Parole practises in Lithuania: Factors predicting court decisions

This article examines factors that predict parole decisions in Lithuanian courts. The study state has a two-stage discretionary parole system where applicants are first evaluated through a parole board hearing, and the board’s decision is then reviewed in court. The study sample included 360 court verdicts from various court institutions. Intergroup comparisons suggest that parole boards tend to grant parole more often than courts. The results of regression analysis suggest that courts weigh heavily on the decision made by the parole board as well as the number of misconduct reports, time left to serve and previous parole or probation violations.

Parole as resentencing: Exploring the punitive accounts of parole decision-making through the comparative case study of Israel

Parole boards have traditionally assessed prisoners’ future risk and rehabilitation prospects in deciding on early release from prison. However, parole boards may do more. In some systems, they may deny parole applications for punitive reasons, thus acting as a resentencing authority. This study conducted a qualitative analysis of the punitive discourses of parole decision-making, with Israel as a comparative case study. Through interviews with 20 chairpersons of Israeli Parole Boards, we found three themes of punitive parole decision-making: (a) preserving public confidence in the criminal justice system; (b) preserving penal proportionality; and (c) re-censuring an especially depraved moral character. The findings suggested that parole boards’ punitive discretion is multidimensional and complex. Such punitive discretion may be openly implemented, it may be cloaked as risk assessment, or decided without formal recognition. The findings further indicated that resentencing through discretionary parole may not only conflict with rehabilitation and risk aims, but may also raise challenges for retributive and deterrent penal policy. Implications for comparative parole policy are discussed.

Long Road to Freedom: Factors Delaying Prisoners’ Early Release from Prison

The purpose of the study was to identify the factors that delay the granting of early release to prisoners who are eligible for early release according to the Israeli law. The study is based on participatory observations of parole board hearings, interviews with parole board members, and content analysis of protocols of parole boards and legal rulings. The main factors identified in delaying release are related to the numerous postponements of hearings and delays in receiving documents from relevant parties. These factors are discussed in detail, offering recommendation for improvement and thus increasing the number of early releases.

Release or Denial: Evaluating the Roles of Emotion and Risk in Parole Decisions

Parole boards often incorporate numerous factors when making release decisions. These factors are typically related to the inmates’ case files. However, in some instances, parole boards’ decisions are influenced by factors outside of the case files, sometimes referred to as extra-legal factors. According to the emotion as social information model, emotion can communicate specific messages to others, and in this case, parole board members might unknowingly incorporate their own emotions and inmates’ emotional displays into their decisions. The current study examines the role of parole board member and inmate emotional expressions as predictors of parole release decisions. Parole hearings were coded for emotion, parole board and inmate gender, supporter presence, and risk scores. Overall, risk scores and parole board members’ emotions predicted release decisions. Higher risk scores were associated with a lower likelihood of release, and inmates’ negative emotion was related to a lower likelihood of release. Implications are discussed.

Philosophies and Decision Making in Parole Board Members

Parole boards have discretion to make prison release decisions by applying a number of factors. While prior research has identified factors that are important, little is known about how parole board members interpret the factors and the degree to which members’ characteristics affect decision making. Using board transcripts, this study explored: (1) how members’ philosophies influence factors used in release decisions and; (2) how board members define and frame factor meanings. The findings provide insights into decisions that may create release disparities.

“You’re still an angry man”: Parole boards and logics of criminalized masculinity

Scholars have theorized “criminalized masculinity” as performances of criminalized men. We refigure the concept to identify narratives that facilitate and legitimize control of criminalized populations. Drawing on 109 California parole hearings, we show how parole commissioners use logics of deserving and dangerous masculinity to assert a boundary between men deemed ready for social reintegration and men relegated to captivity. Commissioners articulate criminalized masculinity along three dimensions: relationship to self; relationship to male peers; and relationship to subordinate others like women and children. These gender logics are materially significant because they justify parole grants and denials. Symbolically, narratives of masculinity legitimize the prison’s work of racialized social exclusion and obscure structural dynamics of punishment under accounts of individual difference.

Parole Release and Supervision: Critical Drivers of American Prison Policy

Decisions tied to parole release, supervision, and revocation are major determinants of the ebb and flow of prison populations across two-thirds of US states. We argue that parole release, as an institution, has been an underacknowledged force in American incarceration and reincarceration policy and an important contributor to the nation's buildup to mass incarceration. In paroling states, no court or state agency holds greater power than parole boards over time actually served by the majority of offenders sent to prison. We examine the leverage exercised by parole boards through their discretionary release decisions and their powers to sanction violators of parole conditions. We note the state-by-state diversity and complexity associated with parole-release decisions and the absence of successful state systems that might serve as a model for other jurisdictions. We highlight the procedural shortfalls universally associated with parole decision-making. We discuss the long reach of parole supervision and the pains it imposes on those subject to its jurisdiction, including the substantial financial burdens levied on parolees. We then turn to the prospects for parole reform and outline a comprehensive blueprint for improving parole release in America.

A Social Judgment? Extralegal Contrast Effects in Hypothetical Legal Decision Making

Social judgments in ambiguous situations often rely on heuristics and biases, and legal decision makers are often faced with evidence that does not clearly favor one decision over another. Across two studies, we tested whether one extralegal factor, contrast cases, influenced decision making when judicial factors were held constant. In Study 1, participants (n = 100) evaluated whether an imagined prosecutor had sufficient evidence to send the same three target cases to trial. Before deciding these cases, though, the participants first evaluated cases with either relatively stronger or weaker evidence than the targets. Those in the weak-case comparison group were significantly more likely to send target cases to trial, and they believed the prosecutor had a stronger case. In Study 2, all participants (n = 100) evaluated hypothetical parole applications, but the method was otherwise the same as that used in Study 1. The same contrast-oriented pattern emerged. Participants who first viewed weaker parole applications rated the identical targets as significantly more rehabilitated. Taken together, the results of these two studies suggest that contrast effects may be one extralegal factor involved in shaping individual-level social judgments made in legal contexts such as grand juries and parole boards.

Cell Phones and “Excessive Contact”: The Contradictory Imperatives Facing California’s Parole-Eligible Lifers

A growing literature emphasizes that U.S. correctional systems have remained committed to rehabilitative goals despite their turn toward incapacitation and punishment. Although past research has documented this commitment in prisons and parole supervision agencies, less is understood about how it is manifested in the discretionary parole release process. This article explores whether and how parole boards encourage people serving parole-eligible life sentences (“lifers”) to maintain ties to friends and family outside of prison, and the results of such encouragement. Interviews, ethnographic fieldwork, and parole-hearing transcripts reveal that California’s parole board encourages such rehabilitative ties through comments at parole hearings and through its parole-eligibility criteria. But to sustain these relationships, some lifers engage in misconduct to bypass restrictive prison policies by using contraband cell phones or engaging in physical contact with visitors that is deemed “excessive.” When detected, these disciplinary infractions become a stated cause of parole denials.

Parole, Politics and Penal Policy

This article examines the most recent changes in Australian parole laws, policies and practices in the context of the changing relations between legislatures, the courts and parole authorities. It argues that legislatures, purportedly reflecting public opinion, have become less willing to trust either the courts or parole boards and have eroded their authority, powers and discretion. It provides examples of legislative changes that have altered the purposes of parole and introduced mandatory or presumptive non-parole periods, as well as overriding, by-passing and restricting parole.