Studying Parole in the “Spotlight”: Lessons from a Large American Jurisdiction

Abstract

In September 2008 the Governor of Pennsylvania, USA, imposed a moratorium on all parole (early conditional) releases from the state prisons, which lasted until March 2009. As a political measure, the moratorium was triggered by a series of violent incidents involving recently released parolees culminating with the killings of several police officers. This paper documents the impact of the moratorium on the parole and correctional processes in the state and discusses its implications for the legitimacy of the two justice agencies affected, the Board of Parole and the Department of Corrections. The paper also describes the research undertaking of the team tasked with conducting the comprehensive review of parole and corrections at the Governor's request, which circumscribed the lifting of the moratorium on the results of the investigation. In addition to qualitative data, the study employed quantitative methods to investigate through predictive analyses both parole decisions and parolee performance upon release. The challenges of conducting action research in the "spotlight" are also highlighted. The nature of the study and its setting in a large state in the United States should provide a useful illustration of problems and potential approaches to dealing with them that similar crime prevention tasks may face in other jurisdictions around the world relying on conditional release as a means of prison release.

Legitimacy of parole as a consequence of policy shock: The lived experiences of incarcerated persons during the parole moratorium in Pennsylvania, U.S.

“…Even in states that have such requirements, parole boards cannot entirely surpass the political power of the Governor, who can overturn parole decisions of Schwartzapfel (2015). Indeed, as plainly highlighted by the moratorium in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, high‐profile crimes committed by parolees can lead Governors to even completely halt parole for all offenders or some types of offenders (Chabria & Luna, 2019; Laskorunsky et al, 2023; Vîlcică, 2016a, 2016b).…”

“…This followed on the heels of a series of homicides and other violent crimes attributed to other individuals who had also been on parole supervision at the time of the crimes. In considering the implications of the moratorium on the correctional system itself, Vîlcică (2016a, 2016b) contended that the:

“… moratorium on all parole releases to ensure that no parolee would have a chance to reoffend—raised a host of consequences which had the potential to offset the original intent of the desired policy change (that is, a reduction in violent crime). These ranged from serious prison overcrowding issues, to overly cautious parole decision making, both resulting in prisoner discontent that had the potential to exacerbate the already existing problems in managing the growing prison population” (p. 83).

…”

A place for public concerns in parole decision making in Japan

“…Parole has become ‘the subject of intense criticism, with parole boards becoming lightning rods for public anger’ in English‐speaking jurisdictions (Fitzgerald et al., 2023, p.1), typically followed by an unpopular parole decision or a high‐profile reoffence committed by a parolee (Freiberg et al., 2018; Saunders & Roberts, 2019). This has led to restrictions on parole release by political or legislative interventions in Canada, the United States, Australia and England and Wales (Annison & Guiney, 2022; Doob, Webster & Manson, 2014; Freiberg et al., 2018; Rhine, Petersilia & Reitz, 2017; Vîlcic˘a, 2016). Moffa, Stratton & Ruyters (2019) framed an emerging situation in which parole is highly politicised through prioritising community values, victims’ voices and ‘tough on crime’ initiatives over prisoners’ rights, rehabilitation and reintegration, by developing an analytical concept called ‘parole populism’, which is built on the concepts of ‘populist punitiveness’ (Bottoms, 1995) and ‘penal populism’ (Pratt, 2007).…”

Gendered views on parole: exploring how emotion and emotion management help to explain gender differences in the Australian public’s views on parole

“…While some previous studies have included parole-related questions as part of a larger punitiveness scale (Dowler, 2003;Haghighi & Lopez, 1998;Johnson, 2009), few studies could be located where a specific focus was given to measuring punitiveness using the public's support or opposition to the release of prisoners on parole (Cumberland & Zamble, 1992;Samra-Grewal & Roesch, 2000). Parole represents an important interface between the criminal justice system and the community (Huebner & Bynum, 2003), with parole boards deciding which inmates are released from prison and when (Vîlcică, 2016).…”

“…Other factors taken into consideration by parole boards include a prisoner's institutional behaviour, risk of reoffending, participation in prison programming and victims' concerns (Bartels, 2013;Gately et al, 2017). If deciding to grant parole, the board must also decide what supervisory conditions to impose on an offender to facilitate their successful reintegration to the community and to safeguard the public or any victims (Vîlcică, 2016). Research suggests, though, that members of the Australian public know very little about the processes that guide parole decisionmaking (Gately et al, 2017), including the requirement that parole boards prioritise public safety above all other considerations.…”