Probation Officers' and Judges' Discretionary Sanctioning Decisions about Sex Offenders: Differences Between Specialized and Standard Probation Units

Abstract

This article focuses on discretionary judgements made about sex offenders on probation. The sample consisted of 567 sex offenders on standard adult probation and 395 sex offenders on specialized sex offender probation in four counties in Illinois. The authors found that probation officers in specialized sex offender probation units, which included intensive training on sex offenders and uniform sanctioning guidelines, made more predictable decisions to file violation of probation petitions (VOPs), and were more likely to file a VOP for treatment noncompliance, compared to probation officers in standard units. Moreover, specialized probation officers were more likely to consider chronic sexual deviancy and extra familial victims, which are two high-risk predictors of sexual recidivism, but also were found to be significantly more likely to file a VOP against noncompliant minorities than against noncompliant Caucasians. Judges were more likely to support specialized probation officers' decisions to request revocation when sex offenders committed a technical violation, treatment noncompliance, general recidivism, or violent recidivism, but not sexual recidivism. The article suggests that probation officers in standard probation and judges need additional training about sex offenders. This article suggests that uniform sanctioning guidelines and training on sex offenders may contribute to the criteria that probation officers use in deciding whether to file a VOP. The focus on discretionary judgments highlights the caveat that risk classification schemes should not be based on empirical analyses of predictors of probation termination, because this outcome entangles both discretionary judgments and noncompliant behavior.