The Realities of the Situation

Parole as a boxing match: Lifers, prosecution, and the adversarial making of parole hearings

“…The third theme shows how prosecutors act as “hope disrupters,” casting doubt on the possibility of lifers’ future reform and/or inclusion in the community. This narrative aligns with the “culture of cautiousness” toward lifers that has been found in other contexts (Griffin, 2018: 116) and conflicts with the constitutional vision of lifers’ parole in terms of the right to hope and atonement (van Zyl Smit and Appleton, 2019). In this theme, prosecutors convey a message to parole decision-makers, and to lifers themselves, of pessimism, skepticism, mistrust, and despair vis-a-vis lifers’ accounts, often even if they agree to their release.…”

“…Research, mostly conducted in the U.S., suggests that parole decision-makers negotiate competing professional identities and discourses in the face of shifting economic, political, and institutional pressures (Aviram, 2020; Shah, 2017, Shammas, 2019). The logic employed by parole decision-makers in various socio-legal contexts and periods has been found to include various, often conflicting, discourses, such as clinical-rehabilitative, disciplinary-normalizing, actuarial-risk-management, and punitive-retributive (Griffin, 2018; Shah, 2017; Shammas, 2019). Studies have revealed that lifers’ parole boards enmesh actuarial risk with an “atomistic” discretionary evaluative judgment of lifers’ “insight” toward the crime (Aviram, 2020; Dalke, 2023; Shammas, 2019).…”

“…Studies have revealed that lifers’ parole boards enmesh actuarial risk with an “atomistic” discretionary evaluative judgment of lifers’ “insight” toward the crime (Aviram, 2020; Dalke, 2023; Shammas, 2019). They operate with extreme caution, employing, openly and less openly, the logic of risk management and punishment (Aviram, 2020; Cassidy, 2019; Griffin, 2018; Shammas, 2019). Scholars have also found that lifers’ parole decision-makers, through the use of lifers’ remorse, promote broader values, for instance, the truth-finding role of the criminal justice system, ensuring that lifers view the cause of their crime as a deficit within themselves and that they internalize the logic behind their incarceration (Young and Chimowitz, 2022).…”

“…Discretionary lifer parole boards – the authorities that decide when to release eligible lifers before completion of their full sentences – are supremely powerful, yet largely hidden, penal authorities (Aviram, 2020; Padfield et al, 2000; Padfield, 2013; Rhine et al, 2017). In recent years, in the wake of mass incarceration and the gradual movement from “front-end” to “back-end” sentencing mechanisms, scholars have been giving increased attention to the complex crafting of lifers’ paroles (Aviram, 2020; Bell, 2019; Griffin, 2018; Shammas, 2019; van Zyl Smit and Appleton, 2019; Young and Chimowitz, 2022). The focus of the literature in this area, understandably, has been on the crafting of lifers’ paroles through the eyes of parole board members and/or parole candidates (Griffin, 2018; Young and Chimowitz, 2022; Shammas, 2019).…”

“…In recent years, in the wake of mass incarceration and the gradual movement from “front-end” to “back-end” sentencing mechanisms, scholars have been giving increased attention to the complex crafting of lifers’ paroles (Aviram, 2020; Bell, 2019; Griffin, 2018; Shammas, 2019; van Zyl Smit and Appleton, 2019; Young and Chimowitz, 2022). The focus of the literature in this area, understandably, has been on the crafting of lifers’ paroles through the eyes of parole board members and/or parole candidates (Griffin, 2018; Young and Chimowitz, 2022; Shammas, 2019). However, other actors can shape lifers’ parole process.…”