The parole system at work: A study of risk based decision-making: Home Office research study 202

Hood, Roger; Shute, Stephen

doi:10.1037/e454352008-001

Cited by 23 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This latter finding is somewhat inconsistent with previous research which illustrates that characteristics such as age (Huebner & Bynum, 2006), criminal history, and the nature and/or severity of an offender's index offence are significant considerations in the parole decision (Morgan & Smith, 2005). The consideration of an offender's level of risk for future violence, as measured by the VRS, is consistent with previous research findings indicating that the level of risk an offender poses to the community is a primary consideration in the parole decision-making process (Gobeil & Serin, 2010;Hood & Shute, 2000;Meyer, 2001). The importance of the CCO's recommendations was also consistent with previous research which indicated that the recommendations provided by custodial staff are significantly associated with the parole decision (Morgan & Smith, 2005;Proctor, 1999).…”

Section: Parole Decisionsupporting

confidence: 62%

“…Studies investigating the parole decision-making process have provided varied results in terms of the factors considered and the relative weights attributed to each factor by parole board members. The factors that consistently emerge in studies of parole decision-making are: offender characteristics (e.g., age and ethnicity; Bonham, et al, 1986;Huebner & Bynum, 2006), criminal history and offence-related variables (Bonham et al, 1986;Huebner & Bynum, 2006;Morgan & Smith, 2005;Scott, 1974), participation in treatment programs and institutional misconduct (Carroll, Weiner, Coates, Galegher, & Alibrio, 1982;Conley & Zimmerman, 1982;Scott, 1974;West-Smith, Pogrebin, & Poole, 2000), variables related to an offender's release plan (e.g., employment and accommodation; Bonham et al 1986;Hood & Shute, 2000), recommendations from corrections staff (Morgan & Smith, 2005;Proctor, 1999), and an assessment of an offender's risk of recidivism (Bonham et al 1986;Hood & Shute, 2000;Proctor, 1999). In the 2007 APAI survey, participating parole authorities were asked to rank a series of factors depending on their impact on release decisions (Kinnevy & Caplan, 2008).…”

Section: Factors Considered In Parole Decisionmakingmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Moreover, a large body of literature examining the assessment of risk for future violence highlights the inadequacy of unstructured decision-making (gisd ottir, White, Spengler, Maugherman, Anderson, Cook, et al, 2006;Monahan, 1981;Steadman & Cocozza, 1974). This is particularly pertinent to parole decision-making, given that an over-arching consideration governing this decision is an offender's risk of recidivism following release (Gobeil & Serin, 2010;Hood & Shute, 2000;Meyer, 2001). Although a formal risk assessment is incorporated at some stage in the parole decision-making process in many jurisdictions (Kinnevy & Caplan, 2008), this may be one of multiple factors considered and ultimately a subjective risk judgement may be formed by the members of the board.…”

Section: Factors Considered In Parole Decisionmakingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Elucidating the Factors that Influence Parole Decision-Making and Violent Offenders’ Performance on Parole

Mooney

Daffern

2013

Psychiatry, Psychology and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A discretionary parole decision-making process is maintained in multiple jurisdictions internationally. There is a lack of contemporary research examining the factors that influence discretionary parole decisions, particularly in an Australian context. Moreover, there is no known research examining the relationship between these factors and the likelihood an offender will successfully complete their parole order. The current study investigated which factors were significantly associated with: (1) the parole decisions made by the Adult Parole Board of Victoria, Australia; and (2) the cancellation of an offender's parole order, in a sample of 146 violent offenders. Four variables emerged as significant predictors of the parole decision: aggressive disciplinary incidents; the Violence Risk Scale (VRS) total score; the Community Corrections Officer's (CCO) recommendations for release; and confirmed accommodation. At the multivariate level, the VRS total score and the CCO's recommendations remained significant predictors. With regard to parole cancellation, a range of factors were significant at the bivariate level; these included: a history of drug abuse; total prior convictions; aggressive disciplinary incidents; the VRS total score; previous parole cancellations; the CCO's recommendations; confirmed accommodation; and family support. However, family support emerged as the most important predictor in multivariate analysis. These findings provide valuable feedback to members of parole boards regarding the factors that influence their release decision and the factors subsequently linked to parole cancellation.

show abstract

Section: Parole Decisionsupporting

confidence: 62%

Section: Factors Considered In Parole Decisionmakingmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Factors Considered In Parole Decisionmakingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Elucidating the Factors that Influence Parole Decision-Making and Violent Offenders’ Performance on Parole

Mooney

Daffern

2013

Psychiatry, Psychology and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Research in England and Canada have shown that parole board members' assessment of inmates' insight into their criminal behavior and methods for avoiding criminal behavior in the future are an important factor in determining release. For example, offenders in Great Britain who took responsibility for their criminal behavior by admitting their guilt (Hood & Shute, 2000) and expressing remorse (Padfield, Liebling, & Arnold, 2003) were granted parole at significantly higher rates than those who did not. Furthermore, a study of release decisions of Canadian female inmates found parole boards weighed heavily an inmate's ability to identify circumstances surrounding their criminal behavior as well their ability to identify corrective actions to avoid criminality in the future (Hannah-Moffat & Yule, 2011).…”

Section: Discussion MI and Release Decisionsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Mental Illness, Criminal Risk Factors and Parole Release Decisions

Matejkowski

Draine

Solomon

et al. 2011

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research has not examined whether higher rates of parole denial among inmates with mental illness (MI) are the result of the increased presence of criminal risk factors among this population. Employing a representative sample of inmates with (n = 219) and without (n = 184) MI receiving parole release decisions in 2007, this study tested whether the central eight risk factors for recidivism considered in parole release decisions intervened in the relationship between MI and parole release. MI was associated with possession of a substance use disorder, antisocial personality disorder and violent charges while incarcerated; however, these factors were not related to release decisions. MI was found to have neither a direct nor an indirect effect on release decisions. While results indicate that release decisions appear, to some extent, to be evidence-based, they also suggest considerable discretion is being implemented by parole board members in release decisions above and beyond consideration of criminal risk factors.

show abstract

“…There is also some evidence to suggest that 'clinical' assessments of the risk posed by individual offenders often are unduly pessimistic when compared with actuarial risk calculation (see, for example, Hood and Shute, 2000). Interestingly, Feeley himself, along with Rubin, has gone so far as to aver that CHELIOTIS How iron is the iron cage of new penology?…”

Section: Coincidentia Oppositorummentioning

confidence: 93%

How iron is the iron cage of new penology?

Cheliotis

2006

Punishment & Society

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article addresses the extent to which the concept of 'new penology' is helpful in understanding penal currents, particularly as they relate to the older paradigms of retribution and rehabilitation. In the light of theoretical, historical and empirical evidence, support is lent to the arguments: that the new penology thesis downplays the role of human agency at the level of implementing criminal justice policies; that it ignores the potentially positive aspects of managerialism; and that it misses the continuity between past and contemporary penal features. It is concluded that, despite its merits, new penology remains a hypothesis, rather than a realized penal rationale.

show abstract

The parole system at work: A study of risk based decision-making: Home Office research study 202

Cited by 23 publications

References 0 publications

Elucidating the Factors that Influence Parole Decision-Making and Violent Offenders’ Performance on Parole

Elucidating the Factors that Influence Parole Decision-Making and Violent Offenders’ Performance on Parole

Mental Illness, Criminal Risk Factors and Parole Release Decisions

How iron is the iron cage of new penology?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About