About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

71 Fed. Probation 16 (2007)
What Factors Affect Parole - A Review of Empirical Research

handle is hein.journals/fedpro71 and id is 116 raw text is: 16a FEDERAL PROBATIO Volmer1oumbr: AReview of Emp Research Joel M. Caplan University of Pennsylvania, School of Social Policy & Practice AS AMERICAN CRIMINAL justice poli- cies and practices became more punitive in the 1970s, parole board discretion was simul- taneously limited or eliminated (Caplan, 2006). Much of the empirical research on parole release decisions during this time was conducted in an effort to create objective, actuarial models and guidelines for deter- mining releases from prison (Carroll, Weiner, Coates, Galegher, & Alibrio, 1982; Cullen & Gilbert, 1982; Gottfredson & Wilkins, 1978; Krajick, 1978; Von Hirsch & Hanrahan, 1979; Walker, 1993). These models were supposed to be immune from subjective or indis- criminate feelings towards inmates by parole board members. However, a detailed review of the empirical literature on parole release decision-making suggests that despite guidelines, parole release decisions remained irregularly applied and were primarily a function of institutional behavior, crime severity, criminal history, incarceration length, mental illness, and victim input. There are some recent publica- tions on parole release decision-making (e.g. Morgan & Smith, 2005b; Petersilia, 2001; Turpin-Petrosino, 1999; West-Smith, Pogre- bin, & Poole, 2000); however, much of the relevant research is more than 20 years old (e.g., Carroll, 1978; Gottfredson & Ballard, 1966; Scott, 1974). The timing of these stud- ies is important because parole policies and practices at both the federal and state levels have changed significantly over the past two decades (Gottfredson, 1979; Gottschalk, 2006; McCoy & McManimon, 2003; Travis & Lawrence, 2002; Travis, Keegan, Cadora, Solomon, & Swartz, 2003; Turpin-Petrosino, 1999; West-Smith et al., 2000). Even the structure of parole boards themselves can be an overriding factor in release decisions (Caplan & Paparozzi, 2005; West-Smith, et al., 2000). For example, during Pogrebin, Poole, and Regoli's 1986 study of parole decision making in Colorado, at least two board members made the majority of release decisions; in 2000, only one board member in Colorado was required to decide parole release (West-Smith, et al., 2000). With only one decision-maker, parole is more dependent on the individual board member's educa- tion, background, and philosophy (Caplan & Paparozzi 2005; West-Smith, et al., 2000). Despite the nuances of parole board policies or structures, a review of parole decision- making literature to date reveals that parole release decisions are primarily a function of institutional behavior, crime severity, crim- inal history, incarceration length, mental illness, and victim input. Institutional Behavior Many empirical studies on parole board decision-making found institutional conduct to be significantly associated with release decisions (Carroll & Burke, 1990; Carroll, et al., 1982; Conley & Zimmerman, 1982; Gottfredson, 1979; Hoffman, 1972; Talarico, 1988; Winfree, Ballard, Sellers, & Roberg, 1990). Gottfredson (1979) considered the influence of institutional behavior when he explored whether and to what extent the United States Board of Parole reduced judi- cial disparity in incarceration length for adult federal prisoners released on parole between 1970 and 1972. He found that the parole board substantially reduced the time actually served in prison from the maximum judicially set sentence length, and that parole boards do modify sentencing decisions on the basis of institutional behavior. It should be noted that Gottfredson collected his data before the implementation of new guidelines by the United States Parole Commission and, therefore, his results do not reflect current federal practices. However, the operation of the federal parole commission at the time of his analysis was similar to the then-current operation of many state parole boards (Gott- fredson, 1979). Carroll and colleagues (1982) assessed what case information parole interviewers used when deciding parole release. They obtained data on Pennsylvania parole cases interviewed between October 1977 and May 1978. The first source of data about their sample consisted of a two-page ques- tionnaire filled out immediately after each interview by a parole interviewer. It incor- porated over 70 items and drew upon factors identified as important through previous research on parole decisions, discussions among the researchers and the board, the authors' experience with designing a post- hearing questionnaire for parole revocation hearings, and a pilot study. Some items on the questionnaire requested objective case facts, while most items solicited ratings of subjective judgments. The second source of data was case files that parole interviewers had available prior to and during interviews with inmates. These files were coded on over 100 variables. All available board decisions for these cases (e.g., parole granted or denied) were also obtained, producing a total sample size of 743 cases, 84.7 percent of which were granted parole. 16 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 71 Number 1

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most