PAROLE BOARD DECISION MAKING - A STUDY OF DISPARITY REDUCTION AND THE IMPACT OF INSTITUTIONAL BEHAVIOR

• NCJ Number: 56847
• Journal: Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 70 Issue: 1 Dated: (SPRING 1979) Pages: 77-88
• Author(s): M R GOTTFREDSON
• Date Published: 1979
• Length: 12 pages
• Corporate Author: Northwestern University; Williams and Wilkins Co
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

TO EXPLORE THE EXTENT TO WHICH PAROLE BOARDS REDUCE THE EFFECTS OF JUDICIAL DISPARITY AND TO REVIEW THE EFFECT OF INSTITUTIONAL BEHAVIOR ON TIME-SERVED DECISION, A SAMPLE OF 2,833 ADULT PAROLE CASES ARE REVIEWED.

Abstract

AFTER A REVIEW OF THE PROBLEMS PRESENTED BY RESEARCH INTO JUDICIAL DISPARITY, PAROLE DISPARITY, AND PAROLE DECISIONMAKING, A STUDY OF RANDOM SAMPLES OF RELEASES BY THE UNITED STATES BOARD OF PAROLE IN 1970, 1971, AND 1972 IS DESCRIBED. ALL WERE ADULT FELONY CASES. INSTITUTIONAL AND PAROLE RECORDS WERE USED TO CORRELATE A VARIETY OF PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS, PRIOR RECORD INFORMATION, CURRENT OFFENSE INFORMATION, AND PRISON EXPERIENCE VARIABLES WITH THE PAROLE DECISIONS. TABLES PRESENT THE STUDY DATA. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE PAROLE BOARD SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED THE TIME ACTUALLY SERVED IN PRISON FROM THE MAXIMUM JUDICIALLY SET SENTENCE LENGTH, BUT OVERALL THE RELATIVE REDUCTION IN VARIABILITY IN SENTENCES FOR SIMILAR OFFENDERS WAS NOT LARGE. ON THE AVERAGE INMATES SERVED ABOUT 52 PERCENT OF THEIR MAXIMUM SENTENCES. THE BIVARIATE CORRELATION COEFFICIENT BETWEEN SENTENCE LENGTH AND TIME SERVICE IS HIGH (R EQUALS +0.85). PAROLE BOARDS ALSO MODIFY SENTENCING DECISIONS ON THE BASIS OF INSTITUTIONAL BEHAVIOR, BUT THESE MODIFICATIONS ACCOUNT FOR A RELATIVELY SMALL PROPORTION OF THE PAROLE BOARD DECISION VARIATION. IN JURISDICTIONS IN WHICH INSTITUTIONAL MISCONDUCT IS MORE SERIOUS, IT CARRIES MORE WEIGHT. (BEHAVIORS SIGNIFICANT AT THE P LESS THAN 0.05 LEVEL ARE ESCAPE HISTORY, ASSAULTIVE INFRACTIONS, AND PRISON PUNISHMENT.) THE PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED IN THIS STUDY INCLUDE LACK OF CLEAR GUIDELINES TO DEFINE DISPARITY, LACK OF A CLEAR STATEMENT OF THE PURPOSE OF PAROLE RELEASE, AND CONFLICTING VIEWS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF SENTENCING EQUALIZATION. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT SENTENCING REFORM MUST ADDRESS THESE BASIC ISSUES, THAT PAROLE BOARDS WILL NOT REDUCE JUDICIAL DISPARITY. (GLR)