| Chapter 15
Covering Community Corrections: Probation, Parole and Beyond
By Jenifer Warren
Discretionary Parole
In some cases, parolees are released by appointed parole boards that consider various factors in assessing an offender’s readiness to rejoin society. This practice is called discretionary parole. As late as 1977, three out of four inmates were released from prison in this fashion.
In evaluating an inmate’s suitability for release, parole boards typically hold a hearing and consider prison record, various risk factors, insight into causes of criminal conduct, future plans, prospects for employment, housing and family support.
Eligibility for such a hearing varies widely among the states. Often, inmates are referred for parole consideration at the end of a minimum term, minus “good time” earned through a clean record and completion of educational classes or other prison programs. In other states, eligibility is at the discretion of the board or is calculated after a portion of the maximum sentence is completed.
Despite the presence of guidelines and criteria for evaluating inmates, subjective factors, including politics, can often influence parole decisions. As appointees, parole commissioners are sensitive to public perceptions, and may even receive direct or indirect pressure from those who name them to the board.
In California, for example, Gray Davis, who served as governor from 1999 to 2003, made headlines when he announced that no murderers would be released on his watch—no matter the nature of their crime, their prison record or other mitigating circumstances, such as a battered woman who killed her abusive spouse. “If you take someone else’s life,” Davis said in an April 1999, interview with the Los Angeles Times, “forget it.”
Davis’ parole commissioners got the message. During his tenure, the parole rate declined markedly in the state. Even when the board granted parole to those convicted of murder, Davis used his veto power to overturn the decisions. His right to do so was challenged but upheld by the California Supreme Court in 2002.
A high-profile crime committed by a convict can also make parole board appointees—many of whom hail from law enforcement backgrounds—more cautious. Massachusetts, home of the infamous Willie Horton case, underscores this point.
Horton, a convicted murderer who raped a woman while released on a weekend furlough, became a household word during the 1988 presidential campaign, when Republican candidate George H.W. Bush used the incident to portray his Democratic opponent, Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, as soft on crime. Dukakis lost, Bush became president, and between 1990 and 1999, the Massachusetts parole grant rate dropped from 70 percent to 38 percent.
The power to grant parole, according to criminologist Petersilia, historically “was believed to contribute to prisoner reform, by encouraging participation in programs aimed at rehabilitation.” Representing a light at the end of the proverbial tunnel, parole encourages good conduct inside prison, giving wardens a tool for maintaining control.
And, though politicians have been loathe to admit it, parole’s use has often served as an important release valve for prison overcrowding. At one time, discretionary parole represented the exit door through which more than 95 percent of prisoners returned to society.
Beginning in the late 1970s, states began moving toward determinate sentencing as parole boards came under criticism from the political right and left. Conservatives argued that parole commissioners were releasing too many inmates too early. Liberals argued that the subjectivity of the process led to disparities in prison time served, and in particular, created bias according to race and class. More generally, critics questioned whether parole release and supervision reduced recidivism.
Parole boards in most states still exercise discretion on when some inmates should be released, but each state’s law is different. In many states, a convict must serve some specified percentage of his stated term before being considered for release. Among violent offenders, many states require serving 85 percent of the term before parole may be granted.
A typical procedure is mandatory release to parole. This occurs after an inmate has served time equal to his total prison sentence, minus any good time. If the parole board does not have the discretion to judge whether an inmate has matured in prison and is prepared to rejoin society, mandatory release is merely a function of bookkeeping. Precise national figures are not available, but experts agree that many more convicts are released in this way than formerly was the case, when parole boards made most of the decisions.
As with probation, the number of parolees per 100,000 adult residents varied greatly, from 863 in Arkansas to 3 in Maine.
CAUTIONARY NOTE: Be aware that the word “parole” has two different meanings in the correctional context. One refers to a discretionary release from prison. The other relates to an offender’s supervision in the community after prison. Journalists who refer to states or proposed measures that “abolish parole” should specify whether this means only ending discretionary release of inmates or also applies to supervision after a convict is back in the community.
Enforcement
Officers and Agents
They may not wear uniforms, but parole agents and probation officers are essentially the prison guards of the streets. In many ways, their fundamental mission is similar: oversee offenders to ensure they comply with the rules, help them succeed, but recommend a return to custody when warranted.
A deeper look shows that both are asked to play two sometimes conflicting roles: cop and social worker. On the enforcement side, they ensure compliance with conditions set by a parole board or court; restrict various aspects of an offender’s life; and initiate revocation if a slip-up merits it. They may search a parolee or probationer’s apartment without a warrant or cause; order drug testing without warning; or show up unannounced at the workplace.
On the humanitarian side, agents and officers are charged with linking offenders with drug treatment or other community services, aiding them in the hunt for a job and otherwise guiding them toward a crime-free future.
Parole agents typically receive training at a correctional officers’ academy, and are likely to carry weapons. Their salaries are often higher than those who handle strictly probation cases, and they are more likely to make arrests.
Probation officers often must have a degree in social work or criminal justice. Unlike parole agents, they may collect restitution and court–imposed fines.
Continue to the next page in "Chapter 15: Covering Community Corrections: Probation, Parole and Beyond" >>>
<<< Return to the previous
page in "Chapter 15: Covering Community Corrections: Probation, Parole and Beyond"
|
