Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T14:51:00.878Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3.7 - Parole Decision-Making

Contemporary Practice and Challenges

from Part III - Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2021

Jennifer M. Brown
Affiliation:
London School of Economics and Political Science
Miranda A. H. Horvath
Affiliation:
University of Suffolk
Get access

Summary

Due to the historically bourgeoning prison population, how and when offenders re-enter the community has received increased attention. Parole, the discretionary release of an offender to serve the remainder of their sentence in the community, is seen by many as a solution to prison overcrowding concerns. Many jurisdictions call upon paroling authorities to review the prisoner’s case and to assign release conditions intended to assist in the re-entry process and mitigate public safety concerns for both mandatory and discretionary releases. This chapter provides a brief overview of the history and current status of parole. Other areas discussed include how risk assessment is incorporated, and separate from, parole decisions, the various methods by which parole decisions are made, commentary on the existing evidence of parole efficacy, discussions of the role of victims in the decision-making process, and considerations for various offender sub-populations.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ægisdóttir, S., White, M. J., Spengler, P. M., Maugherman, A. S., Anderson, L. A., Cook, R. S., … Rush, J. D. (2006). The meta-analysis of clinical judgment project: Fifty-six years of accumulated research on clinical versus statistical prediction. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(3), 341382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce future prison construction, criminal justice costs and crime rates (Document ID 06-10-1201). Retrieved from Washington State Institute for Public Policy website: www. wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/06-10-1201.pdfGoogle Scholar
Balko, R. (2018, September 18). There’s overwhelming evidence that the criminal-justice system is racist. Here’s the proof. Washington Post. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/09/18/theres-overwhelming-evidence-that-the-criminal-justice-system-is-racist-heres-the-proof/Google Scholar
Barrett, K., & Greene, R. (2016, September). To work on parole boards, no experience necessary. Retrieved from www.governing.com/columns/smart-mgmt/gov-parole-boards-hiring-decisions.htmlGoogle Scholar
Bengtson, S., & Langstrom, N. (2007). Unguided clinical and actuarial assessment of re-offending risk: A direct comparison with sex offenders in Denmark. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 19(2), 135153.Google Scholar
Bonta, J., Bourgon, G., Rugge, T., Scott, T. L., Yessine, A. K., Gutierrez, L., & Li, J. (2011). An experimental demonstration of training probation officers in evidence-based community supervision. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(11), 11271148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bottoms, A., & Roberts, J. (2010). Hearing the victim: Adversarial justice, crime victims and the state. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, M. S., & Engen, R. L. (2016). Leaving prison: A multilevel investigation of racial, ethnic, and gender disproportionality in correctional release. Crime & Delinquency, 62(2), 253279.Google Scholar
Brown, S. L., St. Amand, M. D., & Zamble, E. (2009). The dynamic prediction of criminal recidivism: A three-wave prospective study. Law and Human Behavior, 33(1), 2545.Google Scholar
Burke, P. B. (2011). The future of parole as a key partner in assuring public safety. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.Google Scholar
Burke, P. B., & Tonry, M. H. (2006). Successful transition and reentry for safer communities: A call to action for parole. Silver Spring, MD: Center for Effective Public Policy.Google Scholar
Burkes, K. J., Rhine, E. E., Robey, J. P., & Ruhland, E. L. (2017). Releasing authority chairs: A comparative snapshot across three decades. Minneapolis, MN: Robina Institute of Criminal Law & Criminal Justice.Google Scholar
Caplan, J. M. (2007). What factors affect parole – a review of empirical research. Federal Probation, 71(1), 1619.Google Scholar
Chadwick, N., deWolf, A. H., & Serin, R. C. (2015). Effectively training community supervision officers: A meta-analytic review. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(10), 977989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colorado Board of Parole. (2012). Parole board release guide instrument. Retrieved from https://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ors/docs/Risks/SUMMARY-PBRGI_2012-11-01.pdfGoogle Scholar
Conner, D. P. (2016). How to get out of prison: Views from parole board members. Corrections: Policy, Practice, and Research, 1(2), 107126.Google Scholar
Council of State Governments. (2018). Confined and costly: How supervision violations are filling prisons and burdening budgets. Retrieved from https://csgjusticecenter.org/confinedandcostly/Google Scholar
Dickson, S. R., Polaschek, D. L. L., & Casey, A. R. (2013) Can the quality of high-risk violent prisoners’ release plans predict recidivism following intensive rehabilitation? A comparison with risk assessment instruments. Psychology, Crime & Law, 19(4), 371389.Google Scholar
Elgoben, E. B., Mercado, C. C., Scalora, M. J., & Tomkins, A. J. (2002). Perceived relevance of factors for violence risk assessment: A survey of clinicians. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 1(1), 3747.Google Scholar
Fouzder, M. (2018, January 5). Parole chief announces transparency consultation amid Worboys furore. Retrieved from www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/parole-chief-announces-transparency-consultation-amid-worboys-furore-/5064213.articleGoogle Scholar
Georgia Board of Pardons and Parole. (2020). Parole consideration, eligibility and guidelines. Retrieved from https://pap.georgia.gov/parole-consideration/parole-consideration-eligibility-guidelinesGoogle Scholar
Grierson, J. (2018, November 9). Parole board has no black people among 240 members. The Guardian. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/09/parole-board-diversity-crisis-black-membersGoogle Scholar
Grove, W. M., & Meehl, P. E. (1996). Comparative efficiency of formal (mechanical, algorithmic) and informal (subjective, impressionistic) prediction procedures: The clinical/statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 2, 293323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, R. K. (2009). The psychological assessment of risk for crime and violence. Canadian Psychology, 50(3), 172182.Google Scholar
Hanson, R. K., Bourgon, G., McGrath, R. J., Kroner, D., D’Amora, D. A., Thomas, S. S., & Tavarez, L. P. (2017). A five-level risk and needs system: Maximizing assessment results in corrections through the development of a common language. Justice Center: The National Reentry Resource Center. Retrieved from https://csgjusticecenter.org/nrrc/publications/a-five-level-risk-and-needs-system-maximizing-assessment-results-in-corrections-through-the-development-of-a-common-language/Google Scholar
Herberman, E. J., & Bonczar, T. P. (2014). Probation and parole in the United States, 2013. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
Hilton, N. Z., Carter, A. M., Harris, G. T., & Sharpe, A. J. B. (2008). Does using nonnumerical terms to describe risk aid violence risk communication? Clinician agreement and decision making. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(2), 171188.Google Scholar
Hoffman, P. B. (2003). History of the federal parole system. Retrieved from www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/uspc/legacy/2009/10/07/history.pdfGoogle Scholar
Huebner, B. M., & Bynum, T. S. (2008). The role of race and ethnicity in parole decisions. Criminology, 46(4), 907938.Google Scholar
Lin, J., Grattet, R., & Petersilia, J. (2010). “Back‐end sentencing” and reimprisonment: Individual, organizational, and community predictors of parole sanctioning decisions. Criminology, 48(3), 759795.Google Scholar
Linsey, S. C., & Miller, M. K. (2011). Discretionary release decisions of actual and mock parole board members: Implications for community sentiment and parole decision-making research. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 18(4), 498516.Google Scholar
Lloyd, C. D., Perley-Robertson, B., & Serin, R. C. (2019). Age and strengths in a community corrections sample. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 19(3), 215226.Google Scholar
Lloyd, C. D., & Serin, R. C. (2012). Agency and outcome expectancies for crime desistance: Measuring offenders’ personal beliefs about change. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 6, 543565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennealy, P. J., Skeem, J. L., Manchak, S. M., & Eno Louden, J. (2012). Firm, fair, and caring officer-offender relationships protect against supervision failure. Law and Human Behavior, 36(6), 496505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 22(35), 22–54.Google Scholar
Martinson, R. (1976). California research at the crossroads. Crime and Delinquency, 22(2), 180–191.Google Scholar
Meehl, P. E. (1996). Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence (New Preface). Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield/Jason Aronson. (Original work published 1954)Google Scholar
Morgan, K. D., & Smith, B. (2008). The impact of race on parole decision-making. Justice Quarterly, 25(2), 411435.Google Scholar
Mujuzi, J. D. (2016). A prisoner’s right to be released or place on parole: A comment on Öcalan v. Turkey (No. 2) (18 March 2014). Baltic Journal of Law & Politics, 9(1), 6992.Google Scholar
Turkey, Öcalan v. (No. 2), Application nos. 24069/03, 197/04, 6201/06 and 10464/07 (March 18, 2014) (Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Pinto De Albuquerque)Google Scholar
Office of the Correctional Investigator. (2020). 2018–2019 annual report. Retrieved from www.oci-bec.gc.ca/cnt/rpt/pdf/annrpt/annrpt20182019-eng.pdfGoogle Scholar
Ostermann, M. (2015). How do former inmates perform in the community? A survival analysis of rearrests, reconvictions, and technical parole violations. Crime & Delinquency, 61(2), 163187.Google Scholar
Parole Board of Canada. (2018a). History of parole in Canada. Retrieved from www.canada.ca/en/parole-board/corporate/history-of-parole-in-canada.htmlGoogle Scholar
Parole Board for England and Wales. (2019b). The parole board: Working with others to protect the public. Annual report and accounts 2018/19. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/818677/The_Parole_Board_for_England___Wales_Annual_Report_and_Accounts_2018-19.pdfGoogle Scholar
Parsonage, W. H., Bernat, F. P., & Helfgott, J. (1992). Victim impact testimony and Pennsylvania`s parole decision making process: A pilot study. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 3, 187206.Google Scholar
Petersilia, J. (2001). Prisoner reentry: Public safety and reintegration challenges. The Prison Journal, 81(3), 360375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersilia, J., & Reitz, K. R. (Eds.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of sentencing and corrections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickett, J. T., Mancini, C., & Mears, D. P. (2013). Vulnerable victims, monstrous offenders, and unmanageable risk: Explaining public opinion on the social control of sex crime. Criminology, 51(3), 729759.Google Scholar
Public Safety Canada. (2018). 2018 Corrections and conditional release statistical overview. Ottawa, ON: Public Safety Canada.Google Scholar
Re, R. M., & Solow-Niederman, A. (2019). Developing artificially intelligent justice. Stanford Technical Law Review, 22, 242289.Google Scholar
Rhine, E. E., Petersilia, J., & Reitz, K. R. (2016). The future of parole release: A ten-point reform plan. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 16, 169.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V. (2009). Listening to the crime victim: Evaluating victim input at sentencing and parole. Crime and Justice, 38(1), 347412.Google Scholar
Ruhland, E. L., Rhine, E. E., Robey, J. P., & Mitchell, K. L. (2016). The continuing leverage of releasing authorities: Findings from a national study. Minneapolis, MN: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice.Google Scholar
Schlager, M. D., & Robbins, K. (2008). Does parole work? Revisited: Reframing the discussion of the impact of postprison supervision on offender outcome. The Prison Journal, 88(2), 234251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartzapfel, B. (2015a). Nine things you probably didn’t know about parole. Retrieved from www.themarshallproject.org/2015/07/10/nine-things-you-probably-didn-t-know-about-paroleGoogle Scholar
Schwartzapfel, B. (2015b). Life without parole. Retrieved from www.themarshallproject.org/2015/07/10/life-without-paroleGoogle Scholar
Serin, R. C., Chadwick, N., & Lloyd, C. D. (2015). Dynamic risk and protective factors. Psychology, Crime & Law, 22(1–2), 151170.Google Scholar
Serin, R. C., & Gobeil, R. (2013). Analysis of the use of the structured decision-making framework in three states. (NIC Accession No. 028408)Google Scholar
Serin, R. C., Gobeil, R., Lloyd, C. D., Chadwick, N., Wardrop, K., & Prell, L. (2016). Using dynamic risk to enhance conditional release decisions in prisoners to improve their outcomes. Behavioural Sciences & the Law, 34(2), 321–336.Google Scholar
Shaffer, J. (2020, March 5). Personal communication.Google Scholar
Smith, P., Gendreau, P., & Swartz, (2009). Validating the principles of effective intervention: A systematic review of the contributions of meta-analysis in the field of corrections. Victims and Offenders, 4, 148169.Google Scholar
Smith, B. L., Watkins, E., & Morgan, K. (1997). The effect of victim participation on parole decisions: Results from a southeastern state. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 8(1), 5774.Google Scholar
Travis, L. F., & Stacey, J. (2010). A half century of parole rules: Conditions of parole in the United States, 2008. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 604608.Google Scholar
Solomon, A. L., Kachnowski, V., & Bhati, A. (2005). Does parole work? Analyzing the impact of postprison supervision on rearrest outcomes. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
US Courts. (2017). Incarceration costs significantly more than supervision. Retrieved from www.uscourts.gov/news/2017/08/17/incarceration-costs-significantly-more-supervisionGoogle Scholar
Vito, G. F., Higgins, G. E., & Tewksbury, R. (2017). The effectiveness of parole supervision: Use of propensity score matching to analyze reincarceration rates in Kentucky. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 28(7), 627640.Google Scholar
Wardrop, K., Serin, R. C., Gobeil, R., Rentler, D., & Braxton, R. (2017, April). An evaluation of the structured decision making framework in 3 U.S. states. Workshop presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Paroling Authorities International Training Conference, Vancouver, BC.Google Scholar
Wardrop, K., Serin, R. C., & Rentler, D. (2019 ). Evaluating the structured parole decision making framework in three U.S. states. The American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 37(2).Google Scholar
Young, K. M., Mukamal, D. A., & Favre-Bulle, T. (2015). Predicting parole grants: An analysis of suitability hearings for California’s lifer inmates. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 28(4), 268277.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×