Deviant Criminology
Dr. Richard Weaver Jr., Heather Kenney, and Rachel Czar take listeners on a journey through the world of true crime. With their unique careers in the criminal justice and academic world; they work to provide an entertaining and educational experience for listeners. This podcast examines many areas of true crime including; the formation of laws, cases that defined caselaw, and crimes that impacted the world. Please join us on this journey as we transition from professionals in criminal justice and academia to budding podcasters.
Deviant Criminology
Beyond Bars: The Hidden World of Parole and Probation
Probation and parole represent distinct forms of criminal supervision in the United States, each with its own purpose and impact on millions of Americans caught in the justice system. We explore the key differences between these alternative sentencing approaches and trace their evolution from the 1840s to today's complex implementation challenges.
• Probation functions as punishment itself, allowing offenders to remain in the community under supervision rather than going to prison
• Parole operates as a reward system, providing early release for prisoners who demonstrate rehabilitation
• John Augustus, a Boston cobbler, pioneered probation by bailing out minor offenders and helping them find jobs in the 1840s
• The term "parole" comes from the French word for "word of honor" and began in New York's corrections system in the 1870s
• Approximately 3.6 million Americans are on probation and 878,000 on parole according to most recent data
• Supervision systems face significant challenges including inadequate resources, overwhelming caseloads, and racial disparities
• Nearly half of state prison admissions result from probation and parole violations rather than new crimes
• Dual diagnosis (concurrent substance use and mental health disorders) requires specialized treatment often unavailable to those on supervision
• Technology like ignition interlocks and electronic monitoring plays an increasing role in supervision systems
• Evidence-based practices including cognitive behavioral interventions show promise for improving outcomes and reducing recidivism
Download our episodes and tell your friends about Deviant Criminology to help us grow! Visit our website at www.deviantcriminology.com or find us on social media.
www.deviantcriminology.com
All right. So this week I wanted to figure out if I pass, go collect $200, if I go to jail or if I can just visit jail. So this is an episode of Deviant Criminology. I'm Richard.
Speaker 3:I'm.
Speaker 2:Heather. And this week I kind of wanted to look into and get your feedback, heather, on something that's come up in class a lot and I always know the basics but I'm not a lawyer enough to be able to kind of explain how it became this way and then how we use probation and parole, kind of what the differences are and what they mean. So this week we're going to kind of cover the topic of probation and parole a little bit more criminal just to see than kind of the traditional true crime that we try to cover. But it's about the system itself. Let's just go ahead and get right into it, defining the basics of probation and parole. So let's start with the fundamentals. Probation and parole are two distinct forms of criminal supervision in the United States, each with its own kind of purpose and implementation.
Speaker 3:We're going to go over the differences here in a minute. But you can think of it as when your parents say you're on probation, it meant that they were watching you and you better not screw up again. But if you did, then you were grounded, which would be the same as incarceration. If you say it on your best behavior, you might get out of being grounded to do something special, like go to a friend's birthday party, or maybe you just convince them that you learned your lesson, and then they say then they say well, ok, you're good, we'll unground you, but if you do anything at all, you're going to be right back here and you're going to be grounded, and that would be like parole.
Speaker 2:And so and these kind of come in. This is after you've gone to trial, so this would be after sentencing, correct?
Speaker 3:Correct At sentencing and after sentencing, but house arrest is usually used pre-trial. It can go either way. You can use it pre-trial or you can like. We used to refer it as ankle monitoring. As part of your sentence, you can be put on an ankle bracelet and that is especially used when there's somebody for some reason they don't want in the jail.
Speaker 3:For example, if you have uncontrolled diabetes or, at least 20 years ago, if you had the pump the external pump that they would surgically put on your body, the jail did not want those people there because it was just too much of a liability. If you know, prisoners got in a fight, that pump could be ripped out. You know they have nurses there, but they don't have doctors. So a lot of times the jail would say we really don't want this person to be here, because it's just not safe for them to be here. So then they put them on an ankle monitor and it'd be similar to house arrest. Or you could have a work release program or something similar where you could leave for doctor's appointments or you go to work, but other than that you had to be at home.
Speaker 2:Okay, one of my favorite things I saw recently was, of course, a video on the internet, but where somebody had a flask that was designed to look like an ankle monitor, and I thought that was absolutely hilarious, like, let's take prison, jail and the criminal justice system seriously enough to turn it into a drinking game, right? So probation I'm not sure if we already kind of went over that, but probation is a court-imposed sentence that allows offenders to remain in the community under supervision instead of going to jail. It's typically granted by a judge at sentencing and often for less serious offenses or first-time offenders.
Speaker 3:And just for clarification. I know you said jail. Probation can still have jail, just not prison, and that's another thing. People get a mismatch with what jail versus prison is. Jails are usually local level. It's like if you have a city jail or a county jail, when you get arrested for DUI or anything, you go to jail. Then you go to court, you get processed, you stay in jail until your case is finished and then at the conclusion of your case you could either go to jail or prison. Typically, if it's less than a year, you'll serve it at the jail, If it's more than a year, you go to prison, and typically prison is reserved for felonies, not misdemeanors.
Speaker 2:That's kind of how I always explain it to my students is like 364 days or less, you're usually going to jail, 365 or more, you're going to prison. That's kind of how it was always explained to me. So, and probationers must follow specific conditions set by the court. These can include regular check-ins with a probation officer, maintaining employment, participating in drug or other types of rehabilitation programs. You have to submit to drug tests, which can be very random. You can just get called and be like hey, you need to come piss today, and staying out of trouble, and usually there's also a restriction on who you're allowed to associate with. You can't hang out with known criminals or individuals like that.
Speaker 3:Sometimes, but usually that's more of a parole thing because that takes more supervision. So probation and again, usually probation is more for those lesser offenses. So for instance, if you have a DUI you're not going to have a condition like that. That's a typical probation case. Or theft, or I don't say minor domestic violence, because no domestic violence is really minor. I don't say minor domestic violence because no domestic violence is really minor, but something that doesn't involve some type of permanent bodily injury or harm or disfigurement, something like that.
Speaker 3:You know, like the pushing shoving type stuff that would be on probation so usually, but like no contact orders. That's a good example when you said can't associate with certain people. If it's a DV case and they say you're not allowed to go within this many yards of the victim, that would be an order of the court where you would not be allowed to associate or contact the victim in the case. So that would be an example for that. Now for parole, it's going to be a bit different. It's more of a reward type thing. It's an early release program for prisoners who've already served part of their sentence and usually there's a parole board involved that decides whether or not to grant parole and they consider factors like the inmates' behavior while they're in prison, the participation in rehabilitation programs and potential risk to public safety.
Speaker 2:So, unlike probation, parolees must comply with certain conditions that are set and also supervise supervision requirements. It's important to note that parole is seen more as a privilege or opportunity for early release, while probation is considered a form of punishment in itself or get out of going to prison in the first place. So I think that's kind of an interesting way I've never thought of it is one is the punishment, the other is a reward. I've never looked at it that way. That's interesting.
Speaker 3:And that is an interesting nuance to it as far as like for me, because in my mind they're both punishment, and I understand that parole is a reward in some sense, but it's also earned. It's not just given. You do have to do things to get parole, it's just not an automatic OK, your time is up, now you get to go. Even though you didn't actually do your time, there's still some requirements in there.
Speaker 2:So, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, this is as of 2019, which anybody that has ever looked at stats in the justice system. They're usually way behind. Even the FBI stats that come out from police departments reporting are usually two, three, sometimes four years behind they get published. So this is really the most recent data that we have. But there were approximately 3.6 million people on probation and about 878,000 on parole in the United States. That's a significant portion of our population under some form of community supervision and really kind of one of the big impacts of that has just been the opioid crisis and drugs. I think they make up a decent amount of those cases.
Speaker 3:I think it's interesting too when you look at those numbers, because I think a lot of times people again think of probation and parole as being synonymous, but they're very different. And, again, like you mentioned, 3.6 million, way more than the 878,000 that we came up with. And I also kind of wondered how unsupervised probation numbers were figured in as far as this 3.6 million. Because there is such a thing as unsupervised probation, which basically means nobody's checking in with you. You have certain requirements that you have to fulfill, which usually, like a DUI case, something like that, you have to submit the paperwork saying I did the things I was supposed to do and then at the end of the period usually it was the prosecution would review the file and see if everything was in there, and if it wasn't, then we would sign a motion to revoke and file it with the court, and then the court would send a notice to the defendant with a notice to appear and then we would have a revocation hearing and then at that point the judge would re-sentence the defendant and in Colorado you could be re-sentenced for the original term.
Speaker 3:In New Mexico you could only be sentenced for the term remaining on your sentence, which I always thought was interesting Because to me again probation is kind of a reward versus a punishment, whereas in New Mexico it was more of a punishment and so their feeling was you got day for day credit for any time you were on probation. So if you were on probation for two years and one year and 11 months in, you screwed up. You only had to go to jail for one month, versus in Colorado if it was two years and one year and 11 months in, you screwed up.
Speaker 2:The judge could put you in jail for the whole two years. Wow, that's double punishment almost, yeah, I mean. At the same time it kind of goes back to the liar, liar thing of just like stop breaking the law, asshole.
Speaker 3:Or do what you're supposed to do. Like I gave you a chance, you screwed up. Now you're going to go back and do the time that I don't want to say forgave you of, but like I gave you a pass, I didn't make you go to jail. You screwed up Now you blew your chance. Now you have to do what I would have given you before. I gave you this chance.
Speaker 2:And I wonder again, I don't know, we don't do guests a whole lot. It would have been interesting to ask somebody that did probation and parole but wonder how much like they take into account if the person tried but the system failed, so like they were trying to get a job but there just weren't any in the area that they work, like they were putting in applications and stuff, or if they were trying to get into a treatment program and there just weren't any available, there weren't spaces or beds at the time how much they take that into account. Or if they punish you like well, that was a requirement. Uh, it's very interesting, coming from like more of my social work background, what that would look like, but I don't know on my end.
Speaker 3:If it was an unsupervised probation type thing, almost always, regardless of the reason, the judge would give them a second chance at completing. If it was just like I didn't do my community service or I didn't do my treatment, it almost always give you a chance to do your treatment again. If it was something more serious like I've been here three times and I haven't learned to do my treatment it was you're going to do a weekend in jail and then go do the treatment anyway to try to get their attention. As far as, like the, I can't get a job. If it was supervised probation, usually the person who wrote the report because again, your supervised probation officer, like they have a job to do. So, even though they're looking at it and being like, well, this isn't his fault, they're supposed to be accountable to the judge and telling the judge this is what's going on. So a lot of times they would write a report to the court asking for revocation but at the same time putting those mitigating factors in there for the judge to consider.
Speaker 2:That's yeah, and that's why I thought this would be an interesting episode, because there are those nuances that so many people just don't understand. But now that we're covering the basics, I think we kind of want to take a journey, like we usually do, kind of through the history of this system, because it's kind of fascinating.
Speaker 3:It really is, and if you think about it once upon a time, most of the sentences that you had for criminal activity were some type of an immediate and final sentence. So you had a lot of hangings, firing squads, beheadings whether that be the acts of an executioner or through the guillotine and we also had some particularly wicked ways of executing people, like being drawn and quartered and things of that nature. So when we got to our country here hence we had the whole no cruel and unusual punishments for our system. England also had the debtor's prison, which we've rejected. They didn't use prison back then for things that were felony type crimes. It was almost always an execution if you committed some type of a felony. So we moved into using incarceration here. But, as we've talked about before in our episodes about prison, that's how we moved here away from the death penalty for everything. This brings us to the question of how the idea of probation actually started.
Speaker 2:Which I think, before we get into that, it is interesting that now we are going back to the firing squad in the United States. I'm not sure kind of how I feel about that. Uh, we won't get into the whole mental health of the individuals doing it and the fact that it's all volunteer. But, um, we'll leave that for another episode. But probation, uh, in the U S has its roots in the 1840s, so this is kind of around the time. We also see, like the previous episodes we've done with um. So this is kind of around the time. We also see, like the previous episodes we've done with Penn State or Missouri State's prison systems and how they were kind of going more to this incarceration, even though they kind of looked different. And it has its roots in the Boston with a Boston cobbler named John Augustus. He started bailing out minor offenders and helping them find jobs.
Speaker 2:So talk kind of about a community hero. Like here's a guy I'm going to say maybe a social worker. Before there were social workers who saw that there was an issue and kind of put his money where his mouth was and said hey, you know, people don't need to be sitting in prison just because they either can't pay bills or because they've committed a minor offense trying to survive. I will pay off their debts and then help them find work. So that's kind of incredible. So one man's actions kind of led to a nationwide system.
Speaker 3:So, just like you were saying, one person made a difference. It really is crazy, when you think about it, that his work, augustus's work, laid the groundwork for what would become a modern probation system on a national scale. He posted bail for nearly 2,000 men, women and children between 1841 and 1858, focusing primarily on minor offenders and alcoholics.
Speaker 2:So I think that also kind of goes into another subject that we're not covering, but of like bonds, bail and all these other things that we hear a lot about. But again, if you're not in the system really deep don't make sense. But here, if you fast forward to 1878, massachusetts becomes the first state to adopt a formal probation system and by 1956, almost 100 years later, again nothing in the criminal justice system moves fast. That is something that if you study the court systems or true crime or anything you understand, nothing moves fast here. But by 1956, every state in the nation had jumped on board and adopted some form of probation. And then at the federal level the Federal Probation Act was signed into law in 1925, establishing probation as a sentence in the federal system.
Speaker 3:Yeah, and that's not the state system, which is worth noting because that's what most people are familiar with are state systems.
Speaker 3:So, with the juvenile justice system that played a significant role in development of probation In the 18, say about 1899, the first juvenile court was established in Chicago which contributed greatly to the recognition of probation as a legally sanctioned method of dealing with offenders, which it seems like probation has evolved as more as a more humane alternative to imprisonment, especially for our young offenders, because hopefully, again, like those people who are under, say, 22 years of age or so, prefrontal cortex development, hopefully we can get them back on the right track and I don't want to say like save their lives but make it so that they make better choices, so that their lives can have more meaning and be more functioning within society.
Speaker 3:And I think for most of us, when we think of juvenile offenders, we think of being sent off to a military school if you were wealthy, or, you know, to go to a Catholic school with the nuns, with the rulers and the strict punishments if you were poor, or if you were an orphan, which you know. Again, the wealth thing you mentioned, bail bonds and things. That's a whole other topic we get into, like for a whole other episode, but wealth, and we could maybe do one on wealth and the legal system in general. I think that one might be an interesting one to do.
Speaker 2:Yes, yeah, I definitely think so, because we talk about how, even a $10 fine to somebody that has no money, you can spend a lot of time in jail waiting for your trial, where somebody has a lot of money and can be right out.
Speaker 2:But I think it also represents a shift towards rehabilitation rather than pure punishment, which is again kind of what we saw with getting rid of solitary confinement and we're seeing these developments of trying to make or give people a chance to rehabilitate instead of just being purely punishment in the country. Again, these were ideas that were kind of already thought of in other countries, but this is where the United States was kind of on the front end, where a lot of our criminal justice system we've always kind of been duplicating what others have done. So this is one of the few times you'd be like way to go, united States, you're a little bit ahead of the times on stuff. So, and then when we talk about parole, that kind of started in the 1870s with and I'm gonna mess this person's name up, but Zebulon Brockway and Elmira Reformatory at Elmira Reformatory in New York. So he introduced a two-part strategy consisting of indeterminate sentences and kind of a paroled release.
Speaker 3:So one of the things that I find really interesting is the concept of indeterminate sentences, and indeterminate sentences are what we use in Colorado for some of the sex defenders specifically, and with an indeterminate sentence, it means that you don't know exactly what your sentence is going to be, so I'll let you explain indeterminate sentences and parole releases.
Speaker 2:Okay. So this approach implied the prisoners could bring their rehabilitation during incarceration, which could be recognized by a parole board. So if they begin doing rehabilitation and they're trying to get treatment, then they have the chance to go for parole. It also emphasizes protecting prisoners from cruel and unusual punishment. So I always wonder where we got the term parole from. And in preparing for this episode, we kind of learned something. And, Heather, I'll let you kind of explain that a little bit better than I could.
Speaker 3:Just that the term parole itself comes from the French word meaning word of honor, and by 1907, new York had implemented the first comprehensive parole system. By 1942, all states and the federal government had adopted some kind of parole system.
Speaker 2:And the federal parole system underwent significant changes over the years, which you would hope it does. It would adapt to what we learn. So in 1910, legislation authorized the parole of federal prisoners since the terms of one year or more. But then by 1930, a single board of parole was created at the national level replacing individual institution parole boards. So instead of every little federal prison kind of having their own parole boards and different systems kind of like, we have the 13 kind of appellate courts that exist. That was kind of how it was. Every little area had their own. Now there's just one major parole board for the entire national system.
Speaker 3:And I think in general you see that on a lot of levels where before things were more locally organized and administered because most people lived in one place for their whole life. So just like we say ignorance of the law is no excuse, well, you live there your whole life, you should know what it is Versus. Now you might move from you know, I don't know, we'll just say California to Nebraska, and all of a sudden you find out that there's some law that says you can't buy alcohol on Sunday. And what the heck is that about? I've never heard of that in my life. And you say, well, ignorance, what the local community standards are.
Speaker 2:Well, and I think I think another thing that is kind of evolved with this we don't kind of talk about but I think does make an impact, is the Internet itself, because there's so much bad information out there that you get on the internet. Like I know, years ago, indiana we used to have a gun permit system here in Indiana and then Ohio had a gun permit system. Indiana recognized Ohio's gun permit but Ohio didn't recognize Indiana's. So if you just did a cursory search and saw Indiana recognized Ohio, you might think the same thing. So you just did a cursory search and saw Indiana recognized Ohio, you might think the same thing.
Speaker 2:So you just carry your gun to Ohio and suddenly you've committed a felony and you're like well, I didn't know. Well, you're still like you said, ignorance of law. It doesn't matter, you've committed this crime but you didn't know you were committing the crime. Because of the ease of transportation now and the rapid changes of laws across states, with every state having their own laws, but we can easily just go back and forth. How easy is it to get caught up in the system?
Speaker 3:Even with that, when I used to travel from Colorado or New Mexico back to Indiana, just like you were talking about, I'd have to look up the law for each individual state we were going to drive through concerning what any regulations were for weapons. So I knew like before we got to Illinois we had to make sure everything was unloaded and locked and the ammo was stored separately from the weapon and there were all kinds of rules. Then, as soon as you cross into Indiana, all that's off. Like you have a concealed carry permit, you can do whatever you want. And it's interesting too on how those different things come about. Again, not to go down a rabbit hole, but some of them have interstate compact laws which allow for recognition of one state's system into another. So interstate compact can be how gun permits are recognized from each other. Also, parole and probation can work through interstate compact agreements where if you're on probation or parole, say, in Colorado, you could ask Florida and they'll if it's an interstate compact, they'll recognize each other's systems.
Speaker 3:However, like what you were talking about, with Ohio not recognizing Indiana, that would not be an interstate compact. That would be someplace where Ohio would have said something like any state whose permit system is more restrictive than ours will recognize Because in Ohio you have to do the background check. You have, recognize. Because in ohio you have to do the background check, you have to do a class, you have to do a proficiency test, which is basically like a shooting test to make sure you can handle your weapon, and then you get your permit. In indiana, at least 20 years ago, you just went in. They did your fingerprints, made sure you didn't have a felony, and there's your concealed carry. That was it. They didn't check to make sure you knew anything weapons. So it's another interesting thing of the dynamics of how things work as far as does a state say we're just going to recognize you because we think you do a good job or you're doing something better than us, or are we going to actually make a deal? We're all recognize you, you recognize me and we'll be good.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and another, yeah, indiana. Now they don't even do permits anymore. I think you can get one, but you don't have to, you can just carry. It's very interesting to me. But another area where we're talking about that and this is going down a rabbit hole, but I'll pull it back pretty quick, though I was talking with my students and other people it's just the rapid development of marijuana laws in the country Like Indiana, zero tolerance, like there's none in indiana.
Speaker 2:Kentucky, which is very close, depending where you live, is now medical, and then ohio, which is also really close. It's just free reign, like it's medical and um recreational. So you talking about like well, if you have a medical marijuana card in kentucky, you can't do anything in Indiana, but then you can go to Ohio by as much as you want, bring it back. But if you're just a citizen in Kentucky, you go into Ohio, use accidentally, have someone bring it back, then you've committed a crime. So just how rapidly things change and trying to keep up with laws and how easily again it is to get caught up and then end up in this system.
Speaker 3:Well, and even in Ohio that's currently a place to keep up with laws, and how easily again it is to get caught up and then end up in the system. Well, and even in Ohio that's currently a place I mean, I'm in Ohio, so it's a place where the law is constantly in flux because we had medical and then there was actually a constitutional amendment saying we would have marijuana as legal and it was very specific as far as what was going to be considered legal. And now the legislature is trying to go back and tailor that and cut it out and reduce how many plants you can have and reduce the ability to distribute between people and things of that nature. So they're already trying to dial it back, even after this constitutional amendment was passed in Ohio.
Speaker 2:Once you, once you give people rights, it's really hard to take them back. So we could do a whole different discussion on that. But coming back to where we're supposed to be, but I do like that we, you know, going off on those tangents a little bit. But one significant moment in this probation parole conversation was a creation of the United States Parole Commission as an independent agency within the Department of Justice in 1976. And this kind of marked a shift towards more standardized decision-making in federal parole cases, because before this it was a hodgepodge, mixed bag of everybody kind of did their own thing and there wasn't really this more evidence-based, standardized system.
Speaker 3:And of course that's again at the federal level, not the state level. So most of the cases that we hear about are involving state-level sentencing. So things like basic murder, not like a federal crime murder that's the type of stuff that this system would be addressing is those big giant federal cases. And this system with the state has evolved independently from the federal system and also independent from the other state system. So your specific state might have a completely different history as compared to the federal system. So, with that being the history of it, where are we at now in the evolution of the system?
Speaker 2:So as of 2025, probation remained the most common form of correctional control in the United States. However, both systems have faced significant challenges and reforms over the years. So parole kind of reached its peak in the United States in 1977. So mark that right before the war on drugs. So at that time there were approximately 72 percent of prisoners being released on parole. But high profile crimes committed by parolees led to a decline in its use.
Speaker 3:So by 2002, only 39 percent of prisoners were released on discretionary parole only 39% of prisoners were released on discretionary parole, and even we have criticized parole on certain individuals. I think that there was an episode that we did recently where there were some murders that occurred after somebody had been released from prison and you and I kind of said, gee, how in the heck did that person get out, being critical of that person having been released. So when we're talking about that significant, dramatic shift leading to the reduction in the use of parole, what factors carried into that?
Speaker 2:So yeah, I know the David Mouse case that was the one that we did that really like. Just I mean, it did have changes in that system actually. So there are several factors that kind of contributed to that change. So in the 1980s states began passing more determinant sentencing statutes to curtail judicial discretion and establish fixed sentences for specific crimes contributed kind of to this change in the system. That started around the 1980s when states began passing more determinant sentencing statutes to try and curtail judicial discretion and establish fixed sentences for specific crimes. That I know had to be kind of questionable because judges don't like when you take away their discretion. I don't think any group that has discretion in the criminal justice system likes having that discretion taken away. Like we've talked about police discretion. Then you get to the prosecutorial discretion and now you're telling judges like we're going to take possibility of parole in federal institutions and then replaced it with a point system for good behavior.
Speaker 3:And I think, just like going back to that conversation you were talking about, you can't roll freedoms back. I think it's the same thing with discretion when you tell a judge you can do whatever you want and then turn around and say, oh no, wait, wait, we didn't really mean that. Now we want you to do it at least this way. I think it's the same type of a feeling, but basically there's been a shift towards more of a standardized sentencing and release practice. Sometimes you hear about mandatory minimum sentencing, which is consistent with this shift in ideology.
Speaker 2:So many states have moved forward with truth in sentencing policies and more prisoners now serve determined fixed sentences followed by a monitoring period. In the community, theory would be that that's to try and make sure that there's some type of transition period where they're still getting some monitoring to. I would hope help them with that transition instead of just being you just spent 20 years in prison. There you go out the door. Good luck.
Speaker 3:And I think that that is true. I think we've learned from our mistakes with that. That too many times, like you said, it was out the door, good luck. And then we see those people come back and the people within the system like you and I would say well, gee, what was this guy supposed to do? Like he'd been in there for 20 years, we dump him back out. You know his wife's moved on, his parents have died. You know his brother and sister won't have anything to do with him because he's a washed up loser. He has no job home. What was he supposed to do other than go start stealing stuff to survive, or break into somebody's house to spend the night in their house? So I think part of that is just we've learned from our mistakes that those types of things aren't working when we just dump people back out.
Speaker 3:And it's also worth noting, like the determinate versus indeterminate sentence. That's another factor in it. As far as, like an indeterminate sentence, the judge could say you're going to be in prison for two years to life and you only get out once you satisfy these certain conditions. So, like with sex offenders, there's, you know, plethysmographs and things like that that they have to be able to pass before they can get back out and the probation parole. I'm sorry, parole committee or parole board isn't going to want to let somebody out until they pass those standards and even on probation they can put you on those standards to wait to see if you violate and then, if you violate, put you in to prison.
Speaker 2:So how has this affected the role of parole officers?
Speaker 3:of parole officers. So in some states the role of parole officers has shifted from social work to more of an enforcement agency, which in my opinion is kind of sad because I'd like to see more of the social work aspect of it, where it's more individualized and less standardized enforcement. You screw up. Now you're back in the system. There's been an increased emphasis on post-release supervision for parolees and focusing more on monitoring and compliance rather than rehabilitation, and I saw a lot of that on my end in general for both probation and parole violations, where we would have something like a hot UA, meaning the person failed a drug test or somehow violated for the terms of their probation or parole by failing to attend classes or do community service or they would commit another crime.
Speaker 3:But a lot of the cases in my experience the rehabilitation side of it wasn't tailored to the individual but rather a set curriculum that everyone went through.
Speaker 3:For example, if you had a misdemeanor domestic violence case, you did 36 weeks of domestic violence counseling and it kind of didn't matter if what you did was relatively minor or more severe like a felony that we pled down to a misdemeanor because we just couldn't prove the felony.
Speaker 3:You both went to the same class Alcohol evaluations they had, but almost always they would recommend a level two class, to the point where a lot of defense attorneys would say save your money, don't do the evaluation, just go do the level two classes. And I can't remember the specifics, but it was something like the difference between 24 hours of classes and 12 hours of classes, but I don't remember specifically the number of hours, but it was basically something along those lines. So again, if you needed more than that, along those lines, so again, if you needed more than that, they didn't make you do more. And at the same time that's part of the problem with the standardized sentencing is that one size fits all approach and it's not always best for the individual. So, recognizing differences between, for instance, alcohol and drug abuse and self-medicating, we might send somebody to the alcohol classes. But if they're self-medicating, those substance abuse classes aren't going to help the person, when we have not addressed the underlying issue and really they should have had a mental health evaluation, not just alcohol classes.
Speaker 2:And I think that's something even from my own experience being in law enforcement, working with probation and parole officers and stuff, and then going into social work Like probation and parole officers they are. They're taught that law enforcement side where social workers, you're taught like resources, how to find resources and usually have connections in the treatment programs. You understand mental health and how treatment's supposed to look and even dual diagnoses of mental health disorders and substance use disorders, but that's not something that's taught to probation and parole. So, yeah, it does seem like the more we've gone towards this enforcement side of that position, the more we've created a cycle of failure instead of a cycle of setting you up to succeed.
Speaker 3:So dual diagnosis? You just mentioned dual diagnosis. Can you explain specifically what that is, Because I think a lot of people don't understand it?
Speaker 2:So a dual diagnosis is when you have a substance use disorder and a mental health disorder diagnosis. So maybe you have alcoholism and you're diagnosed with bipolar disorder and they may say, well, one is really leading to the other. So the bipolar you're drinking to try and help with the symptoms, especially if you're on that downward side of bipolar, that you'll drink a lot more which can lead to bad decision making. Or if you've got anxiety and you use marijuana, like marijuana is to help kind of calm the anxiety. So one doesn't exist without the other on one side. So you kind of have.
Speaker 2:And then you know I wouldn't say marijuana you can become addicted to. But you see that with different instances of like heroin and other substance uses where they have a mental health disorder and they're using the substance to treat the mental health disorder. But then when you become addicted to that substance, now you have addiction issues and you have the mental health disorder going on at the same time and you can't treat one without treating the other. But you also run into problems in the system where you have some treatment facilities that won't take you unless you've got your mental health under control. But then mental health places won't take you until you've got your mental health under control. But then mental health places won't take you until you've got the substance use under control. So you have a decent amount of the population that's sitting in limbo and ends up more in this system, the criminal justice system, because a lack of understanding in the community of well we can treat both at the same time and there's not a lot of institutions that try to do both at the same time.
Speaker 3:That was my experience also, so I'm glad that you were able to explain that in more detail. I think when we were in Colorado, there was only one facility that did dual diagnosis and I had so many people who needed to go there and I just I couldn't send them because it was full.
Speaker 2:Yeah, there's just a lack of those facilities and funding as well. I mean, that's the biggest thing is somebody's got to fund this. So who funds paying the social workers and then keeping social workers? We've seen that problem and psychologists do. I don't want to say that only social workers do this work, but we've seen this where a lot of these are state jobs or state funded jobs through grants and things of that nature, and the pay is just really low. Funded jobs through grants and things of that nature, and the pay is just really low. So people may come in for a year or two to get some experience, to use it as a stepping stone to go to the next place because it just pays so low. So really, if we want to make a difference in the system, from my experience it's putting the funding in to keep good quality people there for a long time and enhance these services, not low ball it to say well, we're doing something, but you're really not, and I think that's true across the board, from police officers to judges to prosecutors.
Speaker 3:So many of those jobs don't pay that much, and it ends up with us having a crisis where we cannot get good people who actually want to do that work to come in and stay. Like you said, most people come in, they do it until they're like I can't stay here anymore because it's just not paying my bills, and then they leave. Or you have people who really can't find anything else to do, and so they land there, and or they go there for the wrong reasons and then just camp out and they can't be fired because you don't have anybody to replace them.
Speaker 2:Right. So it's kind of like this weird influx exit of people coming in, going constantly and you never know the quality you're getting. So a lot of great people doing the work though I don't want to take that away by any means but also a lot of great people moving on. Yes, exactly.
Speaker 3:We lose a lot of good people that we should have been able to retain and keep and could have really made a difference in that position. But they don't have a choice in their own personal life Because you know, if you have $100,000 in student loan and you have two kids, you can't do the work you love. You also have to consider what you're going to do to support your family, so you might have to go to private sector and do something that's less fulfilling but pays your bills.
Speaker 2:Yeah, which is kind of going down another rabbit hole, but why? I don't remember where it was. I just remember when I went through my MSSW program to become a social worker, one of the things we were always told if you went and worked for a nonprofit or a government agency and you did it for 10 years, they would wipe your student debts Kind of a way to get people to go to those. Maybe it's a little less paying, but the flip side is at the end of that 10 years then you can wipe your student loan debt away. So they kind of tried to come up with ways to yeah, we can't pay you as much, but we can give you this benefit which I'm glad they have those now.
Speaker 3:They didn't have them when I was there, but I'm glad they have those now.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and I don't know how much longer those will exist, but as of right now that program still exists and that's just kind of one example of a pro and a con. Is just kind of this revolving door. But there are other pros and cons to probation and parole, because everything has its advantage and its drawback. So let's kind of look at those, I think, starting kind of with the upsides.
Speaker 3:So talking about money like we just were, one of the positives, first and foremost, is the cost effectiveness. Having probation parole programs can reduce the cost of up to 90% compared to incarceration for all of those people, so that's a significant savings for the taxpayers.
Speaker 2:Well, and I think part of that probably has to do with you're not sitting in a cell using tax money, like if you go out you get a job, we can still monitor you, but now you're making money yourself, paying for your own food, your own housing and everything else, and paying taxes back into the system instead of the other way around. So it makes sense to use this from. What I like to say is, like the conservative economic standpoint, like what is going to save us the most money while still holding people accountable for the crimes they committed. So that's also a really impressive amount, but I know there are other benefits with this system as well.
Speaker 3:So we have rehabilitation opportunities that are going to be more widely available if you're on probation or parole, because offenders can access community treatment programs, counseling and support services that address underlying issues like addiction, and these things can be crucial for success and reintegration into society, which, of course, are our goals. We want to get these people back into society in a functional way.
Speaker 2:Okay. So by keeping nonviolent offenders out of prison and releasing inmates, early probation and parole has helped alleviate the strain on our overburden correctional system, which is I don't know how that's changed. The system's going to change anytime soon. I know in Indianapolis alone we had three different jails, so this is obviously a problem that's gone on for a long time. And this is obviously a problem that's gone on for a long time, no-transcript. So here we're seeing that probation and parole are kind of helping alleviate some of the strain on that system.
Speaker 3:Yeah, and then another important aspect is maintaining the family and community ties for the offender. So by having probation and parole, your offenders can continue working, supporting their families and maintaining those important social connections that will keep them as a functional member of society, and it also helps with maintaining other key benefits like government-assisted housing. One of the things that I always hated when I was dealing with a case was being faced with a condition where I knew if I sent somebody to jail or prison, it meant that they would lose their government housing assistance. But I also knew that their family depended on that for a place to live. So if I sent the defendant to jail or prison and they lost those housing vouchers, then that also meant that their significant other and children would then have to find a new place to live and oftentimes didn't have the money to just go find some place.
Speaker 2:And when implemented effectively, these programs can improve public safety by reducing recidivism through consistent monitoring, behavioral changes and, again, access to those outside sources that they couldn't get in prison. Do we have any data on how effective these programs are in reducing recidivism? I think we sometimes hear when they don't work, which was primarily you said your interactions with this.
Speaker 3:Yes, yes, because basically you don't come back to see me unless there's a problem, right? If you go through probation and you successfully complete it, the paperwork's filed, at some point the jurisdiction on that for probation parole expires and the person goes on their way. So, from my standpoint, if you successfully complete probation or you move to another state and go on a crime spree, either way I wouldn't know whatever happened to that person. I only saw people who were coming back into the system. So I only saw the cases where they were not successful.
Speaker 3:So, while results may vary, I think there are some studies have shown good outcomes, for instance in 2018, a study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that probationers had a lower recidivism rate compared to those released from prison without any type of supervision, and that makes sense to me because you know again we mentioned it earlier If you just throw open the door and tell somebody get out and they don't have places to go, they just seem to get into more trouble, rather than if they have some place to go and they have a job set up, it makes it a lot easier for them to make the changes in their lives that they need to make.
Speaker 2:It kind of makes me think of the. I've seen it a couple of times. I don't have it memorized, like some people, but the shawshank redemption, the movie. The one guy gets released just out and he just doesn't know how to cope, like he's been in prison for so long and they just put him back out. Then, um, he turns to self-harm and suicide because that's the only way he saw he could survive was to just not survive. So I think that was a depressing turn. Now let's talk about some of the challenges that these systems can face. So one of the biggest concerns is the risk to community safety. There's always a potential risk when offenders are released early, especially if they're improperly assessed or don't have proper supervision.
Speaker 3:And inadequate supervision is a significant issue in this area, especially with the way the system is overburdened currently. So what are your thoughts on that?
Speaker 2:I think the problem is they just put you see it in social work and I know when I talked to people that were on probation and parole that worked in that system was just their caseload is so high so it's really hard to properly monitor what's going on with all your cases, when maybe you've got 50, 60, 80 cases. There's only so many hours in the day and you're supposed to go out and check on all these people, so it's easy for somebody to slip through the cracks, and I think the people that slip through the cracks are probably the ones that need the most supervision. So it's just kind of creating a system because how big our prison industrial complex has gotten that you're just putting people back out and setting them up to fail to a point because you're not hiring the amount of people you need to properly implement these systems.
Speaker 3:And I saw that too in my experience, where the probation or parole officer was just like you said, overwhelmed, had too many cases, couldn't keep up with everything. And then I would come across the case where, for instance, an officer would arrest somebody and the officer would say, hey, I know this person, I just arrested him this many months ago. He's supposed to be on probation. He's not even allowed to have alcohol. I don't know what's going on, why he has this. And then I would contact the probation officer and they'd say I didn't even know that that happened, or I didn't even know that he got arrested again, because, like you said, the caseload is just so large and sometimes there's a failure to communicate between agencies. And that was the case with my agency too. We were not as good at telling officers what happened on cases as we should have been, and I noticed that, especially in the small community. What a difference it made when I knew all the officers and they all knew me, and they could say, hey, whatever happened with Joseph Smith's case, and I could say, oh, he got two years probation, he's not allowed to drink. And they say, oh, we got two years probation, he's not allowed to drink. And they say oh, that's interesting.
Speaker 3:I saw him at Ralph's last night having a beer and I can say well, next time you see him at Ralph's and he's having a beer, write him up and send me a report and I'll of each other, and having those very burdensome caseloads is all have an impact. And then, on top of that, there's this issue of a perceived leniency, where some view probation and parole as too soft on crime and potentially undermining the deterrent effect of punishment Although I've oftentimes wondered how much of a deterrent sentencing really is to other people, because it's not like the old days where everyone gathered out back of the courthouse for the public hanging and you knew, if I do this, this is what's going to happen to me. But again, you know I don't have contact with the people who would have been deterred, as I only saw the people after they made decisions that got them into trouble and made them meet me in the first place.
Speaker 2:And I mean, I think there's always people, especially that work in the system, that have cases where they've seen the system fail. Like I remember and I remember this pretty clearly because it was the first car stop I made after the academy and I got an individual in possession of a gun, drugs, money, so obviously dealing, and they were on parole. So we turned it over to their officer. We had to go to court to kind of testify what we had found. They, you know, do the whole thing to get their parole revoked and the judge said, well, you know what Like I'm not going to revoke parole right now, I want to we need another hearing to go over things. That hearing, I believe, was scheduled for like three months later, Not more than a month later, we're called to a homicide scene and it's the same guy had killed somebody during a drug deal.
Speaker 2:And it always bothered me, like you know, if that judge had just revoked their parole because they already were showing that they weren't following the stipulations of their parole, then maybe this individual would still be alive.
Speaker 2:But that was kind of one of those instances that kind of made me think like the system fails sometimes, but it does, and that's the negative I think you get when you work in the system, where, when you're on the other side especially in the social work side that I've been at, where you can see the flip and say you know, I see a lot of people that this program has helped, but, like we kind of hinted to earlier, you only really hear those bad stories so you don't see the good that comes out of it.
Speaker 2:You know, one in a thousand are that guy, but that's the one that sticks out with you and I do think that that's true. And the flip side of that is the conditions of probation and parole can be quite burdensome. The strict rules and requirements can be challenging for offenders to manage, potentially setting them up for failure. Like we said, if you don't have access to those services, if you've got to go to treatment two days a week but you don't have a car and the bus system's not working, they're going to see that that's not. They're going to say it's your responsibility to get there, not the system's responsibility to give you a car, even if they give you a bus pass or something. Well, if the bus doesn't even run that day or doesn't show up now, you violated your probation or parole, though you are trying to do everything you can.
Speaker 3:And that was more of like what I saw on my end too, where it wasn't so much. It was a strict rule that was asking too much of a person but they weren't given the tools to be successful. So going to a class twice a week, you know, on the surface of it that's not that big of a deal, that's not that strict. But, like you said, if they don't have the tools, they don't have the way to get there. If they can't make it to the class physically, then they're not going to be successful. And it's the same as telling somebody who's self-medicating with alcohol or drugs that they just have to stop using immediately, and we're going to do routine tests to confirm that you're not using. But on the flip side, we're not going to give you any mental health resources to address the underlying problem and we're not going to give you any type of mental health medication that might actually help balance out your brain chemistry the way it needs to be, instead of trying to say, use alcohol or drugs to balance out that brain chemistry so.
Speaker 2:So, from like your experience, what have you seen to be like some of the issues and implementing programs like this?
Speaker 3:from like the more prosecutorial or that side, so a lot of it, just like you were saying. Transportation when I worked up in the mountains in Colorado, there was no public transportation outside of the city that we were in, and the city we were in was so small they didn't have any of the alcohol classes or domestic violence classes or any of that type of stuff. So you had to drive what was about 45 minutes to an hour from there to get to Colorado Springs or Woodland Park, to get to those types of resources. So again you're going back to that person who has limited resources. How are they going to get there? Can they find somebody dependable to drive them there twice a week, which then of course means that that person has to take time out of their schedule to drive 45 minutes down, wait for you to do your hour class and then drive 45 minutes back. So do you have a friend that's a good enough friend who's willing to spend six hours a week driving you around?
Speaker 3:And then again that all gets back to resources. If there was some way that we had a shuttle set up, some type of public transportation set up, where they could use that to get to classes, then it'd be easier For people who actually lived in Colorado Springs, where there was a bus system, at least you could walk to a bus stop and try to get to where you were going, or same with Denver, if you were to the places in between, like at the time Castle Rock. You couldn't find the classes in Castle Rock. You had to figure out a way to get to either Denver or Colorado Springs. So those are the types of issues that I saw on my end was either not having the availability within the class, not having the funds to pay for the class, or not having the transportation to get to the class.
Speaker 2:And I think what even enhances that more is I think in a small rural town it's probably easier, from what I've seen, but especially when you get into bigger towns and cities where you know the Social Security office. Well, you got to go get your Social Security card and stuff. Well, that's on the east side. Well, now you need to go to the license branch and get your license Well, that's on the other side of town. Oh wait, you don't have your birth certificate. Now you need to go back to another side of town to get that. To come back to here, and by the time you've done that, you can get one thing done a day just by how much you have to travel and all the things you need. And you just. It just became a system that can sometimes frustrate people, which makes it even like you know, I'll just go back to jail, like I can't, it's not even worth my time because I'm being set up to fail. And on top of that, there are also disparities really that have to do with race, economic status or geographic area.
Speaker 3:So, for example, in 2016, a study by the Sentencing Project found significant racial disparities in probation probations being revoked Um so I think that that's something we've talked about a lot in the system is those, uh, disparities between people of color, um, people in poverty, which leads to a revocation and incarceration, and the high failure rate is a significant concern to many people. According to a I'm sorry, according to a 2019 report by the Council of State Governments Justice Center, nearly half of state prison admissions are due to probation and parole violations, and, of course, that's a significant amount, and I do wonder how many of those cases would have been considered cases with a likely success rate. To begin with, I know that I had cases where I gave up key parts in a sentencing agreement, knowing the likelihood of failure with their probation would be high. We would refer to that to the catch them on the backside philosophy. So, for instance, we had a domestic violence victim and they were uncooperative Say they were in the honeymoon phase of the relationship cycle.
Speaker 3:I might drop the jail condition knowing that she wasn't going to come testify and if she did, she would be combative and because the police were out there every three weeks, they were going to get a call to come back out there next time. So I might do a plea where they get no jail time, when they normally would be going for several months but also have a condition of no alcohol, because I know every time he gets drunk he beats her up. So then next time when the police get called out and he's drunk and he beats her up, even without having a new case, I can go after the revocation of probation and get him some type of requirement for jail, domestic violence, counseling or something else that I wanted that I couldn't get the first time around. So and that's not to say you can't prosecute a domestic violence case without a victim. Obviously, in a murder case you don't have a victim to testify, but it makes it far more difficult, especially if a defendant's using an affirmative defense of self-defense.
Speaker 2:And I think, from a social work perspective, like there needs to be more emphasis on issues of limited resources. That's a big issue of not having enough social workers, not having enough funding. You know we deinstitutionalize the systems and we've. We talk about that a lot. That's probably one of my biggest soapboxes I'll ever be on. But we didn't create the systems in the community to help people in the first place, which has created this cycle of especially people with mental health issues ending up in the system in the first place.
Speaker 2:But many probation and parole systems lack adequate funding to provide the necessary support services for successful reintegration, job trainings, education, mental health treatment, substance abuse treatment, helping transportation systems that can help people get to work. If you don't have a car, your license has been revoked, but you're supposed to have a job, how are you supposed to get to and from, especially if you have, say, you have that condition on parole that you can't talk to former criminals. Well, if half of your network that you had, you know, and the only person that could take you to work is somebody you know has got a criminal record, is it not going to work and risk that violation, or is it getting a ride from your friend that's got a criminal history as well and risk that violation, but still getting to work Like it's just a system that seems to sometimes set people up and there's not enough resources to make that happen.
Speaker 3:So, as we're wrapping up, it's clear that probation and parole play crucial roles in our justice system, but they're not without their challenges. So, as you're looking at this, what do you think the future holds for these systems?
Speaker 2:I think right now that's a really touchy subject, Like what does the system look like? I think it depends and I mean, you know we try to stay out of politics and there's a reason for that, because that's not what this is but I really do think it depends on red states and blue states. Like blue states do seem to be putting more towards reform aspects and trying to decrease prison populations and part of do seem to be putting more towards reform aspects and trying to decrease prison populations, and part of that has to do with they just have the money to do it. Like they have the money to try new things and see how they happen. Where red states, because of the limited budgets they have, they really have to be more specific on how they approach things and they can't really afford to take new risks or try pilot programs or to try and implement new things, which is like in Indiana, where we see a lot of your rural counties. They don't have access to treatment, so it's the jails that are trying to somehow provide those treatment resources and stuff without the funding and they become the de facto drug treatment facility drug treatment facility. So I think, like the future, it just depends on if resources become available and then how they're implemented, and taking risks, working with social work and criminal justice programs at universities to try and come up with new creative ideas.
Speaker 2:And technology helps as well. You know we'll see what technology brings more. But you've got the systems where you have to breathe into your ignition before you can start your car. You have the ankle monitoring systems. You have phone tracking systems, so I think the more technology gains. I don't know, maybe even there's a place for AI to help with this, to take alleviate some of the stress off of probation and parole officers. I think there's a place for AI to help with this to alleviate some of the stress off of probation and parole officers.
Speaker 2:I think there's a lot of good that could happen, but I also could see us very easily slipping back into just a prison straight form system.
Speaker 3:It's interesting that you mentioned the ignition interlock and it brought up something in my mind that I forgot about, but about oh geez, it's probably been 15, 20 years ago when we were talking about ignition interlock because you were talking about the obstacles for people on probation parole. One of those is you can drive a car but it has to have an ignition interlock, which means you have to do a breath test within the car to make it actually start, and those are very expensive to get put in your car. So go back to that no resources Couldn't afford to put in the ignition interlock. Now I don't have a car, now I can't get to work.
Speaker 3:And I made a comment to one of my co-workers about if they just put those into every car straight off the because you had that it would prevent DUIs in the first place. So all these fatal DUI crashes with all these tragic consequences, let alone like the little misdemeanor things, would be prevented. And at the time in New Mexico we'd had like three or four where people who were drunk got on the interstate going the wrong way, hit another car. Both of them are going 80 miles per hour and you know, the whole family in the other car is annihilated. And you see that and you think, gee, if we just did that, one little piece of technology, that would have prevented this entire family from being wiped out.
Speaker 3:And at the time the person that was talking to was mad because he said it would infringe on his liberties if they made those things be required for everyone. And I was like, well, it's the same as seatbelts. They make seatbelts required in every car and there's a reason for that, because it saves lives. But there was a friend, a different coworker. She was working with a company that was working on a technology I think it was called TrueTouch, but it was supposed to be able to detect alcohol through your skin, through your touch. So instead of it being an ignition interlock where you had to blow into it, there would be something built into the steering wheel. When you touched it it would be able to tell if you had alcohol in your system. But I don't think they ever got the technology to work. So that's another place where technology could really help us out.
Speaker 2:I knew somebody was going to bring up that you're encroaching on my liberties. The other thing I always thought was interesting and I didn't have a lot of these cases but we had a couple where somebody had that technology on their car and then they would have their friend blow into it and then they would drive drunk and I'm like, but your friend was sober, why didn't you just let them drive Like it was just? People will fight so hard to get around a system. That really makes no sense. If you have a sober person, just let them drive. But I also saw where people would have their kids do it for them that's what I was just gonna say I had three cases where they had their kids do it.
Speaker 3:So you can't exactly let your eight-year-old drive. But it's.
Speaker 2:some people are just always going to try and find a way around the system instead of trying to enhance and better themselves. And there are some jurisdictions that are experimenting with evidence-based practices to improve outcomes as well. I've been part of some of those. As a social worker I worked at a treatment facility where if you were coming out on parole you had to go through our 90-day treatment program. If you were successful, then you were granted parole, If not, you would go back in. There's also a growing emphasis on cognitive behavioral interventions and other motivational interviewing techniques to promote behavioral change. Emdr is another one that's really kind of grown in this space to try and address prior traumas that may be leading to some of the maybe substance use issues or disorders that individuals have, and that it's promising. But again, this stuff takes money and funding and time. So it's making and working with the states and the federal government to provide that type of funding.
Speaker 3:Maybe we can find another single person hero who takes on that risk and changes the system for everybody.
Speaker 2:Absolutely so. I think it's important to remember that probation and parole it affects millions. I mean again 2019, we had 3.4 million people just on probation. So understanding these systems is kind of crucial for knowing the system. Understanding it better when you're hearing it in the media and in the news and how they're reporting about it, or if they're talking about what sentence somebody got, why they may have seen that and kind of how this system just developed over history, I think is fascinating to me.
Speaker 3:So, just like you said, it's complex, there's a lot of moving pieces to it, a lot, lot of factors, but it is something that's very important and if we don't understand how things are working, then we can't take steps to identifying problems and finding solutions absolutely.
Speaker 2:I think this has been a great topic and a great episode. I want to thank everybody for listening and I think, if we go from the beginning to the end, I'm just going to go ahead and just visit jail and continue on to Park Place. Thank you for listening. I want to thank you all so much for listening to our little podcast. This is created with love and passion for criminal justice and true crime. So if you're enjoying the podcast, please follow us, like or rate us on whatever system you're listening to us on, subscribe to our podcast and download episodes.
Speaker 2:Downloads are important for our growth, as is growing our listeners. So if you wouldn't mind, take the time to ask your friends, family, co-workers, tell them about us through word of mouth, social media. I don't care if you even scream at strangers on the streets, to help us kind of get out there who we are. If you're interested in learning more, you could visit our website at wwwdeviantcriminologycom. There you'll find some stuff about our backgrounds, references, show notes for each episode. You can also follow us on our Facebook page at Deviant Criminology. We also have an Instagram page, which is Deviant underscore Criminology. Or find me at Dr Richard Weaver on Instagram. And as we grow, we hope to develop a community that will grow with us. So again, thank you for taking the time to listen and have a good week.
