Fewer probationers were put in prison
By Joseph Neff and Sarah Ovaska
The News & Observer
RALEIGH, N.C. — Criminal probation appears to be a simple agreement: Offenders can avoid prison if they behave; those who don’t will be put behind bars.
But in parts of North Carolina’s probation system, according to a top probation official, that agreement wasn’t so clear. James Fullwood, who oversees probation offices in 22 counties in southeastern and central North Carolina, said superiors discouraged officers from sending offenders back to prison even when they broke the terms of their supervision.
Fullwood described statewide meetings where probation leadership, including former director Robert Guy, would discuss the revocation rate -- how many probationers are sent to prison -- for each of the state’s 43 probation offices.
“I recall those meetings where the rate was stated openly for each district, and Robert [Guy] asked, ‘How are you going to reduce the rates?’ ” Fullwood said.
Fullwood said the policy aimed in part to avoid overcrowding prisons and in part to better help probationers find jobs, stay drug-free and go to school.
But the policy may have left dangerous offenders on the street even when their behavior indicated they were headed for serious crimes. It also appears to conflict with the get-tough spirit of recent statements from former Gov. Mike Easley. Easley said the level of crimes committed by probationers -- including 580 killings since 2000 -- reflects too many dangerous offenders being placed on probation instead of being sent to prison.
The three other judicial division administrators in the state -- Cornell McGill, Roselyn Powell and Debra DeBruhl -- said they didn’t receive the pressure that Fullwood described. But the rates and numbers of revocations were talked about frequently, and breakdowns of revocations per county were issued regularly.
Indeed the probation department’s reluctance to revoke the freedom of repeat offenders drew the angry attention of a Harnett County judge and became a flash point in a 2007 murder case.
Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Frank Lanier, who spent the first five years of his career as a probation officer, had questioned for years why more probationers weren’t having their status revoked. Four probationers were later arrested in connection with the killing of a 12-year-old Moore County girl, Emily Haddock, in September 2007.
Some suspects in Haddock’s death had been accused of violating probation, but they had not lost their freedom. That caused the judge to tell The [Dunn] Daily Record that he was skeptical when probation officers recommend that probation not be revoked.
“I’ve learned it’s not actually the supervising officer’s recommendation,” Judge Lanier said, “but a policy directive from higher-ups in Raleigh who don’t actually supervise the probationers, who just want to make their numbers look good. Therefore, I’ve moved away from that reliance.”
Outraged response
Lanier’s comments didn’t sit well with Guy, the former director of the N.C. Division of Community Corrections, who spent his last day in the office Friday. His replacement has not been named.
In a letter to Lanier, Guy blasted the judge for calling the probation division into question, saying it insulted three generations of his family with Harnett County roots.
“I must begin by saying how deeply hurt and disturbed I am concerning your public position criticizing our agency, our policies and, I guess, me,” Guy wrote in the letter, dated Oct. 17, 2007. “For you, a distinguished member of our judiciary to insinuate that our policy and management in Raleigh caused this tragic death is inconceivable.”
Guy went on to say that he was a Harnett County native, as were his grandfather and father, who spent a combined 90 years practicing law in North Carolina.
“To have this situation played out in the Dunn Daily Record, newspaper of our home place and resting place of both my grandfather and father, is deeply painful,” Guy wrote. “If I thought there was anything in our system that would bring back Emily or prevent future tragedies, I would do whatever it takes.”
Plan to cut revocations
Probation documents show that just before the killing, probation officials had put a “revocation reduction plan” in place in Harnett County and four other probation districts in Eastern North Carolina.
Guy declined to be interviewed but said through a spokesman that any revocation reduction plans were the work of Fullwood, the manager of Judicial Division Two.
Fullwood said he never directed anyone to develop a revocation reduction plan.
But on Aug. 6, 2007, his deputy ordered such plans from five probation districts.
“Your district’s revocation rates ... were higher than the State average,” the deputy, David McDuffie, wrote to five probation district managers, Fullwood and others. “Please submit a plan to me by August 16, 2007, concerning lowering the revocation rate in your district.”
McDuffie told them to make greater use of a drug treatment program in Goldsboro and electronic house arrest.
Fullwood said he did not recall the reduction plans until he reread McDuffie’s e-mail on Friday.
Prison or the street?
There has always been tension in deciding whether to send misbehaving probationers to prison or keep them on the street. Prison is expensive, but ensures public safety until the offender is released. Probation gives offenders a chance to work, support a family and get drug treatment.
But the probation system has often failed to supervise offenders. And failing to hold accountable those who violate the terms of their supervision can leave offenders on the street who are heading toward more serious offenses.
Last month, a News & Observer series reported the number of killings by probationers since 2000. The series also showed that the probation system had lost track of nearly 14,000 convicted criminals and that Guy, director since 1997, and other leaders missed chances to help officers keep up with their charges.
Legislators familiar with the probation system said reducing revocation rates -- sending fewer offenders to prison when they violate the terms of probation --without increasing supervision and treatment heightens the risk to the public.
“The policy is good: Keep them in the community with resources, and keep your eye on them all the time, with revocation as a last resort,” said state Sen. Ellie Kinnaird, an Orange County Democrat. “In the past, revocation was much too easy, and it led to overcrowding.”
Copyright 2009 The News and Observer