Description How does mandatory release affect the corrections system? How will corrections adjust t ...
Description How does mandatory release affect the corrections system? How will corrections adjust to this harnessing of the discretion of parole boards and judges? Suppose you have been asked to decide whether the department of corrections or an independent agency should have authority over release decisions. Where would you place that authority? Why? Post in depth (3-4 paragraph) APA cited posts with in text/reference list (Quality is key) (APPLY THE BOOK AND AT LEAST ONE OUTSIDE SCHOLARLY SOURCE, CITING (IN TEXT AND REFERENCE LIST) AND PARAPHRASES AS WELL AS THE RESEARCH) Chapter 15 from the book is the uploaded file Please make sure that what you write uses the critical thinking process. Make sure what is written doesn't just address peripheral issues but uses analysis and creative thought. Don't just recite facts/textual information but be sure to also address the issues being questioned with analysis and creative thought. Make sure what is written is articulate/understandable and free from errors in grammar, punctuation and/or usage. 1 attachments Slide 1 of 1 attachment_1 attachment_1 UNFORMATTED ATTACHMENT PREVIEW Chapter 15 Clear, Todd R.; Reisig, Michael D.; Cole, George F.. American Corrections. Cengage Learning. Kindle Edition. IT WAS A NEWSWORTHY DAYin Louisiana politics when the announcement was made that the former four-term governor, Edwin Edwards, was moving. Was he moving out of the governor’s mansion to a private residence? Maybe he was moving to Washington, D.C., to continue his public service? Not quite. Edwards was moving from the Oakdale Federal Correctional Facility to his daughter’s house after serving eight-and-a-half years for racketeering, conspiracy, and extortion for his part in a riverboat casino licensing scandal.1 Although the Bureau of Prisons allowed Edwards to serve out the remainder of his sentence under home confinement, he was required to report to a Residential Reentry Center three times each week.2 More than 600,000 adult felons were released from state and federal prisons in 2012 (approximately 1,600 each day).3 Upon release, most ex-prisoners are not as fortunate as former Governor Edwards. About one-third of released state inmates are physically or mentally impaired. Many former inmates return to metropolitan areas, where they will live in poor, crime-ridden neighborhoods. As they leave prison, most offenders receive a new set of clothes, up to $100 in “gate money” (only in some states), instructions as to when and where to report to a parole officer, and a bus ticket home. With the great expansion of incarceration since the 1980s, the number of offenders returning to the community has increased dramatically in the last decade. Reentry has been described as a “transient state between liberty and recommitment. It is a period of limited duration of supervision whereby an inmate moves to either full liberty in the community or is returned to prison for a new crime or for violating the conditions of release.”4 During the reentry period, prisoners are on parole. For most of the twentieth century, the term parole referred to both a release mechanism and a method of community supervision. It is still used in this general sense, but with recent changes in sentencing and release policies, the dual usage no longer applies in many states. Now we must distinguish between a releasing mechanism and supervision. Although releasing mechanisms have changed, most former prisoners must still serve a period under supervision. In this chapter we examine the mechanisms for prison release. Release from One Part of the System to Another Except for the small percentage of incarcerated felons who die in prison, all inmates will eventually be released to live in the community. Parole is the conditional release of an offender from incarceration but not from the legal custody of the state. Thus, offenders who comply with parole conditions and do not further violate the law receive an absolute discharge from supervision at the end of their sentences. If a parolee breaks a rule, parole may be revoked and the person returned to a correctional facility. Parole, then, rests on three concepts: 1. Grace or privilege: The prisoner could be kept incarcerated, but the government extends the privilege of release. 2. Contract of consent: The government enters into an agreement with the prisoner whereby the prisoner promises to abide by certain conditions in exchange for being released. 3. Custody: Even though the offender is released from prison, he or she is still the responsibility of the government. Parole is an extension of correctional programs into the community. Only felons are released on parole; adult misdemeanants are usually released directly from local institutions on expiration of their sentences. With the incarcerated population more than quadrupling during the past 30 years, it is not surprising that the number of parolees has also grown, as shown in Figure 15.1. In 2010, 840,676 individuals were under parole supervision, a 281 percent increase since 1980.5 With the massive incarcerations of the past decades, the number on parole could possibly reach one million within the next ten years. Only state and federal (not local) governments effect parole, through a variety of organizational structures. In many states the parole board (the releasing authority) is part of the department of corrections; in others, it is an autonomous body whose members the governor appoints. As you read this chapter, keep in mind that, like so many other correctional activities, the decision to release is made in the context of complex and competing goals. Traditionally, parole has been justified in terms of rehabilitation. In theory, parole boards evaluate the offender’s progress toward rehabilitation and readiness to abide by laws. In practice, they consider other factors as well. Even where determinate sentencing or parole guidelines are in effect, correctional officials can influence release; the decision is not as cut-and-dried as proponents have claimed. Many questions bear on the release decision no matter what procedures are followed. How will the public react? Who will be blamed if the offender commits another crime? Is the prison so crowded that an early release is necessary to open up space? How will the offender’s release affect judges and prosecutors? (“Kansas v. Hendricks” considers the U.S. Supreme Court decision that a state can deny release to an offender who has completed his sentence.) Origins of Parole Parole in the United States evolved during the nineteenth century following the English, Australian, and Irish practices of conditional pardon, apprenticeship by indenture, transportation of criminals from one country to another, and the issuance of tickets-of-leave. These were all methods of moving criminals out of prison. Such practices generally did not develop as part of any coherent theory of punishment or to promote any particular goal of the criminal sanction. Instead, they were responses to problems of overcrowding, labor shortages, and the cost of incarceration. As noted in Chapter 2, England relied on transportation as a major sanction until the mid-1800s. When the United States gained independence, Australia and other Pacific colonies became outlets for England’s overcrowded prisons; offenders were given conditional pardons known as tickets-of-leave and sent to those outposts of the empire. A key figure in developing parole in the 1800s was Captain Alexander Maconochie, who administered British penal colonies in Tasmania and elsewhere in the South Pacific and later in England. Maconochie criticized definite prison terms and devised a system of rewards for good conduct, labor, and study. He developed a classification system by which prisoners could pass through stages of increasing responsibility and freedom: (1) strict imprisonment, (2) labor on chain gangs, (3) freedom within an area, (4) a ticketof-leave or parole with conditional pardon, and (5) full liberty. Like modern correctional practices, this procedure assumed that prisoners should be prepared gradually for release. The roots of the U.S. system of parole can be seen in the transition from imprisonment to conditional release to full freedom. Maconochie’s idea of requiring prisoners to earn their early release caught on first in Ireland. There, Sir Walter Crofton built on Maconochie’s idea that an offender’s progress in prison and a ticket-of-leave were linked. After a period of strict imprisonment, offenders transferred to an intermediate prison where they could earn marks of commendation based on work, behavior, and education. Prisoners who graduated through Crofton’s three successive levels were released on parole, with conditions. Most significant was the requirement that parolees submit monthly reports to the police. In Dublin a special civilian inspector helped releasees find jobs, visited them periodically, and supervised their activities. Crofton contributed the concepts of the intermediate prison, assistance, and supervision to the modern system of parole. The English and Irish developments soon traveled across the Atlantic. Conditional pardons and term reductions for good time had been a part of American corrections since the early 1800s, but such offenders were released without supervision. Gaylord Hubbell, the warden of Sing Sing, and Franklin Sanborn, the secretary of the State Board of Charities for Massachusetts, championed the Irish system. In 1870 the National Prison Association incorporated references to the Irish system into the Declaration of Principles, along with such other reforms as the indeterminate sentence and classification based on a mark system.6 With New York’s passage of an indeterminate sentence law in 1876, Zebulon Brockway, the superintendent of Elmira Reformatory, began to release prisoners on parole when he believed they were ready to return to society. Initially, the New York system did not require police supervision, as in Ireland, because parolees were placed in the care of private reform groups. As the number of parolees increased, however, the state replaced the volunteer supervisors with correctional employees. Across the United States, as states adopted indeterminate sentencing, parole followed. By 1900, 20 states had parole systems, and by 1925, 46 states did; Mississippi and Virginia finally followed suit in 1942.7 Beginning in 1910, each federal prison had its own parole board made up of the warden, the medical officer, and the superintendent of prisons of the Department of Justice. The boards made release suggestions to the attorney general. In 1930 Congress created the U.S. Board of Parole, which replaced the separate boards.8 Although used in the United States for over a century, parole remains controversial. When an offender who has committed a particularly heinous crime, such as Charles Manson, becomes eligible for parole or when someone on parole has again raped, robbed, or murdered, the public is outraged. During the 1970s both parole and the indeterminate sentence were criticized on several grounds: Release was tied to treatment success, parole boards were abusing their discretion, and inmates were being held in “suspended animation.” However, remember that although parole may be justified in terms of rehabilitation, deterrence, or protection of society, it has other effects as well. Insofar as it reduces time spent in prison, it affects plea bargaining, the size of prison populations, and the level of discipline in correctional facilities. Release Mechanisms From 1920 to 1973 the United States had a nationwide sentencing and release procedure. All states and the federal government used indeterminate sentencing, authorized discretionary release by parole boards, and supervised prisoners after release, and they did all of this to rehabilitate offenders. With the 1970s came critiques of rehabilitation, a move to determinate sentencing, and the public’s view that the system was “soft” on criminals. By 2002, 16 states and the federal government had abolished discretionary release by parole boards. Another 5 states had abolished discretionary release for certain offenses.9 Further, in some of the states that kept discretionary release, parole boards have been reluctant to grant it. In Texas, for example, 57 percent of all cases considered for parole release in 1988 were approved; by 1998, that figure had dropped to just 20 percent.10 Similarly, the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole reduced its grant rate from the 75–80 percent range to less than 50 percent. Using a different approach, the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles has instituted a 90 percent rule for offenders convicted of any one of 20 crimes. This means that these inmates, “regardless of risk or disparity in the sentence,” must serve 90 percent of their time before the board will grant release.11 Critics charge that eliminating discretionary parole has had little effect on the crime rate but has contributed greatly toward increases in prison populations. There are now five basic mechanisms for release from prison: (1) discretionary release, (2) mandatory release, (3) probation release, (4) other conditional release, and (5) expiration release. Discretionary Release States retaining indeterminate sentences allow discretionary release by the parole board within the boundaries set by the sentence and the penal law. As a conditional release to parole supervision, this approach lets the parole board assess the prisoner’s readiness for release within the minimum and maximum terms of the sentence. In reviewing the prisoner’s file and asking questions about the prisoner, the parole board focuses on the nature of the offense, the inmate’s behavior, and participation in rehabilitative programs. This process places great faith in the ability of parole board members to predict accurately the future behavior of offenders (see “A Roomful of Strangers”). Mandatory Release Mandatory release occurs after an inmate has served time equal to the total sentence minus “good time,” if any, or to a certain percentage of the total sentence as specified by law. Mandatory release is found in federal jurisdictions and states with determinate sentences and good-time provisions (see Chapter 4). Without a parole board to decide if the offender is ready for release and has ties to the community, such as family or a job, mandatory release is a matter of bookkeeping to check the correct amount of good time and to make sure the sentence has been accurately interpreted. The prisoner is released conditionally to parole supervision for the rest of the sentence. Probation Release Probation release occurs when the sentencing judge requires a period of postcustody supervision in the community. Probation release is often tied to shock incarceration, a practice in which first-time offenders are sentenced to a short period in jail (“the shock”) and then allowed to reenter the community under supervision. Other Conditional Release Because of the growth of prison populations, many states have devised ways to get around the rigidity of mandatory release. They place inmates in the community through furlough, home supervision, halfway houses, emergency release, and other programs. These other conditional releases also avoid the appearance of the politically sensitive label discretionary parole. Expiration Release An increasing percentage of prisoners are given an expiration release. These are inmates who are released from any further correctional supervision and cannot be returned to prison for their current offense. Such offenders have served the maximum court sentence, minus good time—they have “maxed out.” In the wake of the “tough on crime” policies of the last three decades, the percentage of inmates released to parole supervision, among all releasees, has dropped. Even when eligible for parole, many prisoners have bypassed the board and the controlled, supervised release it provides; instead, they have decided to “stick it out” to the expiration of their sentence and be released to the community without supervision. Critics are concerned that many offenders who “max out” have spent long terms in prison for serious, violent offenses or have spent extended periods in administrative segregation. They are often hardened, embittered, and likely to return to crime.12 Changes in sentencing policies during the 1970s have resulted in shifts in the percentage of prisoners released by each of the five mechanisms just described (see “For Critical Thinking”). There has been a major decline in the percentage of prisoners released through the discretionary actions of parole boards, as well as an increase in mandatory, probation, and expiration release. The Organization of Releasing Authorities The structuring of a releasing authority raises certain questions. For example, should it be consolidated with the correctional authority or operate autonomously? How should field services be administered? Should the parole board sit full time or part time? How should board members be appointed? Over the past decade, states have tended to create strong links between the paroling authority and the department of corrections, emphasizing parole board professionalism. Consolidated Versus Autonomous Parole boards tend to be organized either inside a department of corrections (consolidated) or as an independent agency of government (autonomous). Some argue that a parole board must be independent to insulate members from the activities and influence of correctional staff. An independent parole board may be less influenced by staff considerations such as reducing the prison population and punishing inmates who do not follow rules. Critics counter that an independent parole board can become unresponsive to correctional needs and programs and is too far removed from prison activities to understand individual cases. Whether a parole board is independent or a part of a correctional department, it cannot exist in a vacuum. Board members cannot ignore the public’s attitudes and fears about crime. If a parolee commits a crime that arouses public indignation, the board members must make decisions more cautiously in order to avoid public condemnation. Parole boards may also be influenced by departments of corrections and must maintain good relations with them. For example, if an autonomous board conflicts with the department, the department might not provide the board with the information that it needs. Information about particular offenders might become “unavailable,” or the state might provide biased information about particular offenders whom officials wish to see punished. By contrast, a board closely tied to correctional officials would more likely receive information and cooperation. However, such a board runs the risk of being viewed by prisoners and the general public as merely the rubber stamp of the department. Field Services Questions similar to those concerning the organization of the releasing authority surround the organization of field services. For example, should community supervision be administered by an independent paroling authority or by the department of corrections? When the parole board administers field services, proponents say, consistent policies can be developed. The need for programs that address the transition from prison to the community is increasing. Many departments have instituted such pre-parole programs as work release and educational release. Therefore, it is argued, the institutional staff and the parole board must be coordinated—which is easier to do if they are in the same department. Full Time Versus Part Time A third set of questions concerns full-time versus part-time boards. Because of the increased complexity of corrections, many people, in both discretionary and mandatory-release states, hold that administration of parole should be a full-time enterprise. The type of person who serves full time on a parole board differs considerably from the one who serves part time. Membership on a board that meets full time attracts criminal justice professionals, who are usually well paid. However, members of part-time boards, paid by the day, are thought to represent the community better because they have other careers and are independent of the criminal justice system. Appointment Members of the paroling authority may be appointed by the governor or by the head of the correctional department. Some people believe that gubernatorial selection insulates the members from the department, provides “better” members, and permits greater responsiveness to public concerns. Others believe that the parole mechanism should be apolitical and operated by people who really know something about corrections. The selection of members for discretionary parole boards is often based on the assumption that people with training in behavioral sciences can tell which candidates are rehabilitated and ready to return to society. However, in many states, political considerations dictate that members should include representatives of specific racial groups or geographic areas. The Decision to Release An inmate’s eligibility for release to community supervision depends on requirements set by law and the sentence imposed by the court. In states with determinate sentences or parole guidelines, release is mandatory once the offender has served the required amount of time. In nearly half of the states, however, the release decision is discretionary, and the parole board has authority to establish a release date. The date is based on the individual’s rehabilitation, behavior while an inmate, and plan for reentry into the community. The Discretionary Release Process Based on the assumptions of indeterminate sentences and rehabilitative programs, discretionary release is designed to allow the parole board to release inmates to conditional supervision in the community when they are deemed “ready” to live as law-abiding citizens. Procedure Eligibility for a release hearing in discretionary states varies greatly. Appearance before the parole board is a function of the individual sentence, statutory criteria, and the inmate’s conduct before incarceration. Often, the offender is eligible for release at the end of the minimum term of the sentence minus good time. In other states, eligibility is at the discretion of the parole board or is calculated at one-third or one-half of the maximum sentence. However, many states provide a variety of mechanisms for release, as shown in Table 15.1 (p. 394). Look again at the case of Ben Brooks for an example of the computation of parole eligibility (see Figure 15.2). At the time of sentencing, Brooks had been held in jail for 6 months awaiting trial and disposition of his case. He was given a sentence of a minimum of 5 years and a maximum of 10 years for robbery with violence. Brooks did well at the maximum-security prison to which he was sent. He did not get into trouble and was thus able to amass good-time credit at the rate of one day for every four that he spent on good behavior. In addition, he was given meritorious credit of 30 days when he passed his high school diploma equivalency test. After serving 3 years and 4 months of his sentence, he appeared before the board of parole and was granted release into the community. Release Criteria What factors guide the parole board decision? A parole board gives each inmate up for release a formal statement of the criteria for making the decision. These standards normally include at least eight factors concerning the inmate: 1. Nature and circumstances of offense and current attitude toward it 2. Prior criminal record 3. Attitudes toward family members, victim, and authority in general 4. Institutional adjustment and participation and progress in programs for selfimprovement 5. History of community adjustment 6. Physical, mental, and emotional health 7. Insight into causes of past criminal conduct 8. Adequacy of parole plan Although the published criteria may help familiarize inmates with the board’s expectations, research shows that the actual decision is typically based on various kinds of information, including institutional behavior, crime severity, and criminal history. Surprisingly, input from victims, whether in support of or in opposition to release, bears little on the parole decision.14 Research suggests that mental health should be carefully considered. One study found that released inmates with serious mental illness not only returned to prison more frequently than healthy ex-prisoners but also that the median amount of time they spent free in the community was significantly shorter (385 days versus 743 days).15 It is frequently said that parole boards release only good risks, but as one parole board member has said, “There are no good-risk men in prison. Parole is really a decision of when to release bad-risk persons.” Other considerations weigh heavily on the parole board members. If parole is not regularly awarded to most prisoners who gain eligibility, morale among all inmates may suffer as they fear that they will not gain release when anticipated. The seeming arbitrariness of parole boards was a major cause of prison riots during the 1970s. The prospect of gaining parole is a major incentive for many prisoners to follow rules and cooperate with correctional officials. Parole board members are also concerned about the public and the adequacy of the parole plan. They do not want public criticism for making controversial decisions. Thus, notorious offenders, such as Sirhan Sirhan, the man convicted of assassinating presidential candidate Robert Kennedy in 1968, and multiple murderer Charles Manson, are unlikely ever to gain parole release even if they behave well in prison. The Prisoners’ Perspective: How to Win Parole “If you want to get paroled, you’ve got to be in a program.” This statement reflects one of the most controversial aspects of discretionary release: its link to treatment. Although correctional authorities emphasize the voluntary nature of most treatment services and clinicians argue that coercive therapy cannot succeed, inmates still believe they must “play the game.” Most parole boards cite an inmate’s progress in selfimprovement programs as one criterion for release. Although prisoners’ participation in programs is technically voluntary, the link between participation and release poses many legal and ethical problems, as illustrated by the case of Jim Allen in “Do the Right Thing.” In some states, inmates convicted of drug or sex offenses may be expected to participate in treatment programs. However, the corrections system may not have enough places in these programs to serve all of them. Offenders may wait long periods before gaining admission, or they may be in an institution that does not have the treatment they need. Because they cannot force the prison system to transfer them to the appropriate institution, inmates may become frustrated hearing about other people gaining parole while they are not given an opportunity to prove themselves to the board. Moreover, some kinds of treatment programs, especially for sex offenders, may involve intrusive counseling therapies or medications that have lingering physical effects and a limited likelihood of success. However, threatened with denial of parole if they refuse to participate, prisoners may not feel able to decline such treatments. Consequences of Discretionary Parole During a riot at New Jersey’s Rahway Prison, inmates held aloft a banner that boldly proclaimed, “Abolish parole!” Why? Inmates criticize the somewhat capricious actions of some parole boards. They also point out that indeterminate sentences and discretionary release leave them in limbo. The uncertainty is demoralizing. When release is discretionary, the parole board’s power is much like that of the sentencing judge. Detractors emphasize that unlike the judge, the board makes its decisions outside the spotlight of public attention. In addition, they contend that whereas sentencing is done with due process of law, a parole hearing offers few such rights. Supporters of discretionary release maintain that parole boards can make their decisions without community pressure and can rectify sentencing errors. Arguably, legislatures often respond to public pressure by prescribing unreasonably harsh maximum sentences—30, 50, even 100 years. But most penal codes also prescribe minimum sentences that are closer to the actual times served; thus, the parole board can grant release after a “reasonable” period of incarceration. Structuring Parole Decisions In response to the criticism that the release decisions of parole boards are somewhat arbitrary, many states have adopted parole guidelines. Release is usually granted to prisoners who have served the amount of time stipulated by the guidelines and who meet the following three criteria: 1. They have substantially observed the rules of the institution in which they have been confined. 2. Their release will not depreciate the seriousness of the offense or promote disrespect for the law. 3. Their release will not jeopardize the public welfare. As with sentencing guidelines, a severity scale ranks crimes according to their seriousness, and a salient factor score measures both the offender’s criminal history (drug arrests, prior record, age at first conviction, and so on) and risk factors regarded as relevant to successful completion of parole (see Table 15.2 and Table 15.3). By placing the offender’s salient factor score next to his or her particular offense on the severity scale, the board, the inmate, and correctional officials can calculate the presumptive parole date soon after the offender enters prison. This is the date by which the inmate can expect to be released if there are no disciplinary or other problems during incarceration. The presumptive parole date may be modified on a scheduled basis. The date of release may be advanced because of good conduct and superior achievement or postponed if there are disciplinary infractions or if a suitable community supervision plan is not developed. The Impact of Release Mechanisms Parole release mechanisms do more than determine the date at which a particular prisoner will be sent back into the community. Parole release also has an enormous impact on other parts of the system, including sentencing, plea bargaining, and the size of prison populations. One important effect of discretionary release is that an administrative body—the parole board—can shorten a sentence imposed by a judge. Even in states that have mandatory release, various potential reductions built into the sentence mean the full sentence is rarely served. For example, good time can reduce punishment even if there is no parole eligibility. To understand the impact of release mechanisms on criminal punishment, we need to compare the amount of time actually served in prison with the sentence specified by the judge. In some jurisdictions up to 60 percent of felons sentenced to prison are released to the community after their first appearance before a parole board. Eligibility for discretionary release is ordinarily determined by the minimum term of the sentence minus good time and jail time. The probability of release well before the end of the formal sentence encourages plea bargaining by both prosecutors and defendants. Prosecutors can reap the benefits of quick, cooperative plea bargains that look tough in the eyes of the public. Meanwhile, the defendant agrees to plead guilty and accept the sentence because of the high likelihood of early release through parole. Beyond the benefits to prosecutors, parole discretion may benefit the overall system. Discretionary release mitigates the harshness of the penal code. If the legislature must establish exceptionally strict punishments as a means of conveying a “tough on crime” image to frustrated and angry voters, parole can effectively permit sentence adjustments that make the punishment fit the crime. Everyone convicted of larceny may not have done equivalent harm, yet some legislatively mandated sentencing schemes impose equally strict sentences. Early release on parole can be granted to an offender who is less deserving of strict punishment, such as someone who voluntarily makes restitution, cooperates with the police, or shows genuine regret. Discretionary release is also an important tool for reducing prison populations in states with overcrowded prisons and budget deficits. Even states that abolished parole boards, instituted mandatory sentences, and adopted truth-in-sentencing laws in
