A juvenile lifer’s parole can be revoked and justified for technical or new crime violations of supervision conditions. We analyze narratives contained in revocation decisions issued to juvenile lifer candidates by one state parole board. Our qualitative content analysis reveals that most parole revocations stem from technical violations rather than any new criminal activity. In addition, decision statements qualify aspects of a juvenile lifer candidate’s case in opposite ways, where identified themes are presented as accomplishments to grant parole, but as claims made by the candidate to deny rerelease. In categorizing candidates as deserving or undeserving of parole, suitability for rerelease is represented in the parole board’s interpretation of risk in terms of a candidate’s moral responsibility. By doing so, parole revocation review decisions avoid acknowledging the obstacles in juvenile lifer reentry.

The current study builds on prior work examining the association between futurelessness and commitment institutional rules among correctional populations. Using cross-sectional data from a sample of 413 people incarcerated in United States jails from 2018 to 2019, this study employs Ordinary Least Squares regression to examine the association between futurelessness and commitment to institutional rules controlling for various importation and deprivation factors previously linked with institutional misconduct. Results provide support for the importance of futurelessness for commitment to institutional rules, suggesting that this finding is consistent across correctional environments. In addition, findings suggest that an index measure of futurelessness is a stronger construct for testing futurelessness than single-item measures used in prior studies. Consistent with prior literature on futurelessness, our findings suggest that among people incarcerated in jail futurelessness is linked to a weaker commitment to institutional rules.

No abstract

No abstract