{"id":6032,"date":"2023-11-09T19:43:05","date_gmt":"2023-11-10T00:43:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/votingaccessforall.org\/?p=6032"},"modified":"2023-11-09T19:46:14","modified_gmt":"2023-11-10T00:46:14","slug":"guilty-by-association-when-parole-and-probation-rules-disrupt-support-systems","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/votingaccessforall.org\/es\/2023\/11\/guilty-by-association-when-parole-and-probation-rules-disrupt-support-systems\/","title":{"rendered":"Culpable por asociaci\u00f3n: cuando las reglas de libertad condicional y libertad condicional interrumpen los sistemas de apoyo"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

This article was originally published by Prison Policy Initiative as “Guilty by association: When parole and probation rules disrupt support systems<\/a>,” authored by Leah Wang<\/p>\n

For the 3.7 million<\/a> people on parole or probation in the United States, the very people who can best support their success are often unable to help because of supervision conditions that prohibit them from being in contact. Individuals reentering their communities on probation or parole often rely on support networks of family and peers who have been through similar reentry experiences.1<\/a><\/sup> Though research supports the unique benefits of these social connections, many states actually prohibit people on supervision from this contact, under the false assumption that it will lead people into criminalized behaviors. These \u201cassociation\u201d restrictions \u2014 sometimes called \u201cno-association conditions\u201d \u2014 are isolating and costly to those on supervision. And the stakes are high: Failure to follow association restrictions can result in incarceration.<\/p>\n

In prior work on probation and parole, we\u2019ve referred to more widely known, difficult-to-satisfy supervision conditions \u2014 like securing employment<\/a> and paying relentless fees<\/a>\u2014 as examples of why supervision doesn\u2019t \u201cwork\u201d for so many people and too often results in incarceration for \u201ctechnical\u201d<\/a> violations. In this briefing, we add to this work by compiling the most thorough research and data on association restrictions to date. We show that, despite their illogical foundations and documented harms, they are imposed on hundreds of thousands of people (and impact many others) at any given time. If states and local jurisdictions truly want people on supervision to succeed, they should acknowledge and ultimately abandon association restrictions.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/picture> Someone paroled from prison or ordered to probation must navigate the world underneath burdensome and unrealistic rules. Association restrictions may prohibit people on supervision from communicating, working, or living with family, friends, or other community members with a criminal history. If an officer or judge finds they have violated this rule, they could be sent back behind bars. In many states, a parole or probation officer can cut someone off from \u201cassociating\u201d with any particular individual at all, due to their wide discretion under state statutes and supervision contracts. (Image by Kevin Pyle<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

Parole and probation conditions outlaw crucial relationships<\/h2>\n

Research suggests that association-related release conditions are common in parole and probation. These restrictions are relics of antiquated supervision systems that required people under their control to live virtuous lives, \u201cbe good<\/a>,\u201d and associate with \u201cgood people.\u201d They generally prohibit interactions between people on supervision and large swaths of the population, such as those with felony convictions or others on probation or parole. As a result, people must steer clear of certain places altogether, producing a complex web of prohibited activities and relationships that make it even harder to find housing and work, arrange for transportation, participate in treatment programs, or otherwise succeed in reentry.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

\u201cStandard\u201d and \u201cspecial\u201d supervision conditions<\/h2>\n
\n

Learn about the differences between the two<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Parole and probation typically come with a set of \u201cstandard\u201d conditions or rules that are mandatory for everyone regardless of their crime or circumstances. These often include obeying the law and maintaining contact with a supervision officer, but also may include irrelevant mandates like drug testing even for people whose conviction was unrelated to drug use. The number and scope of standard conditions varies widely by jurisdiction, but researchers have found an average of 21.9 standard conditions<\/a>, with some states listing as many as 38 conditions that every person on parole must follow, or else risk incarceration.<\/p>\n

There are often \u201cspecial\u201d conditions too, which are optional additions a judge, parole board, supervision officer, or other authority can impose at their discretion \u2014 and often at any point <\/i>while someone is on supervision. In many jurisdictions, special conditions offer authorities carte blanche<\/i> for setting nearly any rule imaginable. Some examples of special conditions include mandated treatment programs, a curfew, and restrictions on associating with certain other people, but they can also extend to bizarre rules <\/a>regarding where one can sit inside a car, or becoming pregnant.<\/p>\n

Standard supervision conditions in one jurisdiction can be \u201cspecial\u201d in another. We don\u2019t know how often special conditions are imposed on top of a standard set, but it\u2019s possible that people are subject to special conditions nearly as often: In a 2019 study<\/a> of parole conditions, an employee of the Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole admitted to the author that during her tenure, no parole agreement was ever issued without <\/i>association restrictions, which are special there.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

In most parole systems, association conditions are standard<\/h3>\n

While they\u2019re not the most infamous supervision conditions,2<\/a><\/sup> association restrictions are incredibly common across probation and parole systems, and impact hundreds of thousands of people. In a recent study, researchers found that over half<\/a> of the 187 supervision programs they examined (including parole, probation, and electronic monitoring<\/a>) in 2023 had some regulation about \u201cwho people can be around, talk with, or socialize with.\u201d But these rules are especially entrenched in parole systems: A recurring census<\/a> of standard parole conditions revealed that rules related to \u201cundesirable associates\/correspondence\u201d have been used by an average of 30 jurisdictions over each of the six censuses, the first of which was in 1956.3<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

But when we look beyond standard conditions, it\u2019s clear these restrictions are imposed almost universally. According to a 2019 law review article<\/a>, nearly all parole jurisdictions (50 states, D.C. and the federal supervised release system)4<\/a><\/sup> have association restrictions, whether they are standard or special conditions that could be imposed at any time by an authority such as a parole officer or judge. This valuable survey, which we\u2019ve updated for this briefing, also identifies which categories of people are off-limits for individuals on supervision. (We\u2019re thankful to Professor James M. Binnall for this work<\/a> addressing association restrictions so comprehensively.) Using Professor Binnall\u2019s categories, we found that some states go to great lengths to control these relationships:<\/p>\n