Download - First Offenders: A Deferred Prosecution Program

First Offenders: A Deferred Prosecution Program

By RONALD T. ZAFFRANN

INTRODUCTION While the purpose of confinement is sup-

posedly the reform or rehabilitation of the offender, the process of confinement itself prevents it! Due in part to this irony, the First Offenders Program (FOP) was begun.

The purpose of this article is to provide exposure to and for the FOP. Although the people admitted into the program account for a wide range in age, approximately eighty-five percent ofthe first offenders to date have been juveniles; the majority of the remaining fif- teen percent have been young adults. Equip- ped with an understanding of, and belief in, the program, readers may find it worthwhile to initiate and test out similar programs in their communities as an alternative to punishment for juvenile first offenders.

Part Two of this article offers a descriptive overview of the FOP, including the need for the program, underlying rationale and assumptions, goals, and methodologies. In Part Three, discussion centers upon an examination of those methodologies, the role of the community, and an evaluation of the FOP.

Author's address: Ronald T. Zaffrann, Project Assistant Research and Guidance Laboratory University of Wisconsin-Madison 1025 West Johnson Street Madison, Wisconsin 53706

THE FIRST OFFENDER PROGRAM: AN OVERVIEW

NEED FOR THE PROGRAM

The preseqt Dane County, Wisconsin, deferred prosecution program was founded in October, 1972, by former District Attorney Gerald Nichol and continues under the authority of District Attorney Humphrey J. Lynch.

The FOP is one of a growing number of pretrial diversion programs. These programs differ widely both in the type of offenders allowed to participate.and in the scope of the rehabilitative services which are provided.

A need exists in Dane County for such a program because of a significant increase in the incidence of minor crimes. Minor crimes are here defined as including shoplifting, theft, burglary, property damage, those crimes of a nonviolent nature which are usually not of sufficient gravity to incur a sentence beyond probation, a small fine, or a short jail term.

The current list of crimes encompassed within the program's focus includes shoplifting, theft, burglary, grand theft, property damage, issuance of worthless checks, inde- cent exposure, and minor drug offenses. TO date, approximately eighty percent of the program participants have been charged with shoplifting.

August, 1976 I Juvenile Justice 41

RONALD T. ZAFFRANN

Deferred prosecution programs exist elsewhere in the United States, although not in exactly this same format. No other county in Wisconsin has such a program. Presum- ably, such a program could be initiated any- where there is local support or provision by law.

RATIONALE

Recent studies dealing with the effects of punishment and confinement indicate that lengthy sentences neither deter crime nor prevent recidivism.2 If a first offender could not afford to pay the required fine, and would, therefore, be forced into confinement, then that could feasibly be taken to constitute a relatively lengthy sentence.

O n the other hand, reducing the penalties for some offenses has not caused an increase in repeated offenses; in fact, recidivism has sometimes decreased. Following a thorough review of literature on corrections, researchers Robinson and Smith conclude:

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the act of incarcerating a person at all will impair uhate\.er potential he has for crime-free future adjiistnient. . . . Regardless of which “treatments” are administered while he is imprisoned, the longer a person is kept there, the more deteriorated and recidi1,istic he will become.’

It may be that a reduction in penalty can bring about a concomitant decrease in recidivism for first offenders. It is upon this belief that the deferred prosecution program is based and against which it must ultimately be tested.

According to former U.S. Attorney Gen- eral, William B. Saxbe. rehabilitation and probation for first offenders may be benefi- ~ i a l . ~ This is based on a Justice Department Law Enforcement Assistance Administration study on rehabilitation. (The same report contends that the beneficial effects of rehabilitation efforts, probation, and furloughs for hardened criminals - those with a lengthy record of violent crimes - are essentially myths.)

We are aware, however, that pretrial intervention is hardly a panacea for solving all

criminal justice ailments. In fact, rather than being a solution, diversion appears to exist primarily as an opportunity to accomplish certain ends and avoid others.

“The largest group of potential participants are those people with no previous criminal record who are arrested for shoplifting. Persons accused of other misdemeanors, such as petty theft, disorderly conduct, property damage, burglary, are also considered for the program.”

It is essential, then, that this opportunity be afforded to those who will make use of it. It seems reasonable to call for the development of a “systematic means of identifying those persons who could without significantly increased danger to society, be screened out of the criminal justice system and who could benefit from an intervention program.”s

If the First Offender Program with its built-in evaluation system can consistently and conscientiously strive for substance and effectiveness in achieving its goals, then a natural result of the program itself could be a systematic identification procedure. This issue is discussed further in the section on Methodologies.

ASSUMPTIONS

The essential question toward which the First Offender Program is directed is, What is the best way to treat people who have been arrested for the first time for committing petty crimes?

The answer to this question, in the form of the FOP itself, is based on a set of assumptions about the program participants and how they can change. 1. The program assumes that its participants

are basically normal. This assumption means that, using the medical model of mental health, these people would not be diagnosed or categorized as neurotic or psychotic. They are usually aware of and in control of their own behavior and can

42 Juvenile Justice I August, 1976

FIRST OFFENDERS: DEFERRED PROSECUTION

function effectively in society. Those admitted into the program fall across a wide range of age, education, income, and ethnic background.

2. Questions can be raised as to whether these participants are criminals. There seems to be quite a bit of difference in referring to a criminal as:

a. One who commits a crime. b. One who commits a crime and in- tended to commit it. c. One who consistently lives by criminal behavior.

The program participants have no previous adult records, have not been convicted of other crimes, and have not been incarc- erated or fined.

3. Punishment vs. Education. The program assumes that the use of fines and confinement will not significantly change the behavior of the first offender. It may be that these people should not be punished but educated; this is the basic thrust of the FOP. A description of the program’s methodologies regarding how this education is provided is included below in Methodologies.

4. This emphasis upon education is also due to a belief in a person’s ability to change. Although people are influenced by external forces -they obey rules because they fear punishment; they learn because of outside pressures and rules - they also have the potential to change from within. People can learn to control their own behavior, to become aware of some factors underlying their behavior, to substitute productive activities for ones which were destructive or anti-social, and to accomplish all of this because they want to do it. This belief in the development of a personal internal system through education is integral to FOP.

GOALS

Essentially, the goals of the FOP are: 1. The reduction of the rate of recidivism. 2. Demonstration that the criminal justice

system can show conipassion and concern for the individual.

3 . Saving of costs. 4. Removal of criminal stigma. 5. An attempt to move from an external

source to an internal source of control of behavior.

A further examination of these objectives is presented in the section on Evaluation.

METHODOLOGIES

The procedures of the FOP consist of intake (screening and interview), a contract, availability of referral, and attendance at classes. Each of these steps will be introduced briefly below. Intake

Following arrest, a first offender is inter- viewed at the District Attorney’s Office. Helshe has the option to: (a) plead not guilty and go to trial; (b) plead guilty to the charges against him/her and submit to the fine or jail sentence; (c) enter the FOP where it is possi- ble to have any criminal stigma erased from hidher record.

Each potential FOP participant completes an intake-information profile which includes basic personal data: name, address, marital status, education, current occupation, the criminal charges he/she faces, and request for counseling services.

The decision to admit an individual to the program rests with the member of the district attorney’s staff and the program coordinator.

Contract Each person admitted to the FOP com-

pletes and signs an individual contract. If he/she complies with the contract conditions, the prosecutor agrees to refrain from filing a complaint with the court. A more thorough description of the contract is included below. Referral

The major rehabilitative service provided by the program outside ofthe classes is referral of participants to community agencies in order that they may receive specialized assistance.

Most referrals are to the Drug Abuse Sec- tion of the Dane County Mental Health Center. Other agencies, such as the United Way Counseling Services, are also utilized.

August, 1976 1 Juvenile Justice 43

RONALD T. ZAFFRANN

Classes The First Offenders School consists of four

weeks of classes which meet for two hours every Tuesday and Thursday evening. The average class size has been about forty participants, divided into four groups of ten each.

The focus of each class follows a topical outline. Topics covered throughout the course include the participant’s feelings about being in the program; a person’s relationships with other people, with institutions, with society, with the law; a moot court; view of the law from police, from attorneys, and from confined offenders; and an evaluation of the course by the participants themselves.

The discussion leaders or moderators - depending on the topic of the class - are counselors, businessmen, attorneys, priests, city officials, psychiatrists, law students, county court judges, policemen, and ex- convicts.

For most individuals, the completion of the classes ends their active involvement with the program; their only additional responsibility will be to adhere to the other contract provisions for the required time period.

The four aspects ofthe FOP outlined above -intake, contract, referral and classes - will now be examined more closely.

DISCUSSION METHODOLOGIES

Intake The largest group of potential participants

are those people with no previous criminal record who are arrested for shopl8ting. Per- sons accused of other misdemeanors, such as - petty theft, disorderly conduct, property damage, and burglary, are also considered for the program.

The factors that seem to most influence the exercise of prosecutorial discretion are the defendant’s age, family circumstances, and attitude; the existence of a prior juvenile record; and the willingness of the individual to cooperate and accept responsibility for the alleged offense.

Given the maze ofthese inextricably linked factors, it would seem impossible to establish

a set of criteria which would guarantee equity or uniformity in the screening process. It is obvious that a case-by-case approach is jus- tified here. Yet, it seems necessary to establish some’guidelines for selection and screening, if only to ensure that these processes are not simply arbitrary.

This same issue can be raised with the intake interview. Because these interviews vary significantly, both in length and in substance depending on the offense charged and the problem presented by each case, we can- not be certain that any degree of uniformity or equal treatment is maintained.

Furthermore, the tone of many interviews is that of a counseling session, rather than mere information exchange. From this interview, the staff member decides the terms of that individual’s participation in the program. However, at least two problems exist here. First, there is a tendency for first counseling sessions to be basically smokescreen or feel- each-other-out maneuvers. That is, much of the interview may be spent by the client sub- stituting gamesmanship techniques or simple conversation for the real issues or conflicts which trouble him. Second, it is not impossible for clients to bluff a counselor for their own ends. Given these two immediate dan- gers, it appears presumptuous to prescribe an offender’s program terms based on one interview alone.

It has been suggested that any program is only as good as its selection and screening procedures allow it to be. An ongoing examination of the effectiveness of these procedures is in order.

Contract Basically, the only conditions set on each

offender are those outlined in the contract form. The contract period may vary from three months to a year. Of the thirty-eight contracts signed for July 1974, twenty-five were for a period of six months, eight were for a year, four were for nine months, and one for three months.

There is also space on the contract form for additional terms to be inserted. These terms may include an agreement of restitution on


FIRST OFFENDERS: DEFERRED

the part of the accused in theft cases or referrals for counseling in instances where it is warranted .

In the contract, the offender agrees to the basic conditions of the program: (a) attendance at the FOP and successful completion of its classes; (b) refraining from violation of any local, state, or federal law.

In exchange for completion of these re- quirements, n o criminal prosecution or iuvenile proceedings are instituted.

However, if a person fails to comply with the contract terms, the District Attorney may: (a) revoke or modify any condition of this deferred prosecution; (b) change the period of deferment or period of attendance at the FOP; or (c) prosecute the offender as an adult.

Referrals The referrals made by FOP staff members

often require only that the individual seek some counseling. In some instances, a specific minimum number of visits, usually three, is required. But this approach can only guarantee that the participant gain mere exposure to counseling services.

The perceptions and decisions of the staff members in charge of screening and referrals are trusted to be accurate and significant. These decisions, then, should carry with them some element of direction and control. If an individual is seen to be in need of counseling, then this should be specified and required, not merely left to chance or the semi- initiative of participants.

Classes The focus of the classes may need to

change from one of informational education through lecture and discussion to one of personal education through self-examination and structured group counseling activities. A discussion of this appears later in the section on Evaluation.

Counselor Role. But this will necessitate a change in the role of the present group leader or moderator. Ivey distinguishes three themes within which different roles are beginning to emerge for counselors, particularly in a correctional setting.

PROSECUTION

The counselor as a social change agent, a person who is invohed with opening tip a closed system. The counselor as a resource developer, who provides links between the services of the coniniiinity and tlie offender. The coiinselor as a therapist, who deals with the beha\iors of the indiiidual as they try to relate to the

While the counselor in the First Offender Program may find himself or herself assuming each of these above roles at different times and at different stages of the process, it appears that a principal emphasis would be in role three as a therapist or group facilitator.

Hidher task is to provide a climate where participants feel accepted and not looked down upon, where they feel free to be themselves, where they can examine their behavior and learn how to govern that behavior in the future.

Stratton speaks directly to this point when he claims that

perhaps tlie most iinfortuiiate \vay a probation worker cons his client is to do things for him that he should do himself . . . (this is) one of the most degrading things we can do to another human being because it depri\,es him of tlie ahlit\, and initiati1.e to perform tlie siniplest acts for himself. and creates a depcndency that is unrealistic and tinliealth!~ for both parties in\.ol\rd . . . instead, the probation or parolc officer niust spend more time and effort allo\fing his client to grow and beconie his ow1 person.'

This may necessitate a reevaluation of program personnel with respect to group counseling skills. A brief but intensive and substantial inservice training session for staff members would help to:

1 .

2.

3.

-1.

The

De\.elop oiie's confidence and still5 as a group leader or facilitator. Establish a clear set of objecti\rs for the group sessions. Clarifi a set of techniques. esercises. or methodologies to be used in the groups. Work out a new set of criteria for e\.aliia- tion of these group sessions.

Offender-Participant. Correctional programs based in the community attempt to eliminate the barriers that might isolate the


RONALD T. ZAFFRANN

first offender from society; the goal is to pre- pare the person for an effective return to the community.

One way to overcome these barriers is by soliciting and encouraging the active participation of the offender in the program, not only as subject or member, but also as planner and staff.

Community-based correctional programs also tend to rely more heavily on offender and ex-offender staffing patterns. Though it would be hard to name any area of the criminal justice system that has not had at least some level of offender and ex-offender input, past roles for inmates have been dictated more by economic pressure, exploitation and personal manipulation than by any philosophi- cal belief in the value of involving inmates in correctional work. Community-based correctional programs often include systematic training programs for the development of offenders as professional and sub-professional staff members.8

It may be impossible to include an offender as a member of the staff for reasons of budget. However, training sessions could be held to help an interested offender to: (a) become better acquainted with the total program, (b) help him/her decide what role he/she could or would want to play in the program, (c) de- velop basic communication skills for some sessions.

If such a set of new procedures were initiated and implemented, the program could hope for several positive results.

First, the offender-participant would be given a significant role in hidher own correctional process. Things would no longer simply be happening to him/her from the outside. Rather, he/she would be assuming more responsibility for hidher own growth and rehabilitation.

Second, this assumption of responsibility and concomitant feeling of significance may generalize to other members of the group. Rather than experiencing a general sense of boredom because of classes which are easily perceived to be irrelevant, a n offender- participant, and hopefully other group members, would become interested in examining,

designing, and providing classes that are stimulating and worthwhile.

Third, through the eyes of a few participants some of the staff members appear self- righteous, patronizing. This evokes feelings of self-deprecation, worthlessness, resulting in general negative mental attitudes. An offender-participant, however, can help provide a positive atmosphere without appearing goody-goody. He/she can be humane without appearing condescending and express his/her personal values without appearing dogmatic.

Fourth , the o ffender-pa rtici pan t can make use of this new positive atmosphere and the feelings of oneness with the other members in class discussions and in the group counseling sessions. He/she can help to show that it is all right to participate in the group and not re- main silent, hostile, or apathetic; that personal feelings and attitudes and values can be shared without the fear of being laughed at or sneered at; that the group can help one to explore new behaviors without negative feelings or ridicule; that one can change one’s criminal behaviors more easily with the support of others than alone.

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT A N D SERVICE

The focus of corrections is upon both the offenders and the community including the police, the judicial system, citizen volun- teers, and public and private agencies.

Programs that can establish positive links between the offender and the community are many and varied. However, all of them fall under the definition provided by the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, where community- based corrections includes “all correctional activities that take place in the c ~ m m u n i t y . ” ~ Community-based corrections are not confined to sentenced offenders only, but to any individual at any stage of the criminal justice process.’O Included, therefore, are different kinds of probation programs and potential diversion programs, of which First Offenders is an example.

46 Juvenile Justice / August, 1976


One community-based program, described by Pearce involves the use of service to the community by the offender.

. . . community service by offenders has to be seen as an alternative to a custodial sentence in the cases where the public interest is not an overriding consideration demanding that the offender should be imprisoned . . . it attempts to show society that an offender, prop- erly supervised, can contribute to the public good.’ I

The FOP has not yet experimented with Community service as a contract requirement; it only requires class attendance and obser- vance of the probationary period rules. Cur- rently, the program solicits and utilizes the expertise of interested members from various segments of the Madison community. It is hoped that the exposure to this cross-section of individuals involved in one’s community will affect the first offender in terms of awareness of one’s criminal behavior, its effect upon the community, one’s role (and potential role) within that Community, and reasons for criminal behavior change.

If the concept of service to the community were to be tested out, it would require a series of steps and procedures to be met, for example, determination of goals and specific kinds of services to be delivered, supervision of the participants, evaluation and follow-up, staff involvement, and especially the attitudes of the community itself toward this project.

Assumptions about the community’s interest in such a program, or in the offenders themselves, for that matter, may be prema- ture and unfounded. In fact, the FOP has already been challenged by some aldermen who support stiffer punishment over rehabilitation, and who express distaste for the program’s easy way out.

For example, Gelfand et a1 found in their study that only twenty-eight percent of the shoppers witnessing the crime even gave the shoplifter a moment’s notice, and only twenty-eight percent of these observers bothered to report them. “Most people tend to feel sorry for the shoplifters who are stealing retail stores blind.”12

It is obvious that if this were the case, some preliminary work would have to be done on the attitudes of the community itself before enthusiasm and support could be generated for a community-service project.

A step beyond service and one in which the FOP can utilize community involvement is job placement for unemployed offenders. Pati, working with an ex-convict training program in Indiana, reports that many business firms have successfully incorporated former prisoners onto their payroll^.'^ This demonstrates a concern for the offender on the part of the community to provide positive opportunities with a focus on rehabilitation, rather than punishment. This kind of project is certainly worth the examination and consideration of first offenders.

EVALUATION

Each part of the FOP must be evaluated with respect to the goals which the program is designed to serve. Recidivism

One of the goals of the First Offender Pro- gram is reduction of recidivism. However, the achievement of such a goal can be as difficult to demonstrate as it is attractive to p r ~ m o t e . ’ ~

Hodges was interested in how long it takes for most recidivists to repeat. He found that

FBI studies on careers in crime indicate that over 91 8 of serious crime recidilists commit their violations within the first 3 years after release. . . . Recidivism was based on a post- release conviction for one or more felonies and/or misdemeanors. I 5

His results showed that recidivism occurred in eighty-one percent of the untreated group; in seventy-one percent of the partially treated; in thirty-seven percent of the fully treated group. Treatment, however, was never defined or explained. In the FOP, recidivism rate is based on a time period of only one year and not three years as above. This does not allow a direct comparison with Hodges’ data.

An FOP recidivism study in 1974 revealed that during the six months studied, participants were charged with new offenses in 1.2 percent of the cases. In the same period a year


RONALD T. ZAFFRANN

earlier, non-participants were charged with new offenses in 1.4 percent of the cases. It seems apparent that, given this scant and in- conclusive information, no case can yet be made that the program is effective to prevent recidivism.

Recidivism rate deals essentially in the numbers game, probability. It attempts to predict the likelihood of a defendant’s com- ‘mitting crimes again. This issue is addressed in People v. Corrente.

. . . There is little, if any, science that can be brought to the sensitive task of evaluating the probability that this defendant will be likely to do violence in the future. l 6

Although the FOP doesn’t deal with violent crimes, the dilemma remains of predict- ing the effectiveness of the program and the outcomes.

Three major questions must be confronted. Is the offender dangerous? In other words is he/she likely to commit the same or another criminal act again. Is the offender deterable? It must be determined if the offender’s present motivation is such that an- ticipation of consequences can decisively influence hidher behavior or that the program can help hirdher to choose a new set of personal attitudes and values. And finally, Is the offender treatable by medical or educational methods?

An issue related to recidivism is that of admissions. The program needs to take more first offenders charged with crimes, such as grand theft, and to reorient the exercise of prosecutorial descretion - based on a solid screening process - in favor of admitting individuals on a basis of need of rehabilitation.

lfthere is nothing risked, in termsofadmit- ting higher crimes, then there is nothing gained, in terms of reducing recidivism. That is, to set up a selection process which skims off the best risks and produces an admirable recidivism rate may appear attractive from a distance; but this simply spends resources on those least likely to need them. Attitudes

A second goal of the FOP is to represent the criminal justice system to the participants as a

compassionate process concerned with rehabilitation, rather than retribution.

The final class session is devoted to an evaluation of the program by the participants themselves. Most participants have viewed the program as a “beneficial and compassionate alternative” to the criminal justice system.

However, quite a bit ofdoubt was expressed in regard to the rehabilitative value of the program. For example, seventy-one percent of a recent group felt that the classes themselves had had almost no positive effect on them and that the trauma of detection and arrest were the factors that would most deter them from future criminal activity.

The major criticism was that many of the sessions, especially the more general discussions, lacked relevance either to the individual participants or to the reasons they were in the class.

If the program hopes to provide experiences that are relevant and substantial, it may need to experiment by moving in somewhat different directions, such as the following:

Realism. Instead of allowing some class sessions to degenerate into endless gripe sessions on prison conditions and the need for penal reform, the criminal justice system could simply be presented as a necessary part of society with discussion centered’upon how it can best fulfill its role. The focus of classes dealing with rehabilitation versus retribution could be the FOP itself. This would be a step in the direction of relevance; it would provide a concrete example, which almost every par-. ticipant could appreciate, of a system seeking rehabilitation and not punishment.

Oflender-participant. This includes an interested and able offender as staff facilitator for the class sessions. The rationale and goals for this are discussed above.

A group dynamics model. Evaluations of the first two class sessions, which had placed emphasis on self and were held group counseling style, have consistently been positive. For the remaining six sessions, a shift is made toward lecture and hopefully group discussion; the intent is to teach, to inform, and to instruct.



Yet with this didactic approach comes a loss of the personal flavor which most participants enjoy and anticipate; they expect the entire program to be modeled after the first two sessions and the empathic, personal intake interview. It may be that education does not equal lecture or the distribution of information. It is difficult to prove that anyone really learns anything from formal academic courses, much less a handful of brief group sessions. In fact, having to sit through a series of irrelevant lectures may easily be considered punishment!

If this element of force or punishment were modified, the attitudes of participants may change considerably. Bigelow and Driscoll found more cooperative attitudes among prisoners when their supervisors used non- coercive techniques than when force or threat of force was used.” If treated with friendly persuasion, not coercion, inmates were less likely to produce peer pressures to defy authority and were more likely to perceive supervisors as good models for learning values. The researchers’ results supported the claim of some social scientists that prison officials who threaten or use force are building up the very non-cooperative attitudes that they say they want to extinguish.

To achieve these goals of relevant classes and of a change of participants’ attitudes, simple changes could be introduced into the sessions. Classes that still cover topical information could be handled through a counseling, rather than a teaching approach. This is worth testing out. Emphasis would shift from specific topics to an explanation of one‘s attitudes and feelings toward those topics; to one’s values, particularly regarding crimes and criminal behavior; to one’s needs and motivations involved in criminal activity.

Thall was interested in these kinds of attitudes, values and needs.’* She found that “young shoplifters are not necessarily intent on making a career of their thieving en- deavors” and that shoplifting is considered a n acceptable behavior by many adolescents. They don’t consider shoplifting to be criminal nor themselves to be thieves. She goes on to

suggest that “the motivation of adolescent shoplifters seems not very different from what once drove their older siblings to drag race and dance the jerk.” Those influences are “arousal, rebellion against authority, and peer influence.”

With the use of structured group counseling exercises, the program will not only provide various kinds of information, but also aim for increased self-awareness, self- exploration, and self-evaluation, such as personal education, from its participants. It is hoped that significant behavior change will result from this. Cost Savings

The conservation of criminal justice resources and relief of congestion in the court system are two results ofthe FOPand explain much of the support for this particular program.

A rough estimate of the cost savings can be made by comparing the total cost of the program with the cost that would be involved if only ten percent of those charged with shoplifting had opted for trial. As of August, 1974, the entire FOP program has cost less than $50,000. If only ten percent of the over 800 alleged shoplifters that have participated in the program had gone to trial (assuming they would have opted for a jury trial) the minimurn cost in salaries and iury fees above would have been about $95,750. (This figure was computed for a two-day trial including jury selection by adding the jury fees, minimum salaries paid judges and court of- ficers in the county court, and the minimum salary paid an assistant district attorney).

The courts already suffer from severe congestion. It is assumed that, should this additional burden be placed on these courts, it would be necessary for them to seek additional personnel and realize the additional expenses computed above. Criminal Stigma

The reason unanimously given by FOP participants for choosing the program is that they wish to maintain a clear record. The individual with a criminal record, when seeking employment, “encounters almost insur-


RONALD T. ZAFFRANN

mountable obstacles when confronted with his arrest record by a prospective e m p l ~ y e r . ” ’ ~

By maintaining the participants’ employa- bility, society benefits by preserving the pro- ductivity of these individuals. Also, other FOP goals are served. If the participant is employable, it is hoped that chances or reasons for recidivism will be reduced; and that the criminal justice system is represented as a compassionate institution.

The FOP, however, is not free from the threat of criminal stigma to the participant. The participant is fingerprinted, and the police record is maintained. Wisconsin Stat- utes 165.83 and 165.84 require fingerprints and mug shots only in the case of felonies and certain serious misdemeanors. Yet, the city police seem to interpret this as requiring the procedures in all misdemeanor, as well as felony arrests. The district attorney’s office needs to persuade the police to dispense with the procedures in the majority of misdemeanor cases.

The statute provides that if there is no conviction or pending action as a result of the arrest, the individual is entitled to have all copies of his fingerprints and mug shots re- turned. It should therefore become an FOP procedure to secure the return of their records to those participants who successfully com- plete the program.

This could easily be accomplished by having participants sign a request for their records in advance and simply mailing the files to them at the end of their contract period. In conjunction with this, the district attorney’s office could segregate all records relating to those who have completed the program and limit the access to them.

FOOTNOTES ‘Note, “Pretrial Diversion from the Criminal Process,”

Yale Low Journal 83 (1974):828-830. 2D. Glaser, The Effectiveness of a Prison and Parole

System (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1964). ’J. Robinson and G. Smith, “The Effectiveness of Cor-

rectional Programs.” Crime and Delinquency 16,l

‘“Rehabilitation is Myth,” American Personnel and Guidance Association Guideposr 4 (1974): 17.

5F. Jasmine, “Diversion as an Alternative to Incarcera- tion.” Personnel and Guidance Journal 53.2

6A. hey, “Adapting Systems to People,” Personnel and Guidance Journal 53.2 (1974):137-139.

’J. Stratton, “Correctional Workers: Counseling Con Men?” Federal Probation 37, 3 (1973): 14-17.

*L. Dye and J . Sansovei, “Towrad a New Era in Correc- tions,” Personnel and Guidance Journal 53 , 2 (1974):

g“National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice

l o b e and Sansovei, “Toward a New Era.” “W.H. Pearce, “Community-Based Treatment of Of-

fenders in England and Wales,” Federal Probarion 38 (March 1974):47-51.

I*D. Gelfand et al., “Who Reports Shoplifters? A Field Experimental Study,” Journal of Personnel andSocial Psychology 25,2 (1973):276-285.

”Gopal C. Pati, “Business Can Make Ex-Convicts Pro- ductive,” Harvard Business Review 52.3 (1974):69- 78.

“Morris. “Should Law Students Encounter the New Research Techniques?” Law and Social Order5 5 (1969):60-61; F. Zimring, “Measuring the Impact of Pretrial Diversion from the Criminal Justice System,” Universi/y of Chicago Law Review 41 (1974):224.

I5Hodges, “Crime Prevention by the Indeterminate Sen- tence Law,” American Journal of Psychiatry

(1961):67-80.

(1974):140-142.

140-142.

Standards and Goals,” Correction (1973):222.

- .

(1971):128, i29. I6Peoole vs. Corrente. 63 Misc. 2d 214. 3 1 1 New York

Staie 2d 711 (Supreme Court, 1970): I’D. Bigelow and R.H. Driscoll, “Effects of Minimizing

Coercion on the Rehabilitation of Prisoners,” Journal of Applied Psychology 57,l (1973)lO-14.

ISM. Thall. “Behavioral Components of Adolescent Shoplifting,” Human Behavior (November 1973).

I9Note. “The Expungement or Restriction of Arrest Rec- ords,” Cleveland Stare Law Review23 (1974):123.


Download - First Offenders: A Deferred Prosecution Program

Top Related