsylvania’s high probation percentage is actually driving the mass incarceration problem, according to Elizabeth Randol, legislative director at ACLU of Pennsylvania, who notes the state has the “second highest percentage of its citizens on probation and parole in the country and the highest incarceration rate in the northeast.”
This discussion comes as a result of a probation reform bill, which passed with bipartisan support in the state Senate in June, that was designed to give people serving probationary sentences a clear path out of the justice system.
The ACLU, however, vehemently opposes this bill because, it claims, “[It] would only complicate Pennsylvania’s probation system and could lead to more people being sentenced to jail terms.”
The ACLU of Pennsylvania also cites that probation disproportionately applies to communities of color in which there is a “hamster wheel effect,” meaning that “[v]iolating probation then results in more time on probation and/or incarceration—the very outcome probation was intended to avoid in the first place.”
To elaborate, Randol states probation made under burdensome conditions, such as having to report weekly to a site or officer, inevitably leads to the violation of one or more of those conditions.
Peter Hall, writer for Pennsylvania Capital Star makes a similar analogy, noting, “Pennsylvania’s system can trap people on a decades-long treadmill of court supervision [that] account for more than half of all people admitted to state prison.”
Hall adds the Council of State Governments Justice Center said there are approximately 7,400 people in prison for probation violations costing the state $334 million annually.
With 2.8 percent of the state being on probation, the second highest in the country, Randol believes these reasons among others show that a probation system with the intention to rehabilitate might be doing more damage than good.
Hall includes a celebrity as an example of the state’s alleged faulty system – Rapper Meek Mill was sentenced for a number of years to prison as a result of probation violations despite no prior prison sentences.
With the backing of more than 100 civil liberties organizations, Randol argues “the bill fails to address core problems within the system, such as the lack of a limit on the length of probation terms, back-to-back probation sentences, and the common practice of sentencing offenders to prison followed by years of probation.”
Shifting gears, after addressing the faults in the system based on the state’s own statistics, Randol compares probation practices to other states.
The ACLU of Pennsylvania said “many states reduce the length of probation upon completion of educational or employment goals” but SB 838, the Pennsylvanian probation bill only allows a review conference to be held sooner.
Randoll makes the point that due to offering less of an incentive, the rehabilitation efforts do not reach the offenders because there is little room for growth.
Through this practice that other states implement, “courts and probation officials will be able to make more efficient use of time and resources” according to Greg Rowe, the executive director of the Pennsylvania Association of District Attorneys.
Randol argues, “If you fix [the inefficient probation procedures], many of the other things will fix themselves if you don’t have this hamster wheel.”
