This article examines the most recent changes in Australian parole laws, policies and practices in the context of the changing relations between legislatures, the courts and parole authorities. It argues that legislatures, purportedly reflecting public opinion, have become less willing to trust either the courts or parole boards and have eroded their authority, powers and discretion. It provides examples of legislative changes that have altered the purposes of parole and introduced mandatory or presumptive non-parole periods, as well as overriding, by-passing and restricting parole.

Research exploring gender differences in public attitudes toward parole is limited, despite a large body of literature showing that men and women have diverging views on other criminal justice issues, including capital punishment and offender rehabilitation and treatment. Drawing on an Australian national survey of community views on parole, the current study examines whether men and women differ in their support for the release of prisoners on parole. The results indicate that gender does predict parole attitudes, with Australian women significantly more likely to hold nonsupportive views on parole than Australian men. The results also reveal that women are more likely to take a neutral position toward parole, rather than supporting it. Together, these findings indicate there may be something about being a woman in Australia that prevents one from being willing to support the early release of prisoners. The implications of these findings for future research are discussed.

Parole and parole boards play critical roles in criminal justice systems. With parolee numbers and imprisonment rates increasing in many countries, parole decision-making is a crucial contributor to prison population sizes and, more broadly, public confidence in the operation of correctional systems. This article examines the public understanding of and confidence in parole, from the perspectives of parole board members and other parole authority staff. It aims to determine whether and, if so, how, public opinion influences parole decision-making and how parole boards feel they can or should respond to this. It draws on interviews with 80 parole board members and other relevant staff in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland.

In this article, we present the findings of a mixed-methods study of correctional officers’ views on the introduction of body-worn cameras (BWCs) within prisons. Using a statewide survey and in-depth interviews with correctional officers in Queensland, Australia, this study explored officer support for BWCs and the relationship between officer support and several key variables. We found widespread support for the use of BWCs among correctional officers. Female officers and those who held more positive views about the perceived functionality of BWCs and the implementation and training process were most supportive. However, the introduction of BWCs also raises some important considerations for prison management that may impact officer support, including whether to allow officers to access BWC footage for report writing or officer training. Consideration must also be made regarding turn-on policies for BWCs given concerns that more frequent recording has the potential to damage rapport with incarcerated individuals.

Amid rising rates of prison violence, corrective service agencies worldwide are increasingly championing body-worn cameras as a tool with the potential of making the prison environment safer. Little is known, however, whether this technology makes correctional officers feel safer while carrying out their duties in an environment with higher rates of violence than most other occupations. Using survey data and interviews with correctional officers in Queensland, Australia, this study shows that for many correctional officers, body-worn cameras do not improve feelings of safety or have a civilizing effect on prisoner behavior. Most correctional officers do believe, however, that the presence of body-worn cameras reduces the threat of false allegations and thereby improves their “professional” safety. This study also considers whether officers’ perceptions of physical or professional safety vary by officer characteristics, body-worn camera usage, and prison type.