Explaining the Parole Decision - The Effect of Alternate Conceptualizations on Analyses of Decisionmaking (From Coping With Imprisonment, P 103-126, 1982, Nicolette Parisi, ed. - See NCJ-84908)

• NCJ Number: 84914
• Author(s): T J Flanagan
• Date Published: 1982
• Length: 24 pages
• Sale Source: Sage Publications, Inc
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

Data collected on 758 male inmates released to supervision in a single northeastern State between 1973 and 1976 showed that most were released proximate to expiration of their minimum terms, suggesting that stress due to uncertainty about institutional factors considered by the parole board seems unwarranted.

Abstract

A review of studies on parole board decisionmaking concludes that their findings depend largely on whether the parole decision is viewed as a dichotomous grant/deny outcome or a determination of time served. Several factors including the inmate's prison behavior can influence the decision in the first context, while preprison factors dominate if the decision is when to release. This study collected socioeconomic, criminal history, offense, and institutional history information on a representative sample of long-term and short-term inmates released to supervision from 14 institutions over a 4-year period. Analysis from the grant/deny perspective indicated that an inmate's record of prior sexual problems was the only item in a set of preinstitutional characteristics such as education and race that was related significantly to the parole decision. Other variables affecting the decision were previous arrest record, type of sentence served, and an institution's security level. Institutional behavior, including disciplinary infractions, was not related significantly to the parole decision. From a different viewpoint, an examination of factors associated with varying lengths of time served among offenders found that the minimum sentence imposed by the judge served as the presumptive release date for 68 percent. This finding suggests that parole boards fail to discharge the disparity reduction function that is often attributed to them and that their responsibilities in jurisdictions with presumptive sentencing structures may not be radically different from those performed by traditional parole boards. The paper provides tables, 10 footnotes, and 27 references. For related material, see NCJ 84908.