Sentencing
Utilization of the Split Sentence and Shock Probation as Sentencing Alternatives and Implications for Their Expanded Use in Georgia (NCJ 52262, 1978)
This document chunk contains the bibliography and addendum to bibliography of a 1977 Georgia Department of Offender Rehabilitation report on split sentences and shock probation. It catalogs dozens of academic articles, government reports, legal references, and studies from 1959-1977 on sentencing alternatives, probation conditions, and shock probation/parole programs. The sources cited provide historical context for GPS research on sentencing policy evolution in Georgia and nationally.
Where this research is used
This page is a research collection: individual facts drawn from the sources listed further down, each traced to where it came from. A research topic brings many collections together into one overview of an issue. The facts on this page feed these 8 topics; open one to see how they fit with the rest of the evidence.
Facility Conditions & Infrastructure
Georgia's prison system is not merely old — it is operating past the end of its engineered life, and the record shows what that means in practice: locks that do not hold, plumbing that delivers sewage into living areas, housing units without light or cooling, and a capacity math GDC manages by publishing a number other than the one the buildings were designed for. An internal GDC evaluation found 29 of 34 state prisons needing critical upgrades, the average prison is over 30 years old against a 15–20 year design life, and the Justice Department's October 2024 findings concluded the resulting conditions violate the Eighth Amendment. The state's answer has been a $600 million infusion, a single-cell conversion directive, and a new Washington County prison whose cost estimate has already passed $436.7 million — none of which changes a building's condition this year.
7,758 data points
Historical Context
Georgia's prison system was built on the 13th Amendment's punishment exception, converted within a year of ratification into a convict leasing regime that leased Black prisoners to railroads, mines, brick kilns, and plantations from 1866 until 1908 — a system whose annual death rates in some camps exceeded 20 percent. Abolition did not end coerced labor: chain gangs, prison farms, and eventually Georgia Correctional Industries carried the same economic logic forward, and the state today pays most incarcerated workers nothing while operating one of the largest prison labor systems in the country. Federal courts dismantled the worst conditions at Georgia State Prison between 1972 and 1999, but the record assembled across these collections shows a system that has reverted to the same constitutional failures whenever oversight ends — and that Georgia has never created an independent body to watch it.
2,070 data points
Legal Standards & Case Law
Georgia's prison conditions are judged against a constitutional floor built between 1976 and 1994 — Estelle v. Gamble, Rhodes v. Chapman, Wilson v. Seiter, Helling v. McKinney, and Farmer v. Brennan — then narrowed by the 1996 Prison Litigation Reform Act and, in the Eleventh Circuit, by Wade v. McDade in 2024. The distance between that floor and what Georgians in custody actually experience has been documented in a federal takeover of Georgia State Prison that ran from 1972 to 1999, a solitary-confinement consent decree the state was held in contempt of in April 2024, and an October 2024 Department of Justice findings letter concluding that Georgia engages in a pattern or practice of Eighth Amendment violations. This page sets out what the law requires, what it permits, and where the gap between the two has been measured.
8,020 data points
Parole & Sentencing
Georgia's parole system has contracted sharply over three decades: the Board of Pardons and Paroles released 5,588 people on parole in FY2025, down 42% from 9,455 in FY2019, and its lifer grant rate has fallen from 21.9% in FY2001–FY2006 to roughly 5% today. Average time served on a life sentence for a serious violent felony has risen from under nine years in 1973 to 29.6 years in FY2025 per the Board's own reporting — 31.1 years by GPS's separate count. The result is a system in which parole eligibility at 7, 14, or 30 years increasingly ends in denial, reconsideration up to eight years later, and release for many only at the maximum sentence date.
12,868 data points
Policy & Advocacy
Georgia's policy and advocacy landscape is defined by a paradox: a decade of bipartisan sentencing reform that measurably reduced incarceration and racial disparity, followed by a sharp reversal toward prison construction, surveillance technology, and record spending attached to no independent oversight. Legislative victories on wrongful conviction compensation, survivor justice, and out-of-time appeals sit alongside bills that died in the last minutes of session — an independent prison ombudsman, restrictive housing limits, parole transparency — and a post-conviction system the Chief Justice of Georgia calls 'a mess' that only the legislature can fix. The 2026 statewide elections and an unresolved federal investigation are the two live pressure points advocates are organizing around.
7,412 data points
Racial Disparities
Black Georgians are roughly a third of the state's population and well over half of its prisoners, and the gap holds at every measured stage — arrest, charge, plea, sentence, supervision, and exoneration. Georgia's own records show the disparity widest at the deep end: about seven in ten people serving life, and 80 percent of those sentenced to life for offenses committed before age 25. The state's longer record supplies the frame — a late-19th-century convict population that was roughly 90 percent Black against a free population roughly 45 percent Black, and a punishment system that still extracts unpaid labor under a constitutional exception never repealed in Georgia.
2,134 data points
Recidivism & Reentry
Georgia reports one of the lowest recidivism rates in the country — an official 25–27% three-year felony reconviction rate — but that figure counts only reconvictions, only within three years, and excludes people who die, who return on technical violations, or who are rearrested without conviction. National data that count arrests find 83% of released state prisoners rearrested within nine years, and GPS's own research library estimates Georgia's real return-to-incarceration rate is closer to 50%. This page tracks what the state measures, what it doesn't, what the evidence says actually reduces recidivism, and how thin Georgia's reentry infrastructure remains relative to the 12,000–16,000 people it releases each year.
12,264 data points
Reform Models & Programs
Georgia operates a statewide cognitive-skills curriculum for parolees, twelve reentry and cognitive programming centers, contracted addiction treatment, step-down units inside its Tier segregation system, and an earned-time credit statute — and the national evidence base for each of those program types is unusually strong. What the record does not contain is current, published, rigorously designed outcome data for most of Georgia's own programs, and the state's direct spending on them amounts to a fraction of one percent of the prison budget. This page sets out what the research verifies, what Georgia actually runs, what it spends, what other states have achieved, and where the evidence stops.
12,091 data points
Key Findings
The most impactful data from this research collection. Tap a card for the full finding, GPS commentary on why it matters, and its source.
The finding
Utilization of the split sentence in the federal courts accounted for 5.6% of all convicted defendants who were sentenced in FY 1976.
Why it matters · GPS commentary
Federal judges used the split sentence for only a small share of defendants, a baseline the report sets beside Georgia's own FY 1976 usage when weighing whether to expand the option in Georgia.
Our reading of the finding above. It is not part of the source.
The finding
Petersen and Friday (1975) found that when other factors are considered equal, Black inmates have less chance of receiving shock probation than white inmates, with white inmates more than twice as likely to be released than Black inmates in a sample of 202 persons granted shock probation and 373 eligible but not released from a medium security prison for male offenders ages 16-30 during 1970.
Why it matters · GPS commentary
Ohio's discretionary early release worked against Black men with comparable records, who other Ohio findings show had less access to private counsel, a pattern any Georgia expansion of shock probation could repeat.
Our reading of the finding above. It is not part of the source.
The finding
Use of the split sentence peaked in FY 1973 when it accounted for 8.4% of defendants sentenced. Since that time, its use has steadily declined.
Why it matters · GPS commentary
Federal courts were moving away from the split sentence as this report urged Georgia to use it more, so its recommendation ran against both the federal trend and the National Advisory Commission's advice to discontinue it.
Our reading of the finding above. It is not part of the source.
The finding
Angelino et al. (1975) found that nearly half (47.7%) of 554 shock probationers released from Ohio prisons in 1969 (plus female inmates released 1966-1970) were arrested at least once after serving their shock probation sentence; 31.3% were subsequently convicted of a felony within five years; and 24% served at least one prison sentence after release.
Why it matters · GPS commentary
Ohio's results give no clear evidence that a brief prison stay before probation prevents new arrests, a central question for the report's proposal to expand shock probation in Georgia.
Our reading of the finding above. It is not part of the source.
The finding
The cost of prison sentences in Georgia during FY 1977 was $3,858 per inmate per year, or $10.57 per inmate per day.
Why it matters · GPS commentary
At more than twenty times the cost of probation, a prison sentence in 1977 Georgia carried a heavy budget price, the economic case behind split sentences and shock probation that shorten confinement.
Our reading of the finding above. It is not part of the source.
The finding
Angelino et al. (1975) found that 31.3% of shock probationers were subsequently convicted of a felony within five years of release.
Why it matters · GPS commentary
A brief prison stay before probation did not keep many Ohio participants from new felony convictions, although other Ohio findings note their later crimes tended to be less serious than the original offenses.
Our reading of the finding above. It is not part of the source.
The finding
The cost of immediate probation in Georgia during FY 1977 was $145 per probationer per year, or $0.40 per probationer per day.
Why it matters · GPS commentary
Probation cost Georgia a small fraction of a prison sentence in FY 1977, so each person moved from prison to probation, or released early through shock probation, saved the state most of the cost of confinement.
Our reading of the finding above. It is not part of the source.
The finding
Angelino et al. (1975) found that 24% of shock probationers served at least one prison sentence after release.
Why it matters · GPS commentary
Returns to prison eat into the savings the report projects for Georgia, since each person sent back brings again the full cost of incarceration that shock probation was meant to avoid.
Our reading of the finding above. It is not part of the source.
The finding
Angelino's study found that time served had no effect on recidivism rates among shock probationers, but noted that the apparent ineffectiveness of short term sentences may be due in large measure to inappropriate selection of felons for shock probation.
Why it matters · GPS commentary
Holding people longer did not lower reoffending in Ohio, which gives no reason to extend confinement, while the selection caveat means any Georgia expansion would turn on who is chosen for the program.
Our reading of the finding above. It is not part of the source.
The finding
If these programs continue to contribute toward a reduction in the revocation of probationers, the monetary savings can be substantial because the costs of incarceration are far in excess of the costs of probation.
Why it matters · GPS commentary
The report links its savings to fewer revocations: in FY 1977 Georgia spent $3,858 a year per person in prison against $145 a year per person on probation, so each revocation avoided meant a far lower cost.
Our reading of the finding above. It is not part of the source.
The finding
Although the success rate of offenders on probation is relatively high, probation may not have been the appropriate sanction for those offenders who do not succeed on it. These 'failures' may have needed the prison experience, treatment or supervision; their experience and background may have required more structure than the minimal contact afforded through straight probation (Friday, et.al., 1974).
Why it matters · GPS commentary
The argument points to a middle option between straight probation and full prison, the space split sentences and shock probation are meant to fill for people who need more structure than minimal contact.
Our reading of the finding above. It is not part of the source.All Data Points
363 verified data points extracted from primary sources.
Federal split sentence utilization rate FY 1976 Statistic
Utilization of the split sentence in the federal courts accounted for 5.6% of all convicted defendants who were sentenced in FY 1976.
5.6%
Split sentence usage in U.S. District Courts FY 1976 Statistic
Use of the split sentence disposition accounted for 5.6% of all convicted defendants who were sentenced in U.S. District courts in FY 1976.
5.6%
Scott and Kramer shock parole research progress report (1975) Methodology note
Scott, Joseph E. and Kramer, Ronald C. published 'Shock Parole Research - Progress Report II: An Examination of the Development of Shock Parole, Its Administration, Reaction to it, and the Adjustment and Recidivism of Shock Parolees' through Ohio State University's Program for the Study of Crime and Delinquency in August 1975.
Maine Deputy Director: Split sentencing extremely successful Quote
Richard P. Haskell, Deputy Director of the Maine Bureau of Corrections, stated that 'preliminary indications are that it [split sentencing] has been extremely successful for those who have received such sentences.'
Ohio shock probation racial disparity - white inmates twice as likely to be released Finding
Petersen and Friday (1975) found that when other factors are considered equal, Black inmates have less chance of receiving shock probation than white inmates, with white inmates more than twice as likely to be released than Black inmates in a sample of 202 persons granted shock probation and 373 eligible but not released from a medium security prison for male offenders ages 16-30 during 1970.
Federal split sentence utilization peak FY 1973 Trend
Use of the split sentence peaked in FY 1973 when it accounted for 8.4% of defendants sentenced. Since that time, its use has steadily declined.
Split sentence usage in Georgia District Courts FY 1976 Statistic
Utilization of the split sentence represented 4% of all convicted defendants sentenced in Georgia District Courts in FY 1976.
4%
Senyon opposition to probation with jail sentence (1959) Finding
Senyon J. published 'In Opposition to Probation With A Jail Sentence' in Federal Probation, Vol. 23, No. 2, June 1959, pp. 12-17.
Maryland official: Administrative follow-through is primary problem with split sentencing Quote
Robert Renshaw, Jr., Chief of Program Development for the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, stated that 'the primary problem associated with this program is the administrative one of maintaining the mechanisms necessary to follow defendants who have [thus] been sentenced... if the probation case is not followed through upon the defendant's release from confinement... the effect of the split sentence [may be negated].' He added that the device 'provides the court with a significant alternative to institutional commitment and provides the probation agent with the credibility that accompanies such a balance between punishment and treatment.'
Ohio shock probation recidivism - 47.7% arrested after release Statistic
Angelino et al. (1975) found that nearly half (47.7%) of 554 shock probationers released from Ohio prisons in 1969 (plus female inmates released 1966-1970) were arrested at least once after serving their shock probation sentence; 31.3% were subsequently convicted of a felony within five years; and 24% served at least one prison sentence after release.
47.7%
Factors contributing to decline in federal split sentence use Finding
Mr. Wayne P. Jackson, Chief, U.S. Federal Probation identified the following factors contributing to the decline in use of the split sentence: the trend toward longer sentences - some judges feel the six months is inadequate and recommend lengthening it up to a year; an increasing awareness of the inadequacy of local confinement facilities; and a decrease in the type of offenses that had been given split sentences in the past (i.e., selective service).
Cost of prison incarceration in Georgia FY 1977 Statistic
The cost of prison sentences in Georgia during FY 1977 was $3,858 per inmate per year, or $10.57 per inmate per day.
$3,858
President's Commission Task Force on Corrections report (1967) Legal fact
The Task Force on Corrections of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice published its Task Force Report: Corrections in 1967 through the U.S. Government Printing Office.
New Jersey official questions usefulness of shock approach Quote
Fred D. Pant, Assistant Director for Probation for the New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts, stated: 'My personal reaction is to question the usefulness and effectiveness of [this] approach. I suspect that most adult offenders who require incarceration for whatever purposes will have already been exposed to some sort of confinement in local jails or other holding facilities either awaiting conviction and sentencing or afterwards... If that experience didn't shake them up, then I doubt that an additional short sentence before probation is implemented will do the job either.'
Ohio shock probation recidivism - 31.3% convicted of felony within five years Statistic
Angelino et al. (1975) found that 31.3% of shock probationers were subsequently convicted of a felony within five years of release.
31.3%
California first state to authorize split sentence Legal fact
California seems to have been the first state to authorize a split sentence when, in 1927, it enacted a statutory provision permitting imprisonment in a county jail as a condition of probation.
Cost of probation in Georgia FY 1977 Statistic
The cost of immediate probation in Georgia during FY 1977 was $145 per probationer per year, or $0.40 per probationer per day.
$145.00
Thompson economic analysis of correctional institutions in Ohio (1975) Methodology note
Thompson, Roger D. completed a master's thesis at Ohio State University in 1975 titled an economic analysis of correctional institutions in Ohio, 38 pages.
Nebraska Supreme Court: Imprisonment as probation condition to show seriousness Quote
Justice McCown in State v. Nuss (Nebraska, 1973) quoted a trial court: 'The trial court indicated his concern that the defendant did not recognize the seriousness of what he had done and explained that the reason he was sentencing the defendant to a term of imprisonment as a condition of his probation was that he wanted the defendant to get a pretty good idea of what imprisonment was like; how frustrating, useless, and degrading it is; and to reflect upon what a 3 or 5 or 10 year sentence would mean.'
Ohio shock probation recidivism - 24% served another prison sentence Statistic
Angelino et al. (1975) found that 24% of shock probationers served at least one prison sentence after release.
24%
Michigan split sentence authorization 1931 Legal fact
In 1931, the Michigan legislature authorized courts to impose a sentence of not more than 60 days in the county jail as a condition to the probation order. This statute seems to have been prompted by a judicial decision [People v. Robinson, 253 Mich. 507, 235 N.W. 236 (1931)] which ruled that a condition of probation requiring service of a jail sentence was unauthorized.
Federal Split Sentence Statute enacted 1958 Legal fact
Utilization of the split sentence became a formalized federal practice with the passage in 1958 of the Federal Split Sentence statute (18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 3651). Under this law, an offender could be sentenced to a period of up to six months of incarceration in a jail-type institution to be followed by probation.
United States Code Title 18 provisions on sentencing and probation (1970) Legal fact
United States Code, 1970 edition, Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Sections on Sentencing and Probation and Fed. Rules for Parole at Time of Sentencing, published by U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 4439-4440, 4459-4460.
U.S. Supreme Court: No probation after commitment begins under 1925 Probation Act Legal fact
The United States Supreme Court in United States v. Murray/Cook v. United States ruled that when a person sentenced to imprisonment by a District Court had begun to serve his sentence, the court had no power under the Probation Act of 1925 to grant him probation even though the term at which sentence was imposed had not expired. The Court held that neither the language of the Act nor the declared purpose of Congress was consistent with granting probation after commitment. 275 U.S. 347, 48 S.Ct. 146, 72 L.Ed. 309 (1928).
Ohio shock probation sample demographics - 76% white, 49% under 22 Finding
Angelino et al. (1975) sample of 554 shock probationers (136 female) was predominantly white (76%), young (49% in the 18-22 age range), unskilled (76%), poorly educated (78% did not finish high school), unemployed (53% of males and 69% of females), and of average intelligence.
States without explicit split sentence statutory language Legal fact
Of all the states which authorize a disposition of this type, South Carolina and Florida are the only ones with statutes whose language does not explicitly provide for the split sentence. However, the courts in South Carolina and Florida have uniformly interpreted their statutes as authorizing a split sentence.
California first state to authorize split sentence in 1927 Legal fact
At the state level, California was the first state to authorize a split sentence when, in 1927, it enacted a statutory provision permitting a condition of probation to include imprisonment in a county jail.
U.S. Department of Justice survey of release procedures (1970) Methodology note
U.S. Department of Justice published 'The Attorney General's Survey of Release Procedures, Volume II, Probation' through the U.S. Government Printing Office, 39 pages, pp. 248-253.
First federal court support for mixed sentence in White v. Burke dissent Legal fact
The first direct statement in the federal courts in support of the mixed sentence came in Judge Cotteral's dissent in White v. Burke, where he interpreted the Probation Act as conferring the power, before sentence has begun, to grant probation or suspend sentence, effective after a partial service of the sentence. 43 F. 2d 329 (C.C.A. 1930).
Ohio shock probation - 40% had prior convictions, 12.1% served prior prison terms Statistic
Angelino et al. (1975) found that 40% of shock probationers had been convicted before and 12.1% had served prior prison terms, indicating felons selected for shock probation were frequently not naive first offenders.
40%
Arizona split sentence confinement limit Legal fact
Arizona authorizes a split sentence with confinement not to exceed one year in county jail. An additional option available to the court is that it can refer defendants, prior to sentencing, to the diagnostic facilities of the Department of Corrections (which will accept them only when adequate staff and facilities are available) for diagnosis and recommendation which must be sent to the court within 90 days.
Origin of split sentence practice in Belgium 1883 Finding
The practice of combining a jail or prison sentence with a period of probation had its origin in Belgium in 1883 and has been used for many years in the United States by some federal and state judges.
LEAA compendium of corrections legislation and standards (1975) Legal fact
U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration published 'Compendium of Corrections Legislation and Standards and Judicial Decisions' through the U.S. Government Printing Office in June 1975, pp. II-15, II-16, II-35, II-40, II-47, II-48.
United States v. Wittmeyer: Court could reserve jurisdiction for probation after partial service Legal fact
In United States v. Wittmeyer, the court held that a District Court at the time of imposing sentence not exceeding one year could reserve jurisdiction of the case and, after the defendant had served a portion of the sentence, could order the release of the defendant on probation for the remainder of the term. 16 F. Supp. 1000 (D.C. 1936).
Ohio shock probation - 20% potentially violent offenders Statistic
Angelino et al. (1975) found that 20% of felons granted shock probation fit the category of 'potentially violent offenders,' with more than one-quarter of convictions being for crimes against persons.
20%
Arkansas split sentence confinement limits Legal fact
Arkansas authorizes a split sentence with confinement not to exceed 90 days for a felony or 30 days for a misdemeanor, served in county jail, city jail or other facility to be determined by the court. Any time served as a condition of probation will be credited on any sentence of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of probation.
Probation adoption timeline in the United States Finding
The use of probation in the United States, as an alternative to incarceration in certain cases, began in Massachusetts in the late 1800's. By 1915, 33 states authorized its use and in 1925 Congress authorized probation in the federal courts. Every state, by 1957, had enacted a probation law which applied to adult offenders.
NCJRS shock probation literature abstracts Methodology note
The National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) published 'Shock Probation Literature Abstracts' through the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice.
Federal court: Mixed sentences undesirable but within court power Quote
In United States ex rel. Spellman v. Murphy, the court stated: 'The prevailing opinion among criminologists and probation officers, as well as others who have studied the question, is that mixed sentences of prison and probation should not be imposed. Undesirable as the practice may be we think it was within the power of the District Court to have imposed the mixed sentence in the case at bar.' 217 F. 2d at 251 and 252 (C.A. 1954).
Ohio shock probation - average 105 days served before release Statistic
Angelino et al. (1975) found that the average felon served about 105 days before being released on shock probation, and nearly 40% of the sample were incarcerated for greater than 121 days before release.
105 days
California split sentence confinement limits Legal fact
California authorizes a split sentence with confinement not to exceed 90 days for a felony, 60 days for a misdemeanor or 5 days for a petty offense, served in county jail, road camp or other place of detention to be determined by the court.
National Advisory Commission recommends discontinuing split sentences Finding
The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals (1973) recommends that the practice of the split sentence be discontinued because it defeats the purpose of probation.
GAO report on state and county probation systems (1976) Finding
U.S. General Accounting Office published 'Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States - State and County Probation Systems in Crisis' through the U.S. Government Printing Office in May 1976.
Federal Split Sentence statute passed in 1958 Legal fact
The Federal Split Sentence statute (18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 3651) was passed in 1958. Federal court decisions after its passage dealt with authority of and procedure under the statute, including Gaddis v. United States, 280 F. 2d 334 (C.A. 1960) and Green v. United States, 298 F. 2d 230 (C.A. 1961), and reaffirmed that the term of imprisonment allowable under the statute was six months.
Ohio shock probation - 22% over age 30 Statistic
Angelino et al. (1975) found that while the majority of shock probationers were young, 22% were over 30 years of age.
22%
Colorado split sentence diagnostic option Legal fact
Colorado authorizes a split sentence. An additional option available to the court, in instances where offenses are punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, is that it can refer defendants, prior to sentencing, to the diagnostic facilities of the Department of Corrections (which will accept them only when adequate staff and facilities are available) for diagnosis and recommendation which must be reported to the court within 90 days (unless an extension is granted). Any time served under this option is credited on a term of imprisonment imposed at sentence.
Rudnick study on impact of prison sanction Finding
Rudnick's study (1970) on the impact of a prison sanction indicated that the impact was strongest on the young first offender where the peak influence was noted to be one to two months for 81.9 percent. He concluded that short-term sentencing as punishment for the first of few offenses is effective for six months, but under such conditions no rehabilitation appears to have been made.
Vaughan shock parole preliminary evaluation (1976) Finding
Vaughan, Diane et al. published 'Shock Parole: A Preliminary Evaluation' in the International Journal of Criminology and Penology, Vol. 4, 1976, pp. 271-285.
Pre-statute state courts: Split sentence not authorized Legal fact
Prior to the passage of statutory provisions authorizing a split sentence, the majority of state courts ruling on this issue held that such a disposition was not authorized by statute; that if courts were to exercise the power of granting probation it must be in toto rather than in part; and that, if imprisonment were to be coupled with probation, it could only be imposed after probation was revoked or terminated.
Ohio shock probation - time served had no effect on recidivism Finding
Angelino's study found that time served had no effect on recidivism rates among shock probationers, but noted that the apparent ineffectiveness of short term sentences may be due in large measure to inappropriate selection of felons for shock probation.
Georgia split sentence confinement limit Legal fact
Georgia authorizes a split sentence with confinement not to exceed six months. This option is not authorized for offenses punishable by death or life imprisonment. An additional option available to the court is that during the interval between the conviction or plea and a hearing to determine probation, the court may order confinement of the defendant without bond. The sentencing judge does not lose jurisdiction over the defendant during the term of probation.
Danish study on short-term prisoners and recidivism Finding
A Danish study of short term prisoners (Bernsten and Christiansen, 1965) found that the incidence of recidivism increased with the length of sentence and concluded that short-term incarceration may be effective as a sanction, but only under special circumstances, for certain types of offenders, and when it is utilized as the first step in the process of resocialization.
Wright Federal Practice and Procedure on criminal rules (1969) Legal fact
Wright, Charles Alan published 'Federal Practice and Procedure - Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure' through West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1969, pp. 432-442.
California legislature authorized split sentence in 1927 after court decision Legal fact
In 1927, the California legislature authorized the split sentence by amending its statute, following the decision in People v. Ramos, 251 P. 941 (Calif. 1926).
Ohio shock probation - recidivism higher among younger men, Blacks, unemployed Finding
Angelino et al. (1975) found that among men, recidivism tends to be slightly higher among younger men, Blacks, the unemployed, those who were attendance problems in school, and those who lived in urban areas.
Hawaii split sentence confinement limit Legal fact
Hawaii authorizes a split sentence with confinement not to exceed six months. This option is not authorized for offenses punishable by death or life imprisonment.
Shock probation programs in three Georgia correctional institutions Policy
Shock probation programs (a form of split sentence) presently are utilized in three of Georgia's correctional institutions. The most frequently used program involves taking a probationer, who is on the verge of having his probation revoked, to an institution for a period of time and allowing him to go through a mock entry into the institution as well as seeing the functions of the institution during the day.
Adams and Narloch study on jail as condition of probation (1959) Finding
Adams, S. and Narloch, R. published 'Some Factors in the Use of Jail as a Condition of Probation' through the California Youth Authority in Sacramento, California, 1959.
Michigan legislature authorized split sentence in 1931 after court decision Legal fact
In 1931, subsequent to the decision in People v. Robinson, 253 Mich. 507, 235 N.W. 236 (1931), the Michigan legislature authorized the split sentence.
Ohio shock probation - recidivism higher among Black, urban women with school problems Finding
Angelino et al. (1975) found that among women, higher recidivism was associated with being Black, urban, an attendance problem in school, lower intelligence and school achievement, having a behavior problem in school, and having served a longer time preceding shock probation.
Idaho split sentence provisions Legal fact
Idaho authorizes a split sentence where the defendant may be placed on probation at any time during service of a sentence in the county jail, or within 120 days (which may be extended an additional 60 days) for those sentenced to the custody of the State Board of Corrections. This option is not authorized for the offenses of treason and murder.
Georgia correctional personnel support shock probation Finding
The vast majority of Georgia correctional personnel (Probation/Parole Supervisors, Institution Superintendents, etc.) feel that such a program can serve as an effective deterrent. Moreover, it will lessen the chances of recidivism, strengthen the concept of outside supervision and be of particular benefit to young offenders, first offenders and other offenders who have not spent any time in prison and who are having difficulty adjusting to the conditions of their probation.
Barkin legal problems in sentencing (1972) Legal fact
Barkin, Eugene N. published 'Legal Problems in Sentencing' in 54 F.R.D. 285 (1972).
State supreme courts liberally interpreted statutes to authorize split sentences Legal fact
In four instances, state supreme courts have liberally interpreted the statutory provision giving trial judges the discretion to determine the conditions of probation as to authorize placing a defendant on probation after serving a designated portion of the term of imprisonment. Cases cited include Moore v. Patterson/State v. Moore, 203 S.C. 90, 26 S.E. 2d 319 (1943); State v. Maxwell, 216 S.C. 182, 57 S.E. 2d 165 (1949); Franklin v. State, 87 Idaho 291, 392 P. 2d 552 (1964); State v. Best, 257 S.C. 361, 186 S.E. 2d 272 (1972); State v. Jones, 327 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1976).
Ohio shock probation - recidivism figures disputed as overly optimistic Finding
Angelino's report states that the low recidivism rate for shock probationers reported by the Ohio Adult Parole Authority is highly optimistic because it is based on reincarceration and probation violation only, does not include out-of-state convictions, and is not controlled for length of time since release.
Illinois split sentence confinement limit Legal fact
Illinois authorizes a split sentence with confinement not to exceed six months, not in a facility of the Department of Corrections.
Split sentence used as alternative to longer incarceration in Georgia Finding
An analysis of the data on its usage clearly indicates that it has been utilized in Georgia as an alternative to longer periods of incarceration and not as an alternative to probation.
Best and Birzon conditions of probation analysis (1963) Legal fact
Best and Birzon published 'Conditions of Probation: An Analysis' in the Georgia Bar Journal, Vol. 51, 1963, pp. 829-830.
Idaho Supreme Court: Probation statutes should be liberally construed Quote
Justice McFadden in Franklin v. State stated: 'Because of their humane provisions and highly remedial nature, statutes providing for suspension of sentence and probation are universally given liberal construction... Although a restriction of the meaning of probation so that it could never encompass incarceration might have seemed reasonable twenty or thirty years ago, it is rapidly becoming apparent in this dynamic area of the law that probation signifies the employment of any reasonable means which may be used to effectuate the rehabilitation of the defendant... To adopt any other point of view would hamstring our trial judges and disregard the beneficent purposes of our Act.' 87 Idaho 291, 392 P. 2d at 561, 562, 563 (1964).
Ohio shock probation - only half of recidivists committed new crimes within first year Finding
Angelino et al. (1975) found that only one-half of the recidivists committed new crimes within the first year after release, which may explain the discrepancy between their recidivism figures and those reported by the Ohio Adult Parole Authority.
Indiana split sentence confinement limit Legal fact
Indiana authorizes a split sentence with confinement not to exceed six months. This mechanism is done on the court's own motion and after review of the diagnostic report by the Department of Corrections. The court may also modify a sentence by reducing it anytime within 180 days after imposition of the sentence.
Majority opinion supports split sentence as workable alternative Finding
All things considered, it is the majority opinion of those persons associated with split sentence programs in the United States, at the federal and state levels, that this option is a workable and effective sentencing alternative in dealing with certain offenders. The major argument regarding the split sentence, besides any philosophical argument against its use, relates to a critical analysis of its administration and the general lack of evaluation of its effectiveness.
Bullock on North Carolina split sentence restrictions (1962) Legal fact
Bullock published 'Criminal Law - Split Sentence - Trial Judge in North Carolina Not Permitted to Impose Sentence Active in Part and Suspended in Part' in the North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 40, 1962, pp. 333-340.
Nebraska and South Dakota supported liberal interpretation for split sentences Legal fact
That a general statutory provision relating to probation should be liberally interpreted as to include authority for a split sentence has also been supported by the State of Nebraska's contention in State v. Nuss, 190 Neb. 755, 212 N.W. 2d 565 (1973); and in the dissenting opinion of Justice Wollman in State v. Marshall, 247 N.W. 2d 484 (S. Dak. 1976).
Ohio shock probation - later crimes less serious than original offenses Finding
Angelino et al. (1975) found that later crimes committed by shock probation recidivists were less serious than those leading to the original imprisonment.
Iowa sentence modification provisions Legal fact
Iowa authorizes the court to modify the sentence for a felony, other than a class A felony or a felony requiring a minimum sentence of confinement, within 90 days after service of the sentence begins or within 30 days for a misdemeanor.
Lack of statistical evaluation of split sentence effectiveness Data gap
There is a lack of statistical data from the literature needed to statistically document the effectiveness of the split sentence as a sentencing alternative.
Davis adult probation violations cohort study (1964) Methodology note
Davis, George published 'A Study of Adult Probation Violations Rates By Means of the Cohort Approach' in the Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, Vol. 55, No. 1, 1964, pp. 80-82.
Validity and constitutionality of split sentence provisions consistently upheld Legal fact
The validity and constitutionality of statutory provisions providing for a split sentence has been consistently upheld by courts, including In re Nachnator, 89 C.A. App. 391 (1917); In re Robinson, 8 Ohio App. 208, 84 N.E. 980 (1915); Porter v. Gillmore, 148 Ga. 261, 96 S.E. (1918); Waldridge v. Womble, 157 Ga. 64, 120 S.E. 620 (1923); In re Silverman, 69 O.A. 128, 42 N.E. 2d 87 (1942).
Ohio shock probation - restricting to first offenders showed no recidivism difference Finding
Angelino's study tested whether restricting shock probation to naive first offenders with relatively minor crimes would reduce recidivism, using a sample of 281 offenders, and found that incarcerating offenders with relatively short criminal histories of less serious nature for a short period (less than 130 days) is no different with regards to future recidivism than incarcerating them for a longer period.
Kansas split sentence and diagnostic provisions Legal fact
Kansas authorizes a split sentence with confinement to be determined by the court; Department of Corrections if confinement is for more than one year, jail if less than one year. An additional option available to the court, in cases where the death sentence is not imposed, is to commit a defendant to the Kansas reception and diagnostic center, for a period not to exceed 120 days, for a pre-sentence investigation and report. The court may also modify and/or reduce a sentence within 120 days after it is imposed.
Five ways split sentence can be authorized Legal fact
In general, the split sentence may be authorized in one or more of the following ways: A. The court may suspend the imposition or execution of the sentence in part and place the defendant on probation. B. The court may impose a period of confinement as a condition of probation. C. The court may modify or reduce a sentence within a specified period of time. D. The court may send an offender, prior to sentencing, to a state or other diagnostic facility for diagnosis and recommendation for sentence. E. The court may release an offender, who is already serving a term of imprisonment, to a period of probation.
Denton adult probation and parole in Ohio (1972) Finding
Denton, George F. published 'Adult Probation and Parole in Ohio' in the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1972, pp. 65-73.
Courts lack jurisdiction to modify sentence after execution begins absent statute Legal fact
As a matter of common law (in the absence of statute), the court has no jurisdiction, once the defendant has entered upon execution of the sentence, to set it aside and modify the sentence. Cases cited include State v. Fiester, 32 Or. 254, 50 P. 561 (1897); In re Sullivan, 3 Cal. App. 193, 94 P. 781 (1906); State v. Meyer, 86 Kan. 793, 122 P. 101 (1912); Stewart v. State, 27 S.E. 2d 240 (Ga. 1943); State v. McKelvey, 246 P. 550 (Ariz. 1926).
Ohio shock probation - 15.6% released after 130-day statutory limit Statistic
Thompson's study of 712 offenders released on shock probation in 1973 found that 15.6% were released after the expiration of the 130 day time limit under the statute.
15.6%
Kentucky split sentence and shock probation provisions Legal fact
Kentucky authorizes a split sentence with confinement not to exceed six months in county jail. An additional option available to the court is 'shock probation' where an inmate may be released on probation after serving a period of 30-180 days in prison. Shock probation is not permitted if the offense involved use of a firearm.
Model Penal Code addresses split sentence Legal fact
The Model Penal Code developed by the American Law Institute in 1962 addresses the split sentence in Sec. 301.1(3), providing that the court may sentence a defendant to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 30 days as a condition of probation.
House hearings on H.R. 6238 and H.R. 7260 (1958) Legal fact
Hearings on H.R. 6238 and H.R. 7260 were held before Subcommittee No. 3 of the Committee of the Judiciary, House of Representatives, 85th Congress, 2nd Session, 1958, pp. 2-7.
Courts cannot suspend sentence and place on probation after execution begins Legal fact
Courts cannot suspend sentence and place a person on probation once execution of sentence has begun, per Rutland v. State, 14 Ga. App. 746, 82 S.E. 293 (1914); United States v. Murray/Cook v. United States, 275 U.S. 347 (1928); United States v. Albrecht, et al., 25 F. 2d 93 (1928); Lloyd v. Superior Court of California, 208 C. 622, 283 P. 931 (1929); People v. Forbragd, 127 C.A. 768, 16 P. 2d 755 (1933); Opinion of the Indiana Attorney General No. 58 (June 27, 1945); Ex Parte Smith/Smith v. Pelham, 40 So. 2d 570 (Ala. 1949).
Ohio shock probation - release frequency peaked between 76 and 90 days Finding
Thompson's study of 712 offenders released on shock probation in 1973 found that the frequency of release on shock probation peaked between 76 and 90 days.
Louisiana split sentence provisions Legal fact
Louisiana authorizes a split sentence with confinement not to exceed one year, without hard labor, for a felony. Additionally, the court may grant probation after complete or partial service of a sentence for a misdemeanor except criminal neglect of family.
Split sentence provisions upheld in federal and state courts Legal fact
Although split sentence provisions have been upheld in federal and state courts, such a disposition might or might not be upheld in the absence of a specific statute or legislative intent.
Herlands on when and how sentencing judge should use probation (1964) Legal fact
Herlands, William B. published 'When and How Should A Sentencing Judge Use Probation' in 35 F.R.D. 381 (1964).
Legislature may limit or prohibit suspension of sentence after service begins Legal fact
The legislature, in providing for the suspended sentence, is not acting arbitrarily or discriminatorily when it places limits upon the exercise of that power by the trial courts or by prohibiting courts from suspending sentence once the defendant has begun to serve the sentence. See Beeton v. State, 506 S.W. 2d 137 (Tenn. 1974).
Ohio shock probation - Thompson proposed local jail incarceration to reduce costs Finding
Thompson (1975) proposed that shock probationers be incarcerated in local jails where per diem costs are less than state correctional institutions, arguing this would still provide the 'shock' of imprisonment at less cost, with fewer hardships for visiting families and greater access to courts.
Ohio shock probation - high direct and indirect costs identified Finding
Thompson (1975) pointed out the high direct and indirect cost of the shock probation program in Ohio, including support costs, in-processing costs, inmate wages, release money, and transportation of the inmate to the institution or back to the local community.
Maine split sentence confinement limit Legal fact
Maine authorizes a split sentence with confinement to be determined by the court, however, if it will be served in the State Prison it is not to exceed 30 days.
Quote from Judge Louis Wallach on split sentencing Quote
Every sentence imposed sends a man on an unknown journey: and the Court, if it possesses any vision of justice, must provide a reason for that journey. It must seek to impose a sentence that balances the punitive demands of society with the rehabilitative needs of the defendant. Granted, frequently these are contradictory goals - sometimes almost impossible ones - yet both aspects must be considered and somehow achieved . . . [T]he needs of society requires some form of punishment that will jolt him back into reality. Unfortunately, the only way this Court knows of impressing him with the seriousness of his act is to impose some form of incarceration, a 'taste of jail.' In addition to a . . . period of jail, this Court is equally convinced that such a sentence would be meaningless unless immediately followed by . . . [a] period of judicial supervision.
Hoffman sentencing the automobile thief (1962) Legal fact
Hoffman, Walter E. published 'Sentencing the Automobile Thief' in 30 F.R.D. 185 (1962).
Probation order may be modified before original condition fully complied with Legal fact
An order granting probation may be modified by extending the period to be served as a condition thereto where such change is made before the original condition has been fully complied with. See Ex Parte Sizelove, 15 Cal. 493, 111 P. 527 (1910); In re Glick, 126 C.A. 649, 14 P. 2d 796 (1932); People v. Roberts, 136 C.A. 709, 29 P. 2d 432 (1934); Ex Parte May, 11 C.A. 2d 359, 53 P. 2d 1021 (1936); State v. Jones, 327 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1976).
Ohio shock probation - Black inmates less likely to file motions for release Finding
Bohlander (1973) found that Black inmates do not perceive their chances of being granted shock probation as being very great and as a result are less likely to file a motion for release under the statute.
Maryland sentence modification provisions Legal fact
Maryland authorizes a split sentence with confinement to be determined by the court. The court may also modify and/or reduce a sentence within 90 days after its imposition. After that time, revision may be done only in case of fraud, mistake or irregularity.
Quote from Judge Jacobson's dissent in State v. Fuentes Quote
In my opinion, this legislative grant of power [empowering the court, as a condition of probation, to exact county jail incarceration] was merely an attempt to place in the hands of the trial court, additional options in handling the criminal who is not entitled to clear probation but is also not entitled to state prison incarceration.
Columbia Law Review judicial review of probation conditions (1967) Legal fact
Columbia Law Review published 'Judicial Review of Probation Conditions' in Vol. 67, 1967, pp. 181-207.
Suspension order considered informal grant of probation Legal fact
Where the court, after pronouncing a judgment and sentence of imprisonment, orders all or a part of the sentence suspended, such an order is considered to be an informal grant of probation equivalent to a formal order. See Stockton v. State, 27 S.E. 2d 240 (Ga. 1943); Ex Parte Torres, 86 C.A. 2d 178, 194 P. 2d 593 (1948); Oster v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles Judicial District, 45 C. 2d 134, 287 P. 2d 755 (1955); People v. Brandon, 166 C.A. 2d 96, 332 P. 2d 708 (1959); United States ex rel. Wissfeld v. Fay, 214 F. Supp. 360 (D.C.N.Y. 1963); People v. Victor, 42 Cal. Rptr. 199, 62 C. 2d 280, 398 P. 2d 391 (1965).
Ohio shock probation - Black inmates have less access to private counsel Finding
Friday and Petersen et al. (1974) identified that one factor contributing to racial imbalance in shock probation grants is that Black inmates have less access to private legal counsel or are generally less familiar with legal criteria.
Massachusetts split sentence restrictions Legal fact
Massachusetts authorizes a split sentence with confinement to be determined by the court. If the sentence is to imprisonment, this option is not authorized for crimes punishable by death or life imprisonment; if the sentence is to fine and imprisonment, it is not authorized for crimes punishable by life imprisonment, crimes committed when armed with a dangerous weapon, or if the defendant has been previously convicted of a felony.
Quote from Judge Sibley in Archer v. Snook Quote
I often find a young man, not really a criminal at heart, but who needs a firm and decided check . . . A few days or weeks of confinement, with nothing to do but think . . . does far more to bring him to his senses, and to impress his companions, than any other thing will. If several months of such a sentence could be kept suspended over him afterwards, while on an informal five-year probation, it would practically insure his good conduct . . . Again, probation after partial service would solve many problems of needy dependents that now distress the judge.
McGee new look at sentencing part II (1974) Finding
McGee, Richard A. published 'A New Look at Sentencing, Part II' in Federal Probation, Vol. 38, No. 3, 1974, pp. 3-11.
Imprisonment as probation condition is not a sentence Legal fact
An order placing a defendant on probation, even though it includes as a condition a period of imprisonment, is not a judgment and sentence and does not amount to serving a term of imprisonment in a penal institution because the period of imprisonment was imposed not as a sentence but as a condition of probation. See People v. Roberts, 136 C.A. 709, 29 P. 2d 432 (1934); People v. Wallach, 8 C.A. 2d 129, 47 P. 2d 1071 (1935); Ex Parte Goetz, 46 C.A. 2d 848, 117 P. 2d 47 (1941); Ex Parte Martin, 82 C.A. 2d 16, 185 P. 2d 645 (1947); Ex Parte Hays, 120 C.A. 2d 308, 260 P. 2d 1030 (1953); People v. McShane, 126 C.A. 2d Supp. 845, 272 P. 2d 571 (1954); State v. Bassett, 86 Idaho 277, 385 P. 2d 246 (1963); In re Williams Petition, 145 Mont. 45, 399 P. 2d 732 (1965); Petersen v. Dunbar, 355 F. 2d 800 (C.A. 1966); People v. Terven, 130 Ill. App. 708, 264 N.E. 2d 538 (1970); State v. Wright, 202 N.W. 2d 72 (Iowa, 1972); Prue v. State, 63 Wis. 2d 109, 216 N.W. 2d 43 (1974).
Ohio shock probation - Swingle found Black inmates less likely to be granted release Finding
Swingle (1972) in a survey of 216 shock probationers released from Lebanon Correctional Institution in 1969 and 1970 found that Black inmates were less likely than whites to be granted shock probation.
Michigan split sentence confinement limit Legal fact
Michigan authorizes a split sentence with confinement not to exceed six months in county jail or house of correction. An additional option available to the court is to place youthful offenders, under 21 years of age, convicted of crimes for which a sentence in the state prison may be imposed, in a Department of Corrections probation camp for a period not to exceed one year.
Quote from Barkin on split sentence opposition Quote
Once having determined that a person can be trusted to remain in the community and can benefit most under community supervision, no appreciable benefits can be derived from committing the offender to a short period of incarceration.
Michalowski and Bohlander shock probation in judicial practice (1977) Finding
Michalowski, Raymond J. and Bohlander, Edward W. published 'The Application of Shock Probation in Judicial Practice' in the International Journal of Offender Therapy, Vol. 21, No. 1, 1977, pp. 41-51.
Imprisonment served as probation condition deducted from revocation sentence where statute exists Legal fact
Where statutory authority exists, the period of imprisonment that a probationer serves as a condition of his probation shall be deducted from a subsequent term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of his probation. See People v. Roberts, 136 C.A. 709, 29 P. 2d 432 (1934); People v. Wallach, 8 C.A. 2d 129, 47 P. 2d 1071 (1935); State v. Jones, 327 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1976).
Ohio shock probation - typical shock probationer profile (McCarthy 1976) Finding
McCarthy (1976) found from a sample of 43 shock and straight probationers that the typical shock probationer is a white, unmarried (with one dependent) male less than 23 years old, with an eleventh grade education and one conviction as a juvenile or as an adult.
Minnesota split sentence confinement limit Legal fact
Minnesota authorizes a split sentence with confinement not to exceed 90 days. However, if it will be served in a facility of the Department of Corrections, the length will be determined by the commissioner.
Quote from Federal Judicial Center on split sentence statute Quote
On balance, . . . the split sentence statute has been used with reasonable discretion during its seventeen years' existence. While it may have resulted in a few offenders being committed for a brief period whereas outright probation may have been more appropriate, it has undoubtedly brought about shorter periods of actual confinement in situations where the sentencing judge feels compelled to impress upon the offender the force of the law.
National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws final draft (1971) Legal fact
The National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws published its Final Draft, Section 3106 and comment, in 1971.
Without statute, no credit for probation-condition imprisonment upon revocation Legal fact
Without statutory provision, courts may infer that it was the intent of the legislature to allow the court, upon revocation, to impose the maximum penalty allowable by law without credit for the period of imprisonment served as a condition of probation. See People v. Wallach, 8 C.A. 2d 129, 47 P. 2d 1071 (1935); Ex Parte Hays, 120 C.A. 2d 308, 260 P. 2d 1030 (1953); In re Larsen, 44 C. 2d 642, 283 P. 2d 1043 (1955); People v. Jaynes, 23 Mich. App. 360, 178 N.W. 2d 558 (1970); State v. Barnett, 112 Ariz. 212, 540 P. 2d 684 (1975); State v. Fuentes, 26 Ariz. App. 444, 549 P. 2d 224 (1976).
Ohio shock probation - ideal defendant profile (McCarthy 1976) Finding
McCarthy (1976) states that the ideal defendant for shock probation is most likely to be young, have no previous record, have good education and/or employment, married with dependents, and have committed a non-assaultive crime of little severity.
Mississippi intermittent confinement provision Legal fact
Mississippi authorizes intermittent confinement not to exceed 30 days in county jail as a condition of probation.
Recommendation to expand split sentence in Georgia Policy
The report recommends that utilization of the split sentence be expanded in Georgia to include an array of options: A. The Traditional Split Sentence; B. Post-Incarceration Probation; C. Pre-Sentence Diagnostic Referral; D. Imposition of a Period of Imprisonment as a Condition of Probation.
Parisi study on split sentence in federal jurisdiction Finding
Parisi, Nicolette published 'The Nature, Use and Impact of the Split Sentence in the Federal Jurisdiction' through the Criminal Justice Research Center in Albany, New York, 350 pages.
Double jeopardy applies only when combined time exceeds maximum sentence Legal fact
The possible applicability of the double jeopardy clause may be considered only when presentence jail time and/or incarceration as a condition of probation, when added to the sentence imposed after revocation, exceeds the maximum statutory sentence. See State v. Pena, 26 Ariz. App. 442, 549 P. 2d 222 (1976); State v. Fuentes, 26 Ariz. App. 444, 549 P. 2d 224 (1976).
Ohio shock probation - Bohlander found higher failure rate than non-confined offenders Finding
Bohlander (1973) reported a higher failure rate among shock probationers than those offenders who did not experience a short period of confinement.
Nevada split sentence provisions Legal fact
Nevada authorizes a split sentence with confinement to be determined by the court.
Recommendation to expand shock probation programs Policy
The report recommends that shock probation programs be expanded into additional appropriate Georgia correctional institutions.
Polonsky limitations upon trial court discretion in imposing conditions of probation (1974) Legal fact
Polonsky, Louis E. published 'Limitations Upon Trial Court Discretion in Imposing Conditions of Probation' in the Georgia Bar Journal, Vol. 8, 1974, pp. 471-471.
Ohio shock probation statute passed in 1965 Legal fact
Ohio's shock probation statute was passed in 1965 and has undergone fairly extensive judicial construction since its passage.
Ohio shock probation - used as alternative to probation, not incarceration Finding
Bohlander concludes that shock probation in Ohio and as administered in Franklin County has not served as an alternative to incarceration, but instead has been used as an alternative to probation, and that it is, in reality, a move toward retributionist punishment.
New Hampshire split sentence confinement limit Legal fact
New Hampshire authorizes a split sentence with confinement not to exceed 60 days, restricted to misdemeanors or class C or D felonies. Another option available to the court is to place an offender under 21 years of age, as a condition of probation, in a Division of Youth facility for a period not to exceed one year.
Recommendation to establish task force for split sentence legislation Policy
The report recommends that a task force be established, consisting of those parties who will affect and be affected by such a proposed course of action, to develop statutory legislation and program operating policies and procedures.
Rubin federal sentencing problems and Model Sentencing Act (1969) Legal fact
Rubin, Sol published 'Federal Sentencing Problems and the Model Sentencing Act' in 1969.
State v. Veigel nearly destroyed Ohio shock probation statute's intended effect Legal fact
Only two months after Ohio's shock probation statute became effective, the decision in State v. Veigel almost destroyed the intended effect of the statute when it was ruled that the only time a trial court could use the statute was when it addressed the facts in passing sentence. 17 Ohio Misc. 1, 242 N.E. 2d 751 (1968).
Ohio shock probation - Bohlander quote on incarceration and criminal behavior Quote
Bohlander states: 'The knowledge that incarceration increases the likelihood of continued commitment to criminal behavior patterns seems to have had little or no effect on legislative, judicial, or correctional policy makers.'
New Jersey split sentence provisions Legal fact
New Jersey authorizes a split sentence with confinement not to exceed 6 months if served in a facility of the Department of Corrections or not to exceed 30 days if served in a local confinement facility. This option is only available for offenses carrying maximum prison sentences of 5 years or less, where the defendant has not served an active sentence within the previous five years, and where his background indicates that a sentence should be imposed. Any time served under this option will be credited on any sentence of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of probation. An additional option available to the court is that it may impose, as a condition of probation, that a probationer, within the first 30 days of his probation, visit with his probation officer a prison unit of the Department of Corrections for a tour so that he may better appreciate the consequences of probation revocation.
Recommendation to build evaluative mechanisms into programs Policy
The report recommends that evaluative mechanisms be built into all split sentence and shock probation programs that are created or modified through the actions of the task force so that the effectiveness of such programs can be measured.
Seminar on disparity of sentences for Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits (1962) Legal fact
A seminar and institute on disparity of sentences for the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits was held in Highland Park, Illinois, published in 30 F.R.D. 401, 445, 459 (1962).
Ohio shock probation cannot be granted beyond ten-day period Legal fact
Shock probation may not be granted by a trial court beyond the ten-day period following the hearing on the motion, either pursuant to a motion for reconsideration or otherwise. At the expiration of the ten-day period the trial court would lose jurisdiction over the defendant.
Ohio shock probation - Bohlander quote on humanitarian value Quote
Bohlander agrees that 'shock probation is a far more satisfactory sanction for humanitarian reasons than longer periods of incarceration.'
New Mexico split sentence provisions Legal fact
New Mexico authorizes a split sentence with confinement to be determined by the court; felonies will be served in a state facility, misdemeanors in a county or regional facility. This option may only be utilized prior to the time custody of an offender is transferred to a penal institution, except in the case of a misdemeanor where it may be done prior to or during the service of the sentence. An additional option available to the court is that it may order a defendant, prior to sentencing, to an appropriate licensed public or private institution for diagnostic testing for a period not to exceed 30 days (which may be extended another 30 days by the court).
Recommendation for pre-sentence reports in Georgia Policy
The report recommends that pre-sentence reports, in general, be required in Georgia as a guide in sentencing decisions.
Ohio Supreme Court Rule 13: Hearing within six days of filing Legal fact
Ohio Supreme Court Rule 13 of the Rules of Superintendence (adopted July 11, 1973) provides in part: 'If a hearing is demanded within the trial court in the interim it is on a motion for suspension of further execution of sentence and probation made pursuant to R.C. 2947.061, each court shall hold the hearing within six days after the filing date of the motion and enter its ruling thereon within ten days after the hearing. If no hearing is conducted on such motion, the court shall enter its ruling within ten days after the filing of the motion.' 35 Ohio St. 2d 176, 298 N.E. 2d at 879 (1973).
Ohio shock probation - Friday and Petersen conclusion quote Quote
Friday and Petersen et al. concluded: 'Short term incarceration coupled with the supervision of probation appears to not only be effective, but humanitarian as well... We would caution, however, that shock probation requires a much more thoroughgoing empirical analysis and interpretation, particularly as its use begins to expand throughout the correctional system.'
North Dakota split sentence provisions Legal fact
North Dakota authorizes a split sentence with confinement to be determined by the court. This option may not be imposed when an offender received the death penalty or subsequent to a felony conviction.
Recommendation for comprehensive statewide sentencing data Policy
The report recommends that comprehensive statewide data on sentencing dispositions of defendants convicted in Georgia state courts be developed.
Ohio shock probation motion must be filed within statutory time limit Legal fact
The one time limit in the statute is the time within which a motion for shock probation must be filed. After expiration of this time limit the court loses jurisdiction under the statute. See State ex rel. Dallman v. Court of Common Pleas, 32 Ohio App. 2d 102, 288 N.E. 2d 303 (1972); State ex rel. Smith v. Court of Common Pleas, Civil No. 73 AP-15 (Ct. App. Franklin County, Ohio, Jan. 26, 1973).
Ohio shock probation - success concentrated in intended group Finding
Friday and Petersen et al. found that success on shock probation was concentrated in that group for which the law intended - the young, but not juvenile; the previously convicted, but not hard core offender.
Ohio split sentence provisions Legal fact
Ohio authorizes a split sentence with confinement not to exceed 30 days. If the sentence is for a misdemeanor or felony, sentence may be suspended and probation granted at any time during service of the sentence. If the sentence is to the penitentiary for a felony, sentence may be suspended and probation granted at any time during service of the sentence.
Recommendation for media presentation on shock probation Policy
The report recommends that the Georgia Department of Offender Rehabilitation develop a media presentation which explains the shock probation program by showing excerpts of all facets of the program for training and educational purposes.
Ignorance of shock probation statute does not relieve time limit Legal fact
It has been ruled that ignorance of the shock probation statute does not relieve an inmate from the time limit requirement. See State v. Crawford, 34 Ohio App. 2d 137, 296 N.E. 2d 578 (1973).
Ohio shock probation - success higher among married, failure higher for narcotics offenses Finding
Friday and Petersen et al. found in both statewide and county studies that success on shock probation is higher among the married, and that failure is greater for those convicted of narcotics offenses.
Oklahoma split sentence confinement limit Legal fact
Oklahoma authorizes a split sentence with confinement not to exceed 120 days. The court, under this option, may reduce a sentence within 120 days after the sentence is imposed.
Potential monetary savings from shock probation programs Finding
If these programs continue to contribute toward a reduction in the revocation of probationers, the monetary savings can be substantial because the costs of incarceration are far in excess of the costs of probation.
Kentucky Court of Appeals: Oral motion for shock probation Legal fact
In a related decision on Kentucky's similar shock probation statute, the Kentucky Court of Appeals in Commonwealth ex rel. Hancock v. Melton ruled that an oral motion for shock probation could be considered.
Ohio shock probation - statewide vs county study discrepancies Finding
Friday and Petersen et al. found discrepancies between statewide and Franklin County studies: the statewide study found success associated with family criminal involvement and conviction of one or two adult offenses, while the county study found success slightly higher among Blacks and middle-upper social status categories.
States with sentence modification provisions Legal fact
Certain states, either singularly (Wyoming), or in addition to other statutory provisions authorizing a split sentence (i.e., Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland), allow the court to modify or reduce a sentence within a specified period of time (usually one, three, four or six months). By this procedure, a split sentence can also be effectuated.
Shock probation programs contribute to relieving overcrowding Finding
Shock probation programs contribute to a relieving of the problem of overcrowding in the institutions.
Ohio shock probation statute: Court loses jurisdiction after time limit Legal fact
After expiration of the statutory time limit for filing a shock probation motion, the court loses jurisdiction under the statute.
Ohio shock probation - Franklin County successful offenders profile Finding
The Franklin County study found that successful shock probationers generally: were between ages 18 and 22; were Black more often than white; were married; were from lower-middle to upper class; were high school dropouts; had some parent or sibling criminality; were convicted of personal crimes; were recommended for probation by the probation department; were represented by private counsel; and had no prior criminal record.
States with pre-sentence diagnostic commitment options Legal fact
An additional procedure which authorizes a split sentence is the option, in Arizona, California, Kansas and North Dakota, by which the court can commit an offender, prior to sentencing, to a state or other diagnostic facility for diagnosis and recommendation for sentence. The period of confinement in these instances ranges from one month to four months depending upon the particular statute.
Arguments against split sentence - mixing prison and probation Finding
Arguments in opposition to the split sentence include: Prison and probation are dispositions which should not be mixed since a person should either be eligible or ineligible for probation (Campbell, 1960; Scudder, 1959; Chandler, 1950; Chappell, 1947).
Bibliography: Friday, Petersen and Allen published on shock probation in Georgia Journal of Corrections Finding
Friday, Paul C., Petersen, David M. and Allen, Harry E. published 'Shock Probation: A New Approach to Crime Control' in the Georgia Journal of Corrections, Vol. 1, No. 1, July 1973, pp. 1-13.
Ohio shock probation - Franklin County failed offenders profile Finding
The Franklin County study found that shock probationers who failed to complete probation generally: were 21 or 24 years old; were more often white than Black; were single or divorced; had no parent or sibling criminality; were convicted of narcotics-related offenses; were recommended for shock probation by the probation department; were represented by court-appointed attorneys; and had criminal records which included arrests and jail sentences.
Shock probation maximum confinement periods by state Legal fact
The 'shock probation' statutes of Ohio, Kentucky and Texas authorize the split sentence by permitting the court to resentence an offender, who is already serving a term of imprisonment, to a period of probation. The maximum period of confinement under these statutes is supposed to be 130 days in Ohio and Kentucky, 120 days for felonies in Texas and 90 days for misdemeanors in Texas.
Arguments against split sentence - judicial misuse Finding
The split sentence may be misused. Judges may be tempted to use the mixed sentence as a means of convincing the community that they do not 'coddle' criminals. In so doing, many offenders who could benefit from probation might be given short term incarceration needlessly (Beran and Allen, 1973).
Bibliography: Friday et al. published Ohio shock probation experience study Finding
Friday, Paul C. et al. published 'Shock Probation: The Ohio Experience' through The Ohio State University, Program for the Study of Crime and Delinquency, December 1974, 71 pages.
Ohio shock probation - offender characteristics (Friday and Petersen statewide study) Finding
Friday and Petersen et al. (1974) found shock probation recipients were: disproportionately white; generally young (22-26 years of age, ranging up to 69); of slightly higher socio-economic status (middle and upper-middle class); usually high school graduates; rarely had parents or siblings with criminal records; as likely to be married as single but more divorced than sample populations; more likely convicted of fraud or narcotics violations than property or personal offenses; usually represented by privately-retained attorneys; generally received a recommendation for incarceration from the probation department; usually entered a plea of guilty; and generally had prior criminal records but majority had not previously been confined in an adult correctional institution.
California jail as condition of probation utilization rate Statistic
Approximately 50% of all California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1976 received jail as a condition of probation.
50%
Arguments against split sentence - criminal integration Finding
The period of incarceration may only serve to integrate the naive offender into a community of hardened criminals, make him resentful, harden any hostile attitudes toward the judicial process, and negate any chance he might have of rehabilitation (Bohlander, 1973).
Bibliography: Petersen and Friday studied race as factor in shock probation use Finding
Petersen, David M. and Friday, Paul C. published 'Early Release From Incarceration: Race as a Factor in the Use of Shock Probation' in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 66, No. 1, 1975, pp. 79-87.
Ohio shock probation - Denton et al. success factors Finding
Denton et al. (1971) found that success on shock probation was associated with such factors as no previous felonies, intelligence, marriage and advancing age.
California Probation Task Force position on jail as probation condition Finding
The Probation Task Force of the 1971 California Correctional System Study on Probation and Parole Field Services took the position that many offenders given jail as a condition of probation could be placed on straight probation without seriously jeopardizing the safety of the community. Furthermore, they felt that minimizing the use of jail as a condition of probation would result in substantial savings since the estimated average per capita annual cost (in 1968) for successful cases on straight probation was $247, while the cost ranged between $1,000 and $3,000 if jail was a condition of probation.
Arguments against split sentence - disruption of life patterns Finding
A short period of confinement is a disruptive force, serving to interfere with successful probationary treatment by disrupting employment, family, and residential patterns along with the resultant stigma that is attached to one who has 'done time' (Carter, et.al., 1975; Doyle, 1953; Chappell, 1947).
Bibliography: Gatz on Ohio shock probation and shock parole Finding
Nick Gatz published 'Ohio's Shockers... First Shock Probation; Now Shock Parole' in American Journal of Correction, Vol. 37, No. 1, January-February 1975, pp. 30, 38.
Ohio shock probation - institutional staff generally unimpressed Finding
The staff of the various correctional institutions throughout the state were found to be generally unimpressed with the shock probation technique.
California straight probation violation-free rate Statistic
Approximately 66% of those felons admitted to straight probation during the first six months of 1966 remained free from any further violation during their first year.
66%
Arguments against split sentence - shock at arrest may suffice Finding
In many cases, the shock at arrest and conviction or the period during which the defendant is confined while awaiting trial, if he has not been released on bail, may be a sufficient 'shock' to achieve the desired result of disenchanting offenders from future illegal behavior (Attorney General's Survey, 1939).
Bibliography: Hartshorne on 1958 Federal Split-Sentence Law Finding
Richard Hartshorne published 'The 1958 Federal Split-Sentence Law' in Federal Probation, Vol. 23, No. 2, June 1959, pp. 9-12.
Ohio shock probation - inmate perception of statute as coercion Finding
Inmate perception was felt to be that the shock probation statute was designed to coerce them into institutional good behavior in the hope of attaining early release.
California probation with jail violation-free rate Statistic
Only 52% of those given probation and jail remained violation free during their first year, in contrast to 66% for straight probation.
52% vs. 66 Straight probation violation-free rate
Arguments for split sentence - judicial flexibility Finding
The split sentence allows more flexibility to the sentencing judge, who can more accurately fit the penalty to the particular circumstances (Denton, et.al., 1971). Moreover, the judge may not wish to lose control over the particular case, as would be the result in most full commitment to an institution.
Bibliography: Litton conducted Georgia shock probation survey Finding
Gilbert D. Litton authored 'Shock Probation Survey Results' for the Georgia Department of Corrections, January 6, 1976, as a memorandum to Dr. Richard E. Longfellow, Deputy Commissioner, Community-Based Services.
Ohio shock probation - judges used it to satisfy political obligations Finding
Friday and Petersen et al. (1974) reported that it was the opinion of many probation officers that shock probation allowed judges to 'look tough' by incarcerating almost half of all convicted felons while 'quietly' releasing a substantial proportion of them on shock probation to satisfy 'political obligations.'
California straight jail violation-free rate Statistic
Only 41% of those given straight jail remained violation free during their first year, in contrast to 66% for straight probation and 52% for probation with jail.
41% vs. 66 Straight probation violation-free rate
Arguments for split sentence - California judges' perspective Finding
In California, judges may give probation with a jail term to individuals who are on the borderline of either a straight jail term or a prison term. These judges feel that it has a salutary effect on some probationers, so that the combined effect of jail and judicial supervision insures greater likelihood of success than supervision alone (Dwoskin, 1962).
Bibliography: Litton on disposition of misdemeanant offenders Finding
Gilbert D. Litton authored 'Disposition of Misdemeanant Offenders: General Considerations' for the Georgia Department of Corrections, Planning and Evaluation Section, September 1975.
Kentucky shock probation statute enacted 1972 Legal fact
Relying heavily on the reported success of shock probation in Ohio, the Kentucky Legislature enacted a shock probation statute (KRS Sec. 439.265) in 1972, following almost exactly the wording of the Ohio statute, allowing courts to release an inmate on probation after 130 days or less of incarceration (with a minimum of 30 days served).
California follow-up study methodology Methodology note
The California Division of Law Enforcement, Bureau of Criminal Statistics, conducted a follow-up study (one full calendar year from the time of the individual's release to the street on probation or following incarceration in jail) of 5,076 persons sentenced in superior court to probation, either straight or with a conditional jail sentence, and those sentenced to straight jail during the first six months of 1966. Included were all cases from twelve of the largest counties and 30% of the cases from Los Angeles County.
Arguments for split sentence - seriousness of offenses Finding
Imposition of a period of imprisonment for certain offenses can exhibit the 'seriousness' with which the courts view such violations (Remington and Newman, 1962).
Bibliography: McCarthy unpublished paper on shock probation Finding
Andrew J. McCarthy authored an unpublished paper 'On Shock Probation' for Dr. Canon's Judicial Proseminar, University of Kentucky, January 29, 1976, 42 pages.
Kentucky shock probation - 130 day maximum, 30 day minimum Legal fact
Under the Kentucky shock probation statute (KRS Sec. 439.265), an inmate may be released on probation after 130 days or less of incarceration, with a minimum of 30 days that must be served.
Factors influencing subsequent violation history in California study Finding
The three factors that exerted a strong influence on subsequent history were the defendant's age (younger defendants were more likely to commit additional crimes than were older offenders), prior level of criminality (as the seriousness of a defendant's prior record increased, so did his chance for further serious criminality), and race (non-white offenders generally exhibited the greatest proportion of major subsequent violations). The length of probation sentence or length of jail sentence imposed did not appear to have an appreciable effect on subsequent violation history.
Arguments for split sentence - understanding alternatives Finding
It is difficult and perhaps unrealistic to expect some probationers to make behavioral changes if they do not understand the alternatives to probation - county jail or prison - as most probationers have not had this experience (Fifth Judicial District, 1973; Jayne, 1956).
Bibliography: National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals addressed corrections Finding
The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals published 'Corrections' (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973), pp. 320-321, which is cited in the bibliography.
Kentucky shock probation - offenders fell between probationers and incarcerated Finding
In Kentucky, the characteristics of shock probationers were found to fall between those of regular probationers and incarcerated offenders, with shock probationers having less serious criminal records than incarcerated offenders but more serious criminal records than regular probationers.
California pre-sentence diagnostic program enactment Legal fact
Since its enactment in 1957, criminal courts in California have an option (Cal. Penal Code Sec. 1203.03) of sending, prior to sentencing, an individual convicted of an offense punishable by imprisonment, to the Department of Corrections for up to 90 days, for the purpose of obtaining a diagnostic evaluation and a recommendation for an appropriate sentence.
Arguments for split sentence - community reassurance Finding
Short term incarceration is reassuring to members of the community who feel that punishment is an important aspect of a penal system, since prison time followed by probation is readily perceived as more punitive than probation alone. Furthermore, citizens may feel better protected against the antisocial tendencies of the felon, if he is removed from society for some time, and if it is believed that he will not be released unless there is a fair probability that he can handle the responsibilities of freedom (Chappell, 1947).
Bibliography: Lipton et al. surveyed correctional treatment effectiveness Finding
Douglas Lipton et al. published 'The Effectiveness of Correctional Treatment - A Survey of Treatment Evaluation Studies' (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1975), pp. 81-84.
Kentucky shock probation - offenders from higher social status families Finding
In Kentucky, offenders granted shock probation tended to come from families with higher social status than those of either probationers or incarcerated offenders.
California Sec. 1203.03 monetary savings estimate Statistic
Dickover and Durkee's study, done under the auspices of the California Department of Corrections, calculated that monetary savings for the year 1970 amounted to more than $1,600,000. Moreover, this estimate did not include the costs for new construction that would have been necessitated by the greater number of commitments that would have entered the Department of Corrections in the absence of the Sec. 1203.03 option.
$1.6M
Short-term incarceration may help certain offender types Finding
Certain types of offenders (some mentally disturbed offenders, alcoholics undergoing 'drying out', and narcotics users experiencing withdrawal) could be helped by personal contact during a short period of jail confinement (Johnson, 1974).
Bibliography: Friday and Petersen comparative analysis of short-term incarceration Finding
Friday, Paul C. and Petersen, David M. published 'Shock of Imprisonment: Comparative Analysis of Short-Term Incarceration as a Treatment Technique' in Canadian Journal of Criminology and Corrections, Vol. 15, No. 3, 1973, pp. 281-291.
Kentucky shock probation - used where both incarceration and probation undesirable Finding
In Kentucky, shock probation as a sentencing option was generally used in cases where the characteristics of the offense and the attributes of the offender made both incarceration and probation undesirable alternatives.
Ohio shock probation enactment Legal fact
In 1965, the Ohio legislature passed into law Section 2947.061 of the Ohio Revised Code which has come to be known as 'shock probation.' This occurred seven years after the implementation of the federal split sentence statute.
Economic cost of split sentence between prison and probation Finding
The economic cost of a split sentence would have to lie somewhere between the cost of prison sentences (most expensive - $3,858 per inmate per year or $10.57 per inmate per day in Georgia during FY 1977) and immediate probation (least expensive - $145 per probationer per year or $0.40 per probationer per day in Georgia during FY 1977).
Bibliography: Kaufman on enlightened sentencing techniques Finding
Irving R. Kaufman published 'Enlightened Sentences Through Improved Technique' in Federal Probation, Vol. 26, 1962, pp. 3-10.
Kentucky shock probation - first five weeks incarceration effects on self-esteem Finding
Paine and Bohlander interviewed 502 inmates admitted to the Kentucky State Reformatory at LaGrange in 1975 and found that during the first five weeks of incarceration, offenders' self-esteem tended to increase and negative self-images generally decreased.
Ohio shock probation eligibility and timing Legal fact
Unlike the federal split sentence statute, shock probation is not part of the original sentence. This technique allows the court, after approval of a motion made by an inmate (all incoming inmates - felons and misdemeanants - are eligible to file a motion for early release), or by the court, to release an inmate on probation after 130 days or less of incarceration (a minimum of 30 days must be served under the statute).
Success rate of offenders on probation relatively high Finding
Although the success rate of offenders on probation is relatively high, probation may not have been the appropriate sanction for those offenders who do not succeed on it. These 'failures' may have needed the prison experience, treatment or supervision; their experience and background may have required more structure than the minimal contact afforded through straight probation (Friday, et.al., 1974).
Bibliography: Murrah on prison or probation Finding
Alfred Murrah published 'Prison or Probation - Which and Why?' in The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, Vol. 47, 1956-1957, pp. 451-456.
Kentucky shock probation - fear of personal harm did not decrease in first five weeks Finding
Paine and Bohlander found that the high levels of fear of personal harm identified at admission did not decrease during the first five weeks of incarceration, with youthful first offenders found to be more fearful of physical harm to themselves than other offenders.
Ohio shock probation five positive functions Finding
The Ohio Adult Parole Authority (1971) describes the five positive functions that this alternative was thought to provide: I. A way for the courts to impress offenders with the seriousness of their action without a long prison sentence. II. A way for the courts to release offenders found by the institution to be more amenable to community-based treatment than was realized by the courts at the time of sentence. III. A way for the courts to arrive at a just compromise between punishment and leniency in appropriate cases. IV. A way for the courts to provide community-based treatment for rehabilitable offenders while still observing their responsibility for imposing deterrent sentences where public policy demands it. V. Shock probation affords the briefly incarcerated offender a protection against socialization into the 'hard rock' inmate culture.
Conditions of probation divided into general and special Legal fact
Conditions of probation generally may be divided into general and specific or special conditions. General conditions are applicable to all probationers, and special conditions may be imposed in a given case (Carter, et. al., 1975).
Bibliography: Oliver on vengeance versus probation Finding
John W. Oliver published 'Vengeance V. Probation in Criminal Law' in Federal Probation, Vol. XVIII, No. 2, June 1954, pp. 15-20.
Kentucky shock probation - hostility toward institutional staff increased Finding
Paine and Bohlander found a substantial increase in hostility toward, and a rejection of, the institutional staff during the first five weeks of incarceration.
Denton et al. shock probation guidelines Finding
Denton et al. (1971) implied a series of guidelines for the use of shock probation: (1) it is especially applicable to first offenders; (2) it should not be used with convicts who had experienced numerous convictions; (3) incarceration should be brief, preferably shorter than the 130 day limit; (4) it should be denied to 'potentially violent offenders, and narcotics addicts;' (5) release under shock probation should be a surprise to the felon and should not be pre-arranged at the time of sentence.
Shock probation goal in Georgia Policy
The goal of the shock probation program is to make these offenders more aware of the realities of imprisonment and in so doing encourage them that it is more beneficial for them to abide by their conditions of probation than to risk revocation and subsequent imprisonment.
Bibliography: Remington and Newman on Highland Park Institute sentencing disparity Finding
Frank J. Remington and Donald J. Newman published 'The Highland Park Institute on Sentencing Disparity' in Federal Probation, March 1962, pp. 3-9.
Kentucky shock probation - commitment to radical values increased Finding
Paine and Bohlander found that offenders' commitment to radical values as well as expressions of support for radical action tended to increase during the first five weeks of incarceration, particularly for youthful offenders who did not anticipate release on shock probation.
Ohio shock probation untimely rulings on motions Statistic
In approximately 17% of Friday and Petersen's 1970 shock probation sample, motions timely filed by inmates were not ruled upon by the court until after the expiration of the time limit set in the statute for ruling on the motion. A significantly larger percentage of the blacks released statewide under the shock probation statute were released after the 130 day limit.
17%
Success of split sentence programs depends on liaison Finding
It is felt that the overall success of split sentence and shock probation programs in Georgia will depend, to a large degree, on a close liaison between the court, the institution and the probation office.
Bibliography: Rubin on law of criminal correction Finding
Sol Rubin published 'The Law of Criminal Correction' (St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Company, 1973), pp. 216-218.
Kentucky shock probation - isolationism increasingly accepted as adaptation Finding
Paine and Bohlander found that isolationism as a mode of adaptation to living in a controlled environment became increasingly accepted during the first five weeks of incarceration, particularly for older married offenders who previously did not know any other inmates.
Ohio shock probation court overburdening Finding
The filing of shock probation motions by inmates has also resulted, in many instances, in overwhelming already overburdened courts. (Dinitz, 1977)
Shock probation tour conducted for report author Methodology note
Mr. Denny Chapman, Parole Supervisor, Georgia Industrial Institute, and Ms. Betsy Williams, Probation Supervisor, Lawrenceville Probation/Parole Office, allowed the author to experience a shock probation tour with a group of probationers.
Bibliography: Kay and Vedder on probation and parole Finding
Barbara A. Kay and Clyde D. Vedder edited 'Probation and Parole' (Springfield, Illinois: Thomas, 1963), pp. 66-67.
Kentucky shock probation - inmate solidarity remained high Finding
Paine and Bohlander found no significant changes in offenders' commitment to fellow inmates, with inmate solidarity found to be high at admission and equally high following five weeks of confinement.
Ohio shock probation pre-arrangement problem Finding
In some cases, lawyers of convicted defendants may convince the defendant before he goes to prison that he is likely to be granted shock probation, or judges would tell offenders at the time of sentencing that if they filed motions for shock probation the court would give them favorable consideration. In such cases, the shock value of this technique may have either been negated or considerably lessened. (Friday and Petersen et al., 1974; McCarthy, 1976)
Federal split sentence data provided by Administrative Office of U.S. Courts Methodology note
The assistance of Ms. Elaine M. McVey, Program Analyst, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, in providing federal split sentence data is greatly appreciated.
Bibliography: Kerper on criminal justice system Finding
Hazel B. Kerper published 'Introduction to the Criminal Justice System' (St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Company, 1972), pp. 343-353.
Kentucky shock probation - preferences for law-violating associates decreased Finding
Paine and Bohlander found that during the first five weeks of incarceration, offenders' preferences for association with other persons who engage in law-violating behavior generally decreased, with older offenders less likely to choose friends who had 'little respect for the law.'
Ohio shock probation prison integration delay Finding
Some prison officials may neglect to incorporate new prisoners into prison life until they are sure the prisoner is not likely to be granted shock probation. In such cases, rather than designate permanent living quarters, full-time jobs, etc., the prison officials merely hold the prisoner in a holding pattern.
Research assistance from Georgia libraries and universities Methodology note
The cooperation and assistance of the staff of the Library of the State of Georgia, Georgia State University and Emory University School of Law helped immeasurably throughout the research phase of the study.
Bibliography: Johnson on crime, correction and society Finding
Elmer H. Johnson published 'Crime, Correction and Society' (Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press, 1968), pp. 466-467, and a 1974 edition at pp. 383-385.
Kentucky shock probation - judges and prosecutors anticipated use at sentencing Finding
In Kentucky, rather than a formal reconsideration of the original sentence, the use of shock probation was anticipated by court personnel when the original sentence was rendered, with the offender frequently informed of the court's intention to shock probate prior to initial incarceration.
Federal split sentence statutory authorization Legal fact
The 85th Congress passed, in 1958, Public Law 85-741 [18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 3651] which authorized a split sentence of up to six months incarceration in a jail-type institution followed by probation. This statutory provision authorized the split sentence as a disposition upon conviction of an offender for as few as one count. Previously, offenders convicted on two or more counts could be sentenced to a period of incarceration on one count followed by a period of probation on the other count(s).
Attorneys General of states provided statutory provisions Methodology note
The author would like to express his sincere gratitude to the Office of the Attorneys General of the states for providing their respective states' statutory provisions and for patiently answering any questions that the author may have had.
Bibliography: Glueck on probation and criminal justice Finding
Sheldon Glueck edited 'Probation and Criminal Justice' (New York: Arno Press, 1974, reprint of 1933 ed.), pp. 36-39.
Kentucky shock probation - informing offender prior to incarceration may mitigate shock effect Finding
The Kentucky study noted that informing the offender of the court's intention to shock probate prior to initial incarceration may tend to mitigate the 'shock' effect of the short period of incarceration.
Federal pre-sentence study commitment provision Legal fact
An additional technique available in the federal courts is the statutory procedure [18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 4208 (b)] by which the court may commit a prisoner while a study is being made (which must be finished in at most six months) and thereafter the court may impose any lawful sentence, including probation. Furthermore, under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a court may reduce a sentence within 120 days of its imposition or affirmation.
Report examines judicial interpretation of split sentence Methodology note
This report examines the many issues relative to the split sentence that the judiciary have ruled on and closely examines the fairly extensive judicial construction that has been given to the Ohio shock probation statute.
Bibliography: Newman sourcebook on probation, parole and pardons Finding
Charles L. Newman published 'Sourcebook on Probation, Parole and Pardons' (3rd Ed.) (Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1968), p. 131.
Kentucky shock probation - judges investigated offender adjustment before deciding Finding
In Kentucky, in cases where an offender was incarcerated and shock probation might be granted, judges often investigated the offender's adjustment to confinement before rendering a decision.
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1976 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1976: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 14,564 (29.2%) received probation with jail, 6,118 (12.2%) received straight jail, 988 (2.0%) received CRC (California Rehabilitation Center), 1,903 (3.8%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Report structure includes appendices and bibliography Methodology note
The report includes Appendix A (Statutory Authorization of the Split Sentence: Federal), Appendix B (Statutory Authorization of the Split Sentence: State), Appendix C (Judicial Interpretation of the Split Sentence: Relevant Federal and State Case Law), and a Bibliography.
Bibliography: Kennedy on probation committee report Finding
Harold M. Kennedy published 'Report of the Committee on Probation With Special Reference to Juvenile Delinquency' in Federal Probation, Vol. 12, 1948, pp. 3-9.
Kentucky shock probation - seriousness of offense and prior record most important factors Finding
In Kentucky, in the rendering of the original sentence, the seriousness of the offense and the offender's prior criminal record were generally perceived as the most important factors in considering the granting of shock probation.
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1975 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1975: 50,015 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 13,718 (27.1%) received probation with jail, 7,020 (13.9%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,855 (3.7%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,015 dispositions
Report intended for judiciary as primary user group Methodology note
Since the split sentence, by definition, is a sentencing alternative to be used by the court, the major user group of this document is seen to be the judiciary. The material herein contained can acquaint unfamiliar judges with the various forms of the split sentence and the judicial interpretation that certain facets of this disposition have received.
Bibliography: Jayne on purpose of sentence Finding
Ira W. Jayne published 'The Purpose of the Sentence' in NPPA Journal, Vol. 2, 1956, pp. 315-319.
Kentucky shock probation - ideal offender profile per judges and prosecutors Finding
Kentucky judges and prosecutors typified the offender for whom shock probation would be most appropriate as: generally under age 25; with no history of felony convictions; convicted of offenses not associated with personal harm or violence; having demonstrable family or community ties; exhibiting remorse and a positive attitude toward rehabilitation; and presently holding a stable job or having sound prospects for future employment.
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1974 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1974: 50,018 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 13,536 (27.1%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.4%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 2,056 (4.1%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,018 dispositions
Report useful for state departments of correction Methodology note
The state departments of correction can similarly use the information in this report if they desire to programmatically adopt shock probation as a workable program in their jurisdiction.
Bibliography: Fisher on sentencing guidelines Finding
David Fisher published 'Notes on Sentencing Guidelines' in Washburn Law Journal, 1975, pp. 71-78.
Kentucky shock probation - majority of court personnel found it useful and effective Finding
With a wide range of specified qualifications, shock probation was held to be a useful and effective sentencing alternative by a majority of Kentucky court personnel (67 judges and 44 prosecutors surveyed).
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1973 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1973: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 11,521 (22.8%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,855 (3.7%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
OCR artifacts possible in pre-1990 documents Methodology note
Text extracted with pdftotext from the NCJRS scan; OCR artifacts are possible in pre-1990 documents, so record a figure only where the digits are unambiguous, and page-cite to the === PAGE n === markers (PDF page numbers, not printed page numbers).
Bibliography: Friday on sanctioning in Sweden Finding
Paul C. Friday published 'Sanctioning in Sweden: An Overview' in Federal Probation, Vol. 40, No. 3, September 1976, pp. 48-55.
Kentucky shock probation - success factors identified Finding
Kentucky shock probation appeared most successful in cases where defendants: had been convicted of only one offense; had been sentenced to long-term imprisonment; had been convicted of expressive (personal) rather than instrumental (economic) crimes; had minimal juvenile and misdemeanor records; had minimal felony records and imprisonments; were older, married and had children; came from stable, non-criminal home environments; were able to make bond prior to trial; were employed prior to the offense; were able to obtain private counsel; had been recommended for probation by the pre-sentence report officer; and had not been charged with disciplinary rule infractions during confinement.
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1972 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1972: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 9,265 (18.3%) received probation with jail, 6,859 (13.6%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,855 (3.7%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Document is chunk 1 of 5 of NCJ 52262 Methodology note
This is PDF pages 1-30 of 99 (chunk 1 of 5); the collection is being built one page-range at a time.
Bibliography: Georgia Industrial Institute annual report Finding
The Georgia Industrial Institute Annual Report is cited in the bibliography without a specific date (n.d.).
Kentucky shock probation - successful offenders resemble regular probationers Finding
The characteristics of offenders who 'succeed' on shock probation more clearly approximate those characteristics of offenders granted regular probation than they do the characteristics of offenders confined until parole or expiration of sentence.
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1971 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1971: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Bibliography: Republic of South Africa prison administration Finding
The Republic of South Africa, Department of Foreign Affairs published 'Prison Administration in South Africa' in 1969, pp. 13-14.
Kentucky shock probation - study conclusions Finding
The Kentucky study concluded: (1) shock probation appears to be a logical alternative sentencing option in cases where regular probation or protracted incarceration seem inappropriate; (2) the technique should not be employed in cases where the offender is clearly a candidate for probation; and (3) further success of shock probation will best be achieved by continued utilization of the program as an alternative to protracted confinement.
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1970 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1970: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Bibliography: Rudnick on social effectiveness of imprisonment Finding
Mieczyslaw Rudnick published 'Spoleczna efektywnosc kary pozbawienia wolnosci' in Adam Podgorecki's 'Socjotechnika' (Warszawa: Ksiazka i Wiedza, 1970), pp. 364-399.
Ohio shock probation - Ned Woodruff on higher revocation rates Quote
Ned Woodruff, Chief Probation Officer, Franklin County (Ohio) Court of Common Pleas, stated that he expects people in the shock probation program to have a higher revocation rate than regular probationers since persons assigned to prison in the first place are usually more difficult people than those placed on routine probation.
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1969 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1969: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Bibliography: Master on judicial selection and probation success Finding
J.M. Master published 'The Relation of Judicial Selection to Successful Probation' in Federal Probation, Vol. 12, 1948, pp. 36-41.
Ohio shock probation - community-based corrections workers saw it as effective tool Finding
Community-based corrections workers generally saw shock probation as an effective tool which 'shocks' the naive offender into a more lucid perception of reality.
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1968 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1968: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Georgia cases cited on suspension as informal probation Legal fact
Georgia case law cited in the report includes Stockton v. State, 27 S.E. 2d 240 (Ga. 1943) on suspension orders as informal grants of probation, and Stewart v. State, 27 S.E. 2d 240 (Ga. 1943) on lack of jurisdiction to modify sentences after execution begins.
Ohio shock probation - Friday and Petersen statewide sample description Methodology note
The Friday and Petersen statewide study sample included 61 of the 85 offenders granted shock probation in 1966, 485 of the 632 offenders granted shock probation in 1970, and control samples drawn for these groups (cases eligible for shock probation under the law but not released).
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1967 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1967: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Georgia cases on split sentence validity Legal fact
Georgia cases cited on the validity of split sentence provisions include Porter v. Gillmore, 148 Ga. 261, 96 S.E. (1918) and Waldridge v. Womble, 157 Ga. 64, 120 S.E. 620 (1923).
Ohio shock probation - Franklin County sample description Methodology note
The Franklin County study sample included all persons granted shock probation in 1970 plus all persons granted shock probation after 1970 whose pre-sentence reports were prepared in 1970, totaling 67 plus control samples of regular probationers and institutionalized individuals eligible for shock probation but not released.
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1966 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1966: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Ohio shock probation - Angelino sample description Methodology note
Angelino et al. (1975) compiled a sample of all inmates released from Ohio prisons under the shock probation statute during 1969 plus female inmates released during 1966, 1967, 1968, and 1970, totaling 554 shock probationers of whom 136 were female.
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1965 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1965: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Kentucky shock probation - Paine and Bohlander methodology Methodology note
Paine and Bohlander interviewed 502 inmates admitted to the Kentucky State Reformatory at LaGrange in 1975 during their first and fifth week of imprisonment to assess the impact of the first five weeks of incarceration.
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1964 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1964: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1963 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1963: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Ohio shock probation - Thompson study of 712 offenders released in 1973 Methodology note
Thompson's study examined 712 offenders released on shock probation in Ohio in 1973.
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1962 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1962: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1961 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1961: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1960 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1960: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Ohio shock probation - Petersen and Friday sample of 202 granted and 373 eligible Methodology note
Petersen and Friday (1975) studied a sample of all persons granted shock probation at a medium security prison for male offenders between ages 16 and 30 during 1970 (202 persons) and a control sample of persons who were eligible but not released (373 persons).
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1959 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1959: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Ohio shock probation - Angelino recidivism testing with 281 offenders Methodology note
Angelino's study tested the hypothesis that recidivism might be reduced if shock probation sentences were restricted to naive first offenders with relatively minor crimes, using a sample of 281 offenders.
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1958 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1958: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Ohio shock probation - OAPA recidivism measure limitations identified Data gap
Angelino's report identified three limitations of the Ohio Adult Parole Authority recidivism measure: (1) it is based on reincarceration and probation violation and does not include convictions of persons who have completed probation unless they are reincarcerated; (2) it does not include out-of-state convictions; and (3) recidivism figures are not controlled for length of time since release from the institution.
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1957 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1957: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Ohio shock probation - OAPA guidelines not followed in selection Finding
Angelino's study found that shock probation was not administered in strict accordance with the intent of the legislature or the Ohio Adult Parole Authority guidelines, especially in regard to the number of past offenses.
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1956 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1956: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Ohio shock probation - nearly 40% incarcerated over 121 days before release Statistic
Angelino et al. (1975) found that nearly 40% of the shock probation sample were incarcerated for greater than 121 days before release, indicating shock probationers were not being released as promptly as the legislature had intended.
40%
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1955 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1955: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Ohio shock probation - 12.1% had served prior prison terms Statistic
Angelino et al. (1975) found that 12.1% of shock probationers had served prior prison terms.
12.1%
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1954 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1954: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Ohio shock probation - 78% did not finish high school Statistic
Angelino et al. (1975) found that 78% of shock probationers did not finish high school and many were regarded as attendance and behavior problems in school.
78%
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1953 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1953: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Ohio shock probation - 76% unskilled Statistic
Angelino et al. (1975) found that 76% of shock probationers were unskilled.
76%
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1952 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1952: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Ohio shock probation - 53% of males and 69% of females unemployed Statistic
Angelino et al. (1975) found that 53% of male shock probationers and 69% of female shock probationers were unemployed.
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1951 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1951: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Ohio shock probation - 49% in 18-22 age range Statistic
Angelino et al. (1975) found that 49% of shock probationers were in the 18-22 age range.
49%
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1950 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1950: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Ohio shock probation - 76% white Statistic
Angelino et al. (1975) found that 76% of shock probationers were white.
76%
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1949 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1949: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Ohio shock probation - 136 female shock probationers in sample Statistic
Angelino et al. (1975) sample included 136 female shock probationers out of 554 total.
136 people
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1948 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1948: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Ohio shock probation - 554 total shock probationers in Angelino sample Statistic
Angelino et al. (1975) sample totaled 554 shock probationers.
554 people
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1947 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1947: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Ohio shock probation - 85 offenders granted in 1966 Statistic
In Ohio, 85 offenders were granted shock probation in 1966.
85 people
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1946 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1946: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Ohio shock probation - 632 offenders granted in 1970 Statistic
In Ohio, 632 offenders were granted shock probation in 1970.
632 people
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1945 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1945: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Ohio shock probation - 202 granted at medium security prison in 1970 Statistic
Petersen and Friday (1975) studied 202 persons granted shock probation at a medium security prison for male offenders between ages 16 and 30 during 1970.
202 people
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1944 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1944: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Ohio shock probation - 373 eligible but not released in control sample Statistic
Petersen and Friday (1975) studied a control sample of 373 persons who were eligible for shock probation but not released.
373 people
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1943 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1943: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Ohio shock probation - 67 total in Franklin County sample Statistic
The Franklin County study sample totaled 67 persons granted shock probation in 1970 plus those granted after 1970 whose pre-sentence reports were prepared in 1970.
67 people
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1942 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1942: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Ohio shock probation - 216 shock probationers surveyed by Swingle Statistic
Swingle (1972) surveyed 216 shock probationers released from Lebanon Correctional Institution in 1969 and 1970.
216 people
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1941 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1941: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Ohio shock probation - 712 offenders in Thompson 1973 study Statistic
Thompson studied 712 offenders released on shock probation in Ohio in 1973.
712 people
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1940 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1940: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Kentucky shock probation - 502 inmates interviewed by Paine and Bohlander Statistic
Paine and Bohlander interviewed 502 inmates admitted to the Kentucky State Reformatory at LaGrange in 1975.
502 people
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1939 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1939: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Kentucky shock probation - 67 judges and 44 prosecutors surveyed Statistic
Questionnaire responses regarding shock probation assessment were received from 67 judges and 44 prosecutors in Kentucky.
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1938 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1938: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Ohio shock probation - 43 shock and straight probationers in McCarthy sample Statistic
McCarthy (1976) studied a sample of 43 shock and straight probationers.
43 people
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1937 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1937: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Ohio shock probation - 281 offenders in Angelino recidivism hypothesis test Statistic
Angelino's study tested the recidivism hypothesis with a sample of 281 offenders.
281 people
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1936 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1936: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Ohio shock probation - 61 of 85 offenders granted in 1966 included in statewide study Statistic
The Friday and Petersen statewide study included 61 of the 85 offenders granted shock probation in Ohio in 1966.
61 people
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1935 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1935: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Ohio shock probation - 485 of 632 offenders granted in 1970 included in statewide study Statistic
The Friday and Petersen statewide study included 485 of the 632 offenders granted shock probation in Ohio in 1970.
485 people
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1934 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1934: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Ohio shock probation - 22-26 typical age range, up to 69 years Finding
Friday and Petersen et al. (1974) found shock probation recipients were generally young, 22 to 26 years of age, but ranged upward to 69 years of age.
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1933 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1933: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Ohio shock probation - more likely convicted of fraud or narcotics violations Finding
Friday and Petersen et al. (1974) found shock probation recipients were more likely to have been convicted for fraud or narcotics violations than for property or personal offenses.
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1932 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1932: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Ohio shock probation - majority had not previously been confined in adult institution Finding
Friday and Petersen et al. (1974) found shock probation recipients generally had prior criminal records, but the majority had not previously been confined in an adult correctional institution.
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1931 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1931: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Ohio shock probation - usually represented by privately-retained attorneys Finding
Friday and Petersen et al. (1974) found shock probation recipients were usually represented by privately-retained attorneys.
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1930 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1930: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Ohio shock probation - generally received incarceration recommendation from probation department Finding
Friday and Petersen et al. (1974) found shock probation recipients generally received a recommendation for incarceration from the probation department.
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1929 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1929: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Ohio shock probation - usually entered guilty plea Finding
Friday and Petersen et al. (1974) found shock probation recipients usually entered a plea of guilty.
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1928 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1928: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Ohio shock probation - rarely had parents or siblings with criminal records Finding
Friday and Petersen et al. (1974) found shock probation recipients rarely had parents or siblings with criminal records.
California Superior Court felony disposition data FY 1927 Statistic
California Superior Court felony dispositions in FY 1927: 50,618 total dispositions. Of these, 19,239 (38.5%) received straight probation, 8,079 (16.0%) received probation with jail, 5,183 (10.2%) received straight jail, 1,112 (2.2%) received CRC, 1,831 (3.6%) received other dispositions, and 230 (0.5%) received death penalty.
50,618 dispositions
Ohio shock probation - usually high school graduates, many attended college Finding
Friday and Petersen et al. (1974) found shock probation recipients were usually high school graduates, while many attended college.
Ohio shock probation - slightly higher socio-economic status Finding
Friday and Petersen et al. (1974) found shock probation recipients were of slightly higher socio-economic status, generally from middle and upper-middle class families.
Ohio shock probation - as likely married as single, more divorced Finding
Friday and Petersen et al. (1974) found shock probation recipients were as likely to be married as single, but more were divorced than in the sample populations.
Ohio shock probation - disproportionately white Finding
Friday and Petersen et al. (1974) found shock probation recipients were disproportionately white.
Kentucky shock probation - shock probationers recommended for community supervision more than incarcerated Finding
In Kentucky, shock probationers were recommended for community supervision more often than were incarcerated offenders, but less often than those placed on regular probation.
Kentucky shock probation - judges and prosecutors found sufficient latitude Finding
Both judges and prosecutors in Kentucky generally indicated that shock probation provides them with sufficient latitude in cases where regular probation or protracted incarceration would potentially fail to either protect society or rehabilitate the offender.
Kentucky shock probation - Paine and Bohlander note no long-term attitudinal data Data gap
Paine and Bohlander point out that their analysis does not address long-term attitudinal change among offenders sentenced to shock probation.
Sources
68 cited sources backing this research.
Primary
Legislation
18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 3651 (Federal Split Sentence Statute)
Primary
Academic
A New Look at Sentencing, Part II (McGee, 1974)
Primary
Academic
A Study of Adult Probation Violations Rates By Means of the Cohort Approach (Davis, 1964)
Primary
Academic
Adult Probation and Parole in Ohio (Denton, 1972)
Primary
Academic
An Economic Analysis of Correctional Institutions in Ohio (Thompson, 1975)
Primary
Academic
Angelino et al. (1975) - Study of Ohio Shock Probationers Released 1966-1970
Secondary
Academic
Angelino, 1975
Primary
Legal document
Archer v. Snook, 10 F.2d at 57n (D.C. 1926)
Primary
Official report
Attorney General's Survey, 1939
Secondary
Academic
Barkin, 1967
Secondary
Academic
Beran and Allen, 1973
Secondary
Academic
Bernsten and Christiansen, 1965
Primary
Academic
Bohlander (1973) - Study of Shock Probation in Franklin County, Ohio
Secondary
Academic
Bohlander, 1973
Secondary
Academic
Campbell, 1960
Secondary
Academic
Carter, et. al., 1975
Secondary
Academic
Chandler, 1950
Secondary
Academic
Chappell, 1947
Primary
Official report
Compendium of Corrections Legislation and Standards and Judicial Decisions (LEAA, 1975)
Primary
Academic
Conditions of Probation: An Analysis (Best and Birzon, 1963)
Primary
Academic
Criminal Law - Split Sentence - Trial Judge in North Carolina Not Permitted to Impose Sentence Active in Part and Suspended in Part (Bullock, 1962)
Primary
Academic
Denton et al. (1971) - Study of Shock Probation Success Factors in Ohio
Secondary
Academic
Denton, et.al., 1971
Secondary
Academic
Doyle, 1953
Secondary
Academic
Dwoskin, 1962
Secondary
Academic
Emory Law Journal, 1975
Primary
Official report
Federal Judicial Center, 1976
Primary
Legal document
Federal Practice and Procedure - Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Wright, 1969)
Primary
Legal document
Federal Sentencing Problems and the Model Sentencing Act (Rubin, 1969)
Primary
Official report
Fifth Judicial District, 1973
Primary
Legal document
Final Draft of the National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws (1971)
Primary
Academic
Friday and Petersen et al. (1974) - Statewide and Countywide Study of Shock Probation in Ohio
Secondary
Academic
Friday, et.al., 1974
Primary
Legal document
Hearings on H.R. 6238 and H.R. 7260 before Subcommittee No. 3 of the Committee of the Judiciary (1958)
Primary
Academic
In Opposition to Probation With A Jail Sentence (Senyon, 1959)
Secondary
Academic
Jayne, 1956
Secondary
Academic
Johnson, 1974
Primary
Academic
Judicial Review of Probation Conditions (Columbia Law Review, 1967)
Primary
Legal document
Legal Problems in Sentencing (Barkin, 1972)
Primary
Academic
Limitations Upon Trial Court Discretion in Imposing Conditions of Probation (Polonsky, 1974)
Primary
Academic
McCarthy (1971) - Study on Shock Probation Limitations
Primary
Academic
McCarthy (1976) - Study of Shock and Straight Probationers
Primary
Legal document
Model Penal Code, American Law Institute, 1962
Primary
Official report
National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, 1973
Primary
Academic
Paine and Bohlander - Study of First Five Weeks of Incarceration at Kentucky State Reformatory
Primary
Legal document
People v. Warren, 360 N.Y.S. 2d at 965 (1974)
Primary
Academic
Petersen and Friday (1975) - Study of Shock Probation at Medium Security Prison for Male Offenders
Secondary
Academic
Remington and Newman, 1962
Secondary
Academic
Rudnick, 1970
Primary
Academic
Scott and Kramer - Conclusions on Shock Probation
Secondary
Academic
Scudder, 1959
Primary
Legal document
Seminar and Institute on Disparity of Sentences for the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits (1962)
Primary
Legal document
Sentencing the Automobile Thief (Hoffman, 1962)
Primary
Academic
Shock Parole Research - Progress Report II (Scott and Kramer, 1975)
Primary
Academic
Shock Parole: A Preliminary Evaluation (Vaughan et al., 1976)
Primary
Official report
Shock Probation Literature Abstracts (NCJRS)
Primary
Academic
Some Factors in the Use of Jail as a Condition of Probation (Adams and Narloch, 1959)
Primary
Official report
State and County Probation Systems in Crisis (GAO, 1976)
Primary
Legal document
State v. Fuentes, 549 P. 2d at 232 (Arizona, 1976)
Primary
Academic
Swingle (1972) - Survey of Shock Probationers from Lebanon Correctional Institution
Primary
Official report
Task Force Report: Corrections (President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, 1967)
Primary
Academic
The Application of Shock Probation in Judicial Practice (Michalowski and Bohlander, 1977)
Primary
Official report
The Attorney General's Survey of Release Procedures, Volume II, Probation (U.S. Department of Justice)
Primary
Academic
The Nature, Use and Impact of the Split Sentence in the Federal Jurisdiction (Parisi)
Primary
Academic
Thompson (1975) - Economic Impact Study of Ohio Shock Probation Program
Primary
Legal document
United States Code, Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure (1970)
Primary
Official report
Primary
Legal document
When and How Should A Sentencing Judge Use Probation (Herlands, 1964)
Key Entities
Organizations, people, facilities, and other named entities referenced in this research.
Administrative Office of the United States Courts
[organization]
Alfred Murrah
[person]
American Law Institute
[organization]
Andrew J. McCarthy
[person]
Archer v. Snook
[case]
Arizona
[organization]
Arkansas
[organization]
Barbara A. Kay
[person]
Beeton v. State
[case]
Bohlander
[person]
California
[organization]
California Board of Corrections
[organization]
California Bureau of Criminal Statistics
[organization]
California Department of Corrections
[organization]
California Department of Justice
[organization]
California Youth Authority
[organization]
Charles L. Newman
[person]
Clyde D. Vedder
[person]
Colorado
[organization]
Commonwealth ex rel. Hancock v. Melton
[case]
Criminal Justice Research Center
[organization]
David Fisher
[person]
David M. Petersen
[person]
Denton et al.
[person]
Dickover and Durkee
[person]
Dinitz
[person]
Donald J. Newman
[person]
Douglas Lipton
[person]
Elmer H. Johnson
[person]
Emory University School of Law
[organization]
Federal Courts
[organization]
Federal Judicial Center
[organization]
Federal Split Sentence Statute
[legislation]
Florida
[organization]
Frank J. Remington
[person]
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
[organization]
Franklin v. State
[case]
Fred D. Pant
[person]
Friday and Petersen et al.
[person]
GAO
[organization]
Georgia
[organization]
Georgia Department of Offender Rehabilitation
[organization]
Georgia Industrial Institute
[facility]
Georgia State University
[organization]
Gilbert D. Litton
[person]
Harold M. Kennedy
[person]
Harry E. Allen
[person]
Hawaii
[organization]
Hazel B. Kerper
[person]
Idaho
[organization]
Illinois
[organization]
Indiana
[organization]
Iowa
[organization]
Ira W. Jayne
[person]
Irving R. Kaufman
[person]
J.M. Master
[person]
John W. Oliver
[person]
Judge Louis Wallach
[person]
Kansas
[organization]
Kentucky
[organization]
Kentucky Legislature
[organization]
Kentucky State Reformatory
[facility]
KRS Sec. 439.265
[legislation]
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration
[organization]
Lawrenceville Probation/Parole Office
[facility]
Lebanon Correctional Institution
[facility]
Louisiana
[organization]
Maine
[organization]
Maine Bureau of Corrections
[organization]
Maryland
[organization]
Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services
[organization]
Massachusetts
[organization]
McCarthy
[person]
Michigan
[organization]
Mieczyslaw Rudnick
[person]
Minnesota
[organization]
Mississippi
[organization]
Model Penal Code
[legislation]
National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals
[organization]
National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws
[organization]
National Criminal Justice Reference Service
[organization]
Ned Woodruff
[person]
Nevada
[organization]
New Hampshire
[organization]
New Jersey
[organization]
New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts
[organization]
New Mexico
[organization]
Nick Gatz
[person]
North Dakota
[organization]
Ohio
[organization]
Ohio Adult Parole Authority
[organization]
Ohio shock probation statute
[legislation]
Ohio State University Program for the Study of Crime and Delinquency
[organization]
Ohio Supreme Court Rule 13
[legislation]
Oklahoma
[organization]
Paul C. Friday
[person]
People v. Ramos
[case]
People v. Robinson
[case]
People v. Warren
[case]
Porter v. Gillmore
[case]
President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice
[organization]
Probation Act of 1925
[legislation]
Republic of South Africa Department of Foreign Affairs
[organization]
Richard Hartshorne
[person]
Richard P. Haskell
[person]
Robert Renshaw Jr.
[person]
Sheldon Glueck
[person]
Sol Rubin
[person]
South Carolina
[organization]
State ex rel. Dallman v. Court of Common Pleas
[case]
State v. Crawford
[case]
State v. Fuentes
[case]
State v. Jones
[case]
State v. Marshall
[case]
State v. Nuss
[case]
State v. Veigel
[case]
Stewart v. State
[case]
Stockton v. State
[case]
Texas
[organization]
U.S. Congress
[organization]
U.S. Department of Justice
[organization]
U.S. Federal Probation
[organization]
United States ex rel. Spellman v. Murphy
[case]
United States v. Murray/Cook v. United States
[case]
United States v. Wittmeyer
[case]
Waldridge v. Womble
[case]
Wayne P. Jackson
[person]
White v. Burke
[case]
Wyoming
[organization]