About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

24 Fed. Probation 24 (1960)
Interstate Cooperation in Probation and Parole

handle is hein.journals/fedpro24 and id is 110 raw text is: Interstate Cooperation in Probation and Parole BY E. A. BURKHART Supervisor, Interstate Unit, Adult Parole Division, California Department of Corrections OHN BROWN was arrested in 1955 by the Cincinnati Police Department charged with forgery. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to the Ohio State Penitentiary. He had served a previous term in Illinois for worthless (NSF) checks. The case history reveals that he completed the 11th grade and married at the age of 21. Brown and his wife had two children. The mar- riage terminated in a divorce. Brown's employment record indicated work as typist, bookkeeper, and draftsman. He had a rec- ord of periodic alcoholism but did not gamble or use drugs. In an interview with his counselor while confined, he readily admitted his offenses and intelligently discussed points of significance giving rise to his criminal activities. At the time of his hearing before the Ohio Parole Board, he appeared relatively stable emotionally and ex- pressed realistic plans for postprison life. The board granted him a parole, subject to approval of an appropriate placement program in Cali- fornia. The results of California's investigation are given in the following initial interview report sub- mitted to the Compact Administrator for the State of Ohio.1 INITIAL INTERVIEW REPORT A cooperative placement investigation of this case was submitted by Parole Agent Smith on April 10, 1959, indicating that he (Mr. Brown) was to reside in the home of his aunt, Mrs. Doris Roe, at 139 West Main St., San Francisco, Telephone YUkon 4268. Although Mr. Brown had no definite program of employment, he had assurance of a job placement through the California State Employment Service. He is 32 years of age, di- vorced, white. He is a second-felony offender, sentenced by the criminal court at Cincinnati to a term of 1 to 14 years for the crime of forgery. His prior record indicates an arrest for worthless checks in 1952 for which he was sentenced to the State penitentiary. He was paroled in 1954 after having served 2 years. Following a successful parole adjustment for approximately 18 months he was discharged from further supervision. He is scheduled for discharge on the current offense in May 1961. Mr. Brown arrived in San Francisco May 16, 1959 and was initially interviewed by Parole Agent Smith. He presented a friendly and cooperative attitude and freely verbalized his intentions to live up to his parole obligations. The events leading to the second offense, I All identifying data have been altered. The Interstate Probation and Parole Compact, by B. E. Cribfield, FDEDRAL PROBATION, June 1953. as gleaned from the case material submitted by Ohio, were discussed with Mr. Brown, who showed an ap- propriate response to counseling relating to his future conduct and adherence to the parole rules. He was in- formed regarding the submission of periodic reports and the necessity of consulting with his parole agent concerning any change of employment or residence. Mr. Brown expressed interest in being reconciled with his wife who had divorced him while incarcerated and who had been given custody of their two minor children, ages 4 and 6. It was suggested that he first demonstrate a period of adjustment and that in any event, the ap- proval of Ohio must first be obtained before he could remarry. During the entire interview Mr. Brown showed ap- propriate understanding and promised to comply faith- fully with the parole rules. He expressed a sincere interest in obtaining an immediate job as a welder and felt that his skill in this field would not present a serious employment problem. Prognosis as to future conduct is favorable. History of the Compact Congress first authorized agreements or com- pacts among the states for cooperative effort and mutual assistance in the prevention of crime in 1934.2 Conceived in 1935 by the then Interstate Commission on Crime, the Compact is now an officially binding agreement between all 50 states and Puerto Rico. Recently the Virgin Islands also signed the Compact. In 1935 the Interstate Commission on Crime developed uniform crime legislation for coordina- tion and adoption by the several states. As one phase thereof, the Commission promulgated an Interstate Compact for the Supervision of Pro- bationers and Parolees, recognizing that modern facilities for transportation and communication have made crime control an interstate problem. The basic consideration in the formation of this Compact was the realization that the interests of society require adequate supervision of persons on probation or parole, regardless of where they might live. It was deemed advisable to develop a form of agreement for states to assume certain responsibilities designed to properly supervise probationers and parolees from other states and, in turn, secure supervision of probationers and parolees located in other states. The introductory illustration clearly indicates the efficacy of using the Compact channels in pro- viding for adequate supervision of an adult pa-

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most