Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The offender in the community: Implications of the experience in the United States for the new Czech Republic

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reviews America's community corrections history in order to draw relevant penal policy implications for the Czech Republic in their transition to democracy. The review reveals the implementation of numerous community-based correctional programs that have resulted in mixed results, at best. The paper concludes that if the Czech Republic is to advance a new and professional, effective penal system, they must address five critical areas: dealing with the Romany underclass, establishing intermediate sanctions, promoting a professional correctional work force, confronting the media coverage of crime, and managing the politics of crime policy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

The offender in the community: Implications of the experience in the United States for the new Czech Republic

  • Harry Allen, Richard Seiter, Eric Carlson, H. Bowman, J. Grandfield and J. Beran, National Evaluation Program Phase I: Residential Inmate Aftercare, the State of the Art Summary (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  • Don Andrews and James Bonta, The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (Cincinatti: Anderson Publishing Company, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  • Don Andrews, Ivan Zinger, Richard Hoge, James Bonta, Paul Gendreau and Franklin Cullen, "Does Correctional Treatment Work? A Psychologically Informed Meta-Analysis." Criminology 1990 (28), 369–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James Austin, "America's Growing Correctional-Industrial Complex." NCCD Focus, 1990.

  • James Austin and Patricia Hardyman, The Use of Early Parole with Electronic Monitoring to Control Prison Crowding: Evaluation of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections PreParole Supervised Release with Electronic Monitoring.Unpublished Report to the National Institute of Justice, 1991.

  • James Austin and Richard Tillman, Ranking the Nation's Most Punitive States (San Francisco: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  • James Austin and Barry Krisberg, "The Unmet Promise of Alternatives to Incarceration." Crime and Delinquency 1982 (28), 374–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Christopher Baird, "Probation and Parole Classification: The Wisconsin Model." Corrections Today 1981 (43), 36–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Christopher Baird, Todd R. Clear and Patricia Harris, The Behavior Tools of Probation Officers: A Study of Probation Sanctions in Five Sites.Unpublished proposal to the National Institute of Justice, 1986.

  • S. Christopher Baird, Richard Heinz and Brian Bemus, The Wisconsin Case Classification/Staff Deployment Project: A Two Year Follow-Up Report (Madison: Wisconsin Department of Health and Human Services, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Banks, A. Porter, P. Rardin, T. Silver and V. Unger, Evaluation of Intensive Special Probation Projects (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  • Terry Baumer and Robert Mendelsohn, "Electronically Monitored Home Confinement: Does It Work?" in Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions, edited by J. Byrne, A. Lurigio and J. Petersilia (Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • Terry Baumer and Robert Mendelsohn, The Electronic Monitoring of Nonviolent Convicted Felons: An Experiment in Home Detention. Final Report to the National Institute of Justice, 1990.

  • Bureau of Justice Statistics, Correctional Populations in the United States, 1990 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of Justice Statistics, Bulletin (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1991). Bureau of Justice Statistics, Report to the Nation on Crime and Justice(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  • Peggy Burke and Linda Adams, Classification of Women Offenders in State Correctional Facilities: A Handbook for Practitioners (Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • James Byrne, "The Future of Intensive Supervision Probation." Crime and Delinquency 1990 (36), 6–39. James Byrne, "Re-integrating the Concept of Community into Community Based Corrections." Crime and Delinquency1989 (35), 471-499.

    Google Scholar 

  • James Byrne and Mary Brewster, "Choosing the Future of American Corrections: Punishment or Reform?" Federal Probation 1993 (57), 3–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • James Byrne and Linda Kelly, Restructuring Probation as an Intermediate Sanction: An Evaluation of the Massachusetts Intensive Probation Supervision Program.Final Report to the National Institute of Justice, 1989.

  • James Byrne and Anthony Pattavina, "The Effectiveness Issue: Assessing What Works in the Adult Community Corrections System," in Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions, edited by J. Byrne, A. Lurigio and J. Petersilia (Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • James Byrne, Arthur Lurigio and S. Christopher Baird, "The Effectiveness of the 'New' Intensive Supervision Programs." Research in Corrections 1989, 5: 1–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robert Carter and Leslie T. Wilkins, Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections, second edition (New York: Wiley and Sons, 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  • Todd R. Clear and Anthony Braga, "Intensive Supervision-Why Bother?" in Innovative Trends and Specialized Strategies in Community-Based Corrections, edited by C. Fields (New York: Garland Publishing, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  • Todd R. Clear and Kenneth Gallagher, "Probation and Parole Supervision: A Review of Current Classification Practices." Crime and Delinquency 1985 (31), 423–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Todd R. Clear and Kenneth Gallagher, "Screening Devices in Probation and Parole: Management Problems." Evaluation Review 1983 (7): 217–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Todd R. Clear and George Cole, American Corrections, third edition (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  • Todd R. Clear and Vincent O'Leary, Controlling the Offender in the Community (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  • Todd R. Clear, James Byrne and John Dvoskin, "The Transition from Being an Inmate: Discharge Planning, Parole, and Community-Based Services for Mentally Ill Offenders," in Mental Illness in America's Prisons, edited by H. Steadman and J. Cocozza (Seattle: National Coalition for the Mentally Ill in the Criminal Justice System, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley Cohen, Visions of Social Control (Cambridge, UK: Polity, 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mark Cunniff and Mary Shilton, Variations on Felony Probation: Persons under Supervision in 32 Urban and Suburban Counties (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • James Dawson, Felony Probation in State Courts (Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephen Dillingham, National Corrections Reporting Program, 1985 (Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  • Billie S. Erwin, "Turning up the Heat on Probationers in Georgia." Federal Probation 1986 (50), 17–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Florida Department of Corrections, Boot Camp Evaluation and Boot Camp Commitment Rate. Unpublished Report by the Bureau of Planning, Research and Statistics, 1989.

  • Mark Geerken and Harold Hayes, "Probation and Parole: Public Risks and the Future of Incarceration Alternatives." Criminology 1993 (31), 549–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul Gendreau, Franklin Cullen and James Bonta, "Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision: The Next Generation in Community Corrections?" Federal Probation 1994 (58), 72–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Georgia Department of Corrections, Georgia's Special Alternative Incarceration. Unpublished report to the Shock Incarceration Conference, 1989.

  • Stephen D. Gottfredson and Don M. Gottfredson, Incapacitation Strategies and the Criminal Career, LEICMonograph Series, Number 8,CaliforniaDepartment of Justice, Sacramento, December, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sally Hillsman and Judy Greene, "The Use of Fines as an Intermediate Sanction," in Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions, edited by J. Byrne, A. Lurigio and J. Petersilia (Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephen P. Lab and John T. Whitehead, "From 'Nothing Works' to 'The Appropriate Works': The Latest Stop in the Search for the Secular Grail." Criminology 1990 (28), 405–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pat Langan, "Between Prison and Probation: Intermediate Sanctions." Science 1994 (264): 791–793.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pat Langan and Mark Cunniff, "Recidivism of Felons on Probation, 1986-89." Special Report (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • Edward Latessa and Lawrence Travis III, "Residential Community Correctional Programs," in Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions, edited by J. Byrne, A. Lurigio and J. Petersilia (Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • Edward Latessa and Harry E. Allen, "Halfway Houses and Parole: A National Assessment." Journal of Criminal Justice 1982 (10): 153–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul Lerman, Community Treatment and Social Control (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas Lipton, Robert Martinson and Tamara Wilks, Effectiveness of Correctional Treatment: A Survey of Treatment Evaluation Studies (Springfield, Massachusetts: Praeger, 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  • Charles H. Logan and Gerald G. Gaes, "Meta-Analysis and the Rehabilitation of Punishment." Justice Quarterly 1993 (10), 245–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory Markley and Michael Eisenberg, Evaluation of the Texas Parole Classification and Case Management System (Austin: Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  • Doris MacKenzie, "The Parole Performance of Offenders Released from Shock Incarceration." Journal of Quantitative Criminology 1991 (7), 213–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doris MacKenzie and Dale Parent, "Boot Camp Prisons for Young Offenders," in Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions, edited by J. Byrne, A. Lurigio and J. Petersilia (Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • T. Matthews, Survey of Probation Cost Considerations.(Lexington, Kentucky: American Probation and Parole Association, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • James McDevitt and Richard Miliano, "Day Reporting Centers: An Innovative Concept in Intermediate Sanctions," in Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions, edited by J. Byrne, A. Lurigio and J. Petersilia (Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas McDonald, "Punishing Labor: Unpaid Community Service as a Criminal Sentence, in Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions, edited by James Byrne, Arthur Lurigio and Joan Petersilia (Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas McDonald, "The Cost of Corrections." Research in Corrections 1989 (4): 1–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas McDonald, Punishment Without Walls: Community Service Sentences in New York City (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  • National Institute of Corrections, Model Probation and Parole Management Project Handbook (Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections, 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  • New York State Division of Parole, Shock Incarceration: One Year Out. Unpublished Report, 1989.

  • David Nurco, T. Hanlan and T. Kinlock, Offenders, Drugs, and Treatment (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ted Palmer, The Re-Emergence of Correctional Interventions (Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dale Parent, Day Reporting Centers for Criminal Offenders: A Descriptive Analysis of Existing Programs (Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dale Parent, Shock Incarceration: An Overview of Existing Programs (Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank Pearson and A. Harper, "Contingent Intermediate Sentences: New Jersey's Intensive Supervision Program." Crime and Delinquency 1990 (36): 75–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joan Petersilia, Expanding Options for Criminal Sentencing(Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 1987). Joan Petersilia and Susan Turner, "Intensive Probation and Parole," in Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 19, edited by M. Tonry and N. Morris (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • Joan Petersilia, John Peterson and Susan Turner, Intensive Probation and Parole: Research Findings and Policy Implications (Santa Monica, California: RAND Corporation, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • Joan Petersilia, Susan Turner, James Kahan and John Peterson, Granting Felons Probation: Public Risks and Alternatives (Santa Monica, California: RAND Corporation, 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mark Renzema, "Home Confinement Programs: Development, Implementation, and Impact," in Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions, edited by J. Byrne, A. Lurigio and J. Petersilia (Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mark Renzema and D. Skelton, The Use of Electronic Monitoring by Criminal Justice Agencies in 1989. Final Report to the National Institute of Justice, 1990.

  • Robert Ross and Elizabeth Fabiano, Time to Think: A Cognitive Model for Delinquency Prevention and Offender Rehabilitation (Johnson City: Institute of Social Science and Arts, 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  • Albert Reiss and John Roth (eds.), Understanding and Preventing Violence (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • William Spelman, Criminal Incapacitation (New York: Plenum, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  • Faye Taxman and James Byrne, "Punishment, Probation, and the Problem of Community Control: A Randomized Field Experiment on Absconder Location Strategies," in Innovative Trends and Specialized Strategies in Community-Based Corrections, edited by Charles Fields (New York: Garland Publishing, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  • Michale Tonry, "Stated and Latent Features of SP." Crime and Delinquency 1990 (36): 174–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susan Turner, Joan Petersilia and Elizabeth Deschenes, "The Implementation and Effectiveness of Drug Testing in Community Supervision: Results of an Experimental Evaluation," in Drugs and Crime: Evaluating Public Policy Initiatives, edited by Doris MacKenzie and Craig Uchida (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. General Accounting Office, Intermediate Sanctions: Their Impacts on Prison Crowding, Costs, and Recidivism (Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gennaro Vito, "Felony Probation and Recidivism: Replication and Response." Federal Probation 1986 (50), 17–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrew von Hirsch, Martin Wasik and Judith Greene, "Punishments in the Community and the Principles of Desert." Rutgers Law Journal 1989 (20): 595–618.

    Google Scholar 

References

  • Burianek, Jiri, "Czech Public Reflections on the Anomie, Criminality and Punishment." Charles University.

  • "Country Data for the Czech Republic." http://www.itaiep.doc.gov/eebic/economcomm/ czecom.html

  • "CTK News Summary: June 24, 25, 26, 27, 29." http://www.ctknews.com/frictk,html

  • "Czech Republic." CIA Factbook at gopher://hoshi.cic.sfu.c...m/cia/all/Czech-Republic

  • "Eastern Promise." 1977. The Economist. April 12-18, Vol. 343, No. 8012, p. 77.

  • "European Prison Rules." http://www.penlex.org.uk/europrul.html

  • Hagan, John and Radoeva, Detelina. 1996. "Crime and Capitalism in the Czech Republic." University of Toronto. Presented in Prague, Czech Republic on May 13, 1996.

  • Lotspeich, Richard, 1995. "Crime in the Transition Economies." Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 555–589.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pehe, Jiri. 1994. "Czech Republic's Crime Rate Slows Down." RFE-RL Research Report. Vol. 3, No. 8, 25 February, pp. 43–48.

  • Scheinost, Dr. Miroslav. 1994. "Some Remarks on the Problem of Organized Crime in the Czech Republic." Institute of Criminology and Social Prevention.

  • Valkova, Helena. 1994. "Tschechische Republik/Czech Republic."

  • Valkova, Helena. 1992. "Czechoslovakia-Changes in the Prison System." Institute of State and Law, Prague, Czechoslovakia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walmsley, Roy, 1996. Prison Systems in Central and Eastern Europe: Progress, Problems and the International Standards.HUENI, European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control, affiliated with the United Nations. Tammer-Paino Oy, Tampere, Finland.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Criminology and Criminal Jusitice, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

    Todd R. Clear, Matthew White & Kristen Presnell

Authors
  1. Todd R. Clear
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kristen Presnell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Clear, T.R., White, M. & Presnell, K. The offender in the community: Implications of the experience in the United States for the new Czech Republic. Crime, Law and Social Change 28, 243–268 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008281416069

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008281416069

Keywords

Search

Navigation