PAROLE SELECTION PRACTICE - TWO FEEDBACK METHODS

• NCJ Number: 48913
• Author(s): P B HOFFMAN
• Date Published: 1973
• Length: 157 pages
• Sale Source: UMI Dissertation Services
• Publication Type: Thesis/Dissertation
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT ALBANY - DISSERTATION

Annotation

THE PAROLE SELECTION DECISIONMAKING OF THE U.S. BOARD OF PAROLE IS EXAMINED AND TWO FEEDBACK METHODS BY WHICH IMPLICIT POLICIES CAN BE MADE MORE EXPLICIT ARE PRESENTED.

Abstract

THE STUDY UNDERSCORES THE NEED FOR FEEDBACK IN PAROLE SELECTION DECISIONMAKING AND DISCUSSES PAROLE RISK, EQUITY ISSUES, AND POLICY CONTROL. ITEMS EXAMINED IN THIS RESEARCH ARE THE U.S. BOARD OF PAROLE, DECISION PROCEDURES, THE FEDERAL SENTENCING STRUCTURE, THE YOUTH CORRECTIONS ACT, PAROLE SUPERVISION, A PAROLE DECISIONMAKING PROJECT, THE DEVELOPMENT OF A DATA BASE, SAMPLING PROCEDURES, FOLLOWUP, AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF EXPERIENCE TABLE MEASURES. ONE OF THE FEEDBACK METHODS DEALS WITH THE ISSUE OF PAROLE SELECTION POLICY IN RELATION TO THE CHANCES OF PAROLE VIOLATION. IN MAKING PAROLE SELECTION DECISIONS, A PAROLE BOARD RUNS THE RISK OF TWO TYPES OF ERROR: PAROLING AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WILL VIOLATE PAROLE CONDITIONS OR COMMIT A NEW CRIMINAL OFFENSE AND NOT PAROLING AN INDIVIDUAL WHO, IF PAROLED, WOULD HAVE COMPLETED PAROLE WITHOUT VIOLATION. A METHOD FOR ASSESSING THE INCIDENCE OF BOTH TYPES OF ERROR AND DESCRIBING THE BALANCE BETWEEN THEM IS DEVELOPED, AND A FEEDBACK DEVICE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION CONCERNING THE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF CHANGES IN PAROLE SELECTION POLICY ON THIS BALANCE IS DEMONSTRATED. THE SECOND FEEDBACK METHOD IS CONCERNED WITH THE WEIGHTS GENERALLY GIVEN TO FOUR FACTORS CONSIDERED PROMINENT IN PAROLE SELECTION: SEVERITY OF THE ORIGINAL OFFENSE, PAROLE PROGNOSIS, INSTITUTIONAL DISCIPLINE, AND INSTITUTIONAL PROGRAM PROGRESS. THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN DECISIONMAKERS' EVALUATIONS OF THESE FACTORS AND PAROLING DECISIONS ARE STUDIED IN TERMS OF THE TIME HELD BEFORE RELEASE. FROM THESE RELATIONSHIPS, A METHOD OF DESCRIBING AND ARTICULATING IMPLICIT POLICY IS DEMONSTRATED AND THE STRUCTURING OF DISCRETION AND THE FORMULATION OF POLICY GUIDELINES IS UNDERTAKEN. THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PAROLE AGENCY UNDER STUDY AND FOR OTHER PAROLE BOARDS AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISIONS, AND PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES RELATING TO THE USE OF DECISION GUIDELINES ARE MENTIONED. TABULAR DATA AND GRAPHIC DATA ARE PROVIDED, AND A YOUTH CORRECTIONS EVALUATING AND PROCESSING SHEET, AN ARTICLE ON PAROLING DECISION GUIDELINES, AND ADDITIONAL TABULAR DATA ARE APPENDED. A BIBLIOGRAPHY IS INCLUDED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--KBL)