Gabe Lopata

28 December 2023

This past summer, the PA Senate was introduced to a bill that aimed to reform the probation system within the state. It was introduced by 13 state senators, ranging across both the Democratic and Republican parties (1). The bill took action on June 21, 2023, moving its way through the PA Senate (2). The most recent action the bill took was being re-referred to appropriations in late September, and from there, it looks to be passed. Though this bill, SB383, primarily focuses on reforming the criminal justice system in PA, there are still pieces it lacks. SB838 does not limit the amount of time that a probation sentence can be, thus allowing judges to find loopholes around the bill (3). A famous example of this happened recently with rapper Meek Mill, who was on probation for 11 years for violations that were later thrown out due to their illegitimacy. In Meek’s case, he was traveling, and after the cancellation of one of his flights, he took a different flight very soon after without notifying his probation officer. Since he didn’t notify him of movement, it was considered a violation, even though his probation officer knew he was traveling and where he was going (4). There have been prior Senate bills introduced in PA that focus on repairing the probation system, like SB14, that would include the necessary provisions to keep judges from finding loopholes like this (5). If SB838 can find the proper provisions or a new Senate bill can be introduced, the PA probation system could be drastically improved.

SB838 focuses on providing people who have shown continuous improvement and effort to become functioning members of society an opportunity to exit the criminal system in a more timely manner than current policies (6). The bill would accomplish this by implementing case reviews into the probation system for supervisors and judges, giving them the chance to re-review cases and modify the original decision. There would also be early discharge protocols, which are relatively straightforward, giving people the opportunity to earn credits towards an early discharge. These credits would be based on time spent doing productive activities, such as education and work, incentivizing these rebuilding factors and giving time-based credit that can lead to early discharge (7).

One of the main focuses of SB838 is narrowing the definition of technical violations, as these violations are one of the leading causes for probation. These are very strict standards that people on probation are required to follow; however, they are very easy to violate subconsciously. They are extremely minute restrictions but will result in the lengthening of probation or a strike that could cause a re-sentencing (8). These consist of getting home after curfew, failing to report to a supervisor, or moving without permission. Going from acting unsupervised to then needing to follow these standards can be extremely hard to remember and thus can cause people to violate these details. SB383 would make it easier for people on probation not to violate their clauses and give them the opportunity to get out of the system faster.

The goal of SB383 is to incentivize rehabilitation to create a safer society. When convicted felons are given probation, they can get stuck in the system for years. This can lead them to believe that they will follow the same path and that their actions no longer matter since they are stuck in a relentless cycle. Data shows that 27.3 percent of formerly incarcerated people are unemployed, higher than the highest unemployment rate among the U.S. population in the history of the nation, which occurred during the Great Depression. Data also shows that for many age groups, formerly incarcerated individuals are actively looking for work at a higher rate than the rest of the U.S. population (9). The goal of this bill is to make them believe that if they can show clear behavioral improvements, they will be able to regain full control of their lives in a proper and proportional amount of time. It helps to hold people accountable for their actions, which will assist them in not reoffending once they are fully readmitted into society. In Europe, the probational system is much different, and the incarceration numbers are much lower. The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, with 664 out of every 100,000 people being incarcerated. In PA, the incarceration rate is very similar, with 659 of every 100,000 people being incarcerated (10). In Germany, 69 of 100,000 people are incarcerated, and of those people, the system aims to rehabilitate them and admit them back into society rather than holding them for extended periods (11). Germany takes a somewhat different approach to probation and a far different approach to incarceration. Their prison system is built to mirror that of a home, as they believe this will make the felons more likely to comply with rehabilitation methods (12). Their probational system is built to focus on rehab as well, as they do activities that they believe will aid in this process. They have the felons take part in sports, anti-aggression training, and educational classes as well as social classes (13). They also participate in work and services, though this is a similarity they hold with the United States probation system. Though this may not be the sole reason the incarceration numbers are lower in Germany, they take a very progressive approach and value the rehabilitation of their criminals far more than in America. Based on the data and the fact that there are over 2,000,000 people incarcerated in the U.S., PA should seriously consider adopting some of these policies.

What SB383 needs to include is the limiting of probation terms (14). Probation in PA will continue to be uncontrollable, while judges can stack probation sentences and have no limits on the length. If SB383 were to limit the length of probation in PA, it would start incentivizing felons to put in an effort for rehabilitation, as they would have shorter sentences before being admitted into society unsupervised. SB14, which failed to make it through the legislation process in 2020, had many of the same terms as SB383 while restricting the length of a probation term, disallowing the stacking of probation terms, and restricting the ability to revoke or incarcerate based on small technical violations (15). If SB383 were to adopt some of these terms, it would be much more sufficient for rebuilding the probation system in PA. It would allow incentivization to be a real part of the probation system, which could see great improvements in behavior from those on probation. Incentivization is something seen in other countries, such as Germany, and is one of their stronger methods when it comes to reintegration into society (16). Stacked probationary terms help to discourage incentivization, as felons could realize that even if they are able to correct their behavior and be considered for early discharge, they have yet another probation sentence on top that will require them to either serve another full sentence or have to yet again make even more drastic steps to demonstrate improvements, which can be difficult to do after doing such a thing already. If incentivization can be a part of the U.S. probation system due to the restriction of probationary stacking, PA should look into doing such an action, as it has been proven to work in other places and would presumably work in PA.

The senators who proposed SB383 should look into adopting the key terms from SB14 as if they were proposing a combination of both bills, allowing for improvement of the PA criminal justice system. The system is lacking a bill that would restrict the length of probationary sentences while simultaneously accelerating the process of being let off probation. The PA probational system has been allowing judges to give unfair sentences with no regard for the lives of the felons and holding them strictly accountable for extremely minor violations that are, at times, somewhat unnecessary. The small violations they are held accountable for aren’t even crimes in most cases, so provisions addressing this aspect of the system are necessary. Holding the criminals to this standard isn’t unreasonable, as they need to prove to their supervisors that they can be trusted; however, the fact that violating one of these small factors, which isn’t even a crime, could lead to incarceration is ridiculous. It would make the most sense for these violations to lead to an extension of probation or increased community service, but non-criminal violations should not result in incarceration. 

SB14 proposed maxing out probation sentences at three years for misdemeanors and five years for felonies (17). This would increase fairness for criminals. If the law stays the way it is, people can be on probation for decades, thus taking away the incentive to act well, for the opportunity to be dismissed. This probational maximum also makes the technical violations more important, which could be good for what the state government wants, as these violations would be taken more seriously when the criminals see the chance of being freed within three to five years. SB14 also proposed outlawing the stacking of probationary terms, disallowing judges from sentencing someone to multiple terms of probation. This has a similar effect as the previous term of maxing out probation. If judges can stack sentences, they can keep someone in the system for an unjust amount of time. Again, this takes away the incentives for criminals to turn around their behavior with the chance of being discharged. Additionally, SB14 proposed to prohibit judges from being able to sentence probation following a sentence to be served in jail or prison, which could be one of the reasons that it was not passed, as this is a very standard practice in a court of law. SB383 should not adopt this policy. However, it would be in its best interest to have the terms of maxing out probation sentences at three and five years, as well as prohibiting the stacking of probationary terms. This would help to drastically improve the system while also keeping the common practices in PA. Furthermore, the bill would likely be accepted by both sides of the aisle and have a better chance of passing than SB14 did. It would help to encourage rehabilitation within the system and make our society better as a whole. 

The last thing that SB383 should adopt from SB14 is automatic early termination. SB14 included a clause that would allow all people on probation to be released after 18 months – should they have no violations on their records during this time. Though this could be looked at as a negative, I believe the idea of this was positive. What SB383 should do is place an early termination clause; however, make it proportional to the probationary sentence given. It should be a minimum of 18 months without a violation, with an additional three months per year of sentenced probation. This would allow people to have the ultimate incentive to reform their actions and would likely lead to a decrease in probation violations. Continuous actions create habits, and developing the habit of positive actions is the goal of probation. If SB383 adopts this trait, it would have one of the most necessary clauses for probation reform. 

Overall, SB383 has the right idea when aiming for probation reform. However, it needs to be tweaked in order to address all of the changes necessary to improve Pennsylvania probation. The addition of multiple traits from SB14 would greatly benefit both the state of PA and felons currently facing probation. Maxing out of probationary sentences and the prohibition of stacked sentences are two immediate needs for the PA probationary system. SB383 needs to adopt these traits immediately. With the addition of these, SB383 would be one of the most positive bills to come across the PA house and would lead to immediate reform for PA probation. 

---

Image via Pexels Free Photos

Works Cited

1. “REFORM Alliance & Pennsylvania Safety Coalition Celebrate Advancement of Probation Reform Legislation, SB 838 – REFORM Alliance.” Reformalliance.com, 26 June 2023, reformalliance.com/press-release/reform-alliance-pennsylvania-safety-coalition-celebrate-advancement-of-probation-reform-legislation-sb-838/. Accessed 29 Oct. 2023.  
2. “Bill Information (History) – Senate Bill 838; Regular Session 2023-2024.” The Official Website for the Pennsylvania General Assembly., www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billInfo/bill_history.cfm?syear=2023&sind=0&body=S&type=B&bn=838. Accessed 29 Oct. 2023. 
3. “SB 838 | Faux Probation “Reform” | ACLU Pennsylvania.” Www.aclupa.org, 27 June 2023, www.aclupa.org/en/legislation/sb-838-faux-probation-reform. 
4. “Meek Mill Pleads Guilty to Gun Charge to End 12-Year Case.” BBC News, 27 Aug. 2019, www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-49485075. 
5. Gramlich, John. “America’s Incarceration Rate Falls to Lowest Level since 1995.” Pew Research Center, www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/08/16/americas-incarceration-rate-lowest-since-1995/#:~:text=Incarceration%20rates%20in%20Western%20Europe . Accessed 12 Nov. 2023.
6. “REFORM Alliance & Pennsylvania Safety Coalition Celebrate Advancement of Probation Reform Legislation, SB 838 – REFORM Alliance.” Reformalliance.com, 26 June 2023, reformalliance.com/press-release/reform-alliance-pennsylvania-safety-coalition-celebrate-advancement-of-probation-reform-legislation-sb-838/. Accessed 29 Oct. 2023.
7. Ibid. 
8. “This Is Prison? 60 Minutes Goes to Germany.” Www.cbsnews.com, www.cbsnews.com/news/this-is-prison-60-minutes-goes-to-germany/.
9. Couloute, Lucius, and Daniel Kopf. “Out of Prison & out of Work: Unemployment among Formerly Incarcerated People.” Www.prisonpolicy.org, July 2018, www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/outofwork.html#:~:text=Our%20analysis%20shows%20that%20formerly . Accessed 30 Nov. 2023.
10. Widra, Emily, and Tiana Herring. “States of Incarceration: The Global Context 2021.” Www.prisonpolicy.org, Sept. 2021, www.prisonpolicy.org/global/2021.html.
11. Gramlich, John. “America’s Incarceration Rate Falls to Lowest Level since 1995.” Pew Research Center, www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/08/16/americas-incarceration-rate-lowest-since-1995/#:~:text=Incarceration%20rates%20in%20Western%20Europe . Accessed 12 Nov. 2023.
12. “This Is Prison? 60 Minutes Goes to Germany.” Www.cbsnews.com, www.cbsnews.com/news/this-is-prison-60-minutes-goes-to-germany/. 
13. SUMMARY INFORMATION on PROBATION in GERMANY General Information. https://www.cep-probation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Summary2008-information-on-Germany.pdf
14. “SB 838 | Faux Probation “Reform” | ACLU Pennsylvania.” Www.aclupa.org, 27 June 2023, www.aclupa.org/en/legislation/sb-838-faux-probation-reform. 
15. Ibid.
16. SUMMARY INFORMATION on PROBATION in GERMANY General Information. https://www.cep-probation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Summary2008-information-on-Germany.pdf
17. “PA Probation Bill Comparison | SB 14 (PN 59) vs SB 838 (PN 1113). (n.d.)”

Click to access pa_probation_bill_comparison_sb_14_pn_59_vs_sb_838_pn_1113.pdf

18. “Violation Hearings” Www.parole.pa.gov, www.parole.pa.gov/Parole%20Process/Violation%20Hearings/Pages/default.aspx#:~:text=Technical%20Parole%20Violator%20(TPV). Accessed 30 Oct. 2023.