Factors that Influence Parole Boards’ and Judges’ Decisions on Parole Application in Lithuania

Abstract

This article examines problems of parole application in Lithuania. The research applies a qualitative study in order to learn the peculiarities of the work and decision-making of judges and parole boards. Additionally, this study analyzes social research reports, filled out by staff in correctional facilities. This study covers as many factors influencing parole application as possible, and takes into account the peculiarities of the particular parole stages. Conclusions of this study should help theorists and practitioners see parole KEYWORDSParole, social research report, legal factors of parole decision making, extralegal factors of parole decision making

Parole practises in Lithuania: Factors predicting court decisions

“…These findings are consistent with the results of previous studies regarding parole decision-making (Caplan, 2007;Houser et al, 2019;Huebner and Bynum, 2008;Lindsey and Miller, 2011;Morgan and Smith, 2005;Nuffield, 1982;Proctor, 1999;Warner, 1923). Unlike some previous studies (Heinz et al, 1976;Huebner and Bynum, 2008;Michailovic and Jarutiene, 2017), this study showed that the level of criminal risk appears to be insignificant in terms of parole decision-making. This may indicate that judges tend to focus on the risk factors they believe to be significant in terms of recidivism and public safety.…”

“…Overall, half of the inmates granted parole were classified as low-risk, while those denied parole were mostly classified as moderate-risk. These findings are consistent previous research indicating judges' beliefs that parolees should mostly be classified as low-risk (Michailovic and Jarutiene, 2017). Although this criterion is included in the CECP, the inmate's progress with risk reduction should also be considered.…”

“…Similarly, judges indicated that institutional conduct, criminal history, personality traits and time spent in custody are also important. In addition, judges believed that parolees should be classified as low-risk, while compliance with the plan was not given high importance, as it was considered a formal requirement rather than the indicator of successful rehabilitation (Michailovic and Jarutiene, 2017).…”

“…5. An earlier study of parole application in Lithuania has shown that in most cases parole applicants are not legally represented neither during the board hearing nor in court (Michailovic and Jarutiene, 2017). 6.…”