• Open Daily: 10am - 10pm
    Alley-side Pickup: 10am - 7pm

    3038 Hennepin Ave Minneapolis, MN
    612-822-4611

Open Daily: 10am - 10pm | Alley-side Pickup: 10am - 7pm
3038 Hennepin Ave Minneapolis, MN
612-822-4611
Parole: United States Federal Probation and Supervised Release, Parole Board of Canada, Probation Officer, Parolewatch

Parole: United States Federal Probation and Supervised Release, Parole Board of Canada, Probation Officer, Parolewatch

Paperback

Currently unavailable to order

ISBN10: 1156677750
ISBN13: 9781156677759
Publisher: Books Llc
Pages: 24
Weight: 0.14
Height: 0.05 Width: 7.44 Depth: 9.69
Language: English
Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online. Pages: 23. Chapters: United States federal probation and supervised release, Parole Board of Canada, Probation officer, ParoleWatch, Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles, Ticket of leave, Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board, Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, Liberta condizionata, Temporary licence, Parole bond, New Jersey State Parole Board, Morrissey Hearing, Federal parole in the United States, Shock probation. Excerpt: United States federal probation and supervised release are imposed at sentencing. The difference between probation and supervised release is that the former is imposed as a substitute for imprisonment, or in addition to home detention, while the latter is imposed in addition to imprisonment. Probation and supervised release are both administered by United States Probation. Federal probation has existed since 1909, while supervised release has only existed since 1987, when it replaced federal parole as a means for imposing supervision on releasees from prison. Some conditions of probation and supervised release, such as compliance with drug tests, are made mandatory by statute, while others are optional. Some terms are recommended by the United States Sentencing Guidelines for specific situations; for instance, a requirement of participation in a mental health program is recommended when the court has reason to believe that the defendant is in need of psychological or psychiatric treatment. The judge has broad discretion in deciding what optional conditions to impose, as long as those conditions are reasonably related to the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need for the sentence imposed to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, the need to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant, the need to provide the defendant with needed e...