Parole

SIGNIFICANCE: In order to rehabilitate criminals and manage overcrowding in prisons, the state releases, or paroles, some prisoners before the end of their sentences on the promise that they will not break the law again or violate the conditions of parole.

The word “parole” comes from the French word parol, which means “word of honor.” Originally, it referred to the practice of releasing prisoners of war who promised not to resume fighting. Modern parole is the conditional release of prisoners by a parole board before the expiration of their sentences. Parole does not mean that a felony offender is free from the legal custody and supervision of the state. Parole is a privilege granted by the state, which could just as easily keep the prisoner in jail.

Purpose of Parole

The mission of parole is to prepare, select, and assist offenders who, after a reasonable period of incarceration, could benefit from early release. At the same time, the state protects the public through the conditions of release and supervision. The state and the prisoner sign a contract under which the prisoner promises to abide by certain conditions in exchange for conditional freedom. The state justifies parole on the grounds that prisoners need supervision and help if they are to readjust to freedom successfully. Most parole failures occur relatively soon after release. In fact, approximately one-quarter of parole failures occur within the first six months.

Incarceration is intended to ensure the protection of society, act as a deterrent to criminal activity, and function as punishment for criminal acts. However, it is limited in its ability to prepare offenders for return to the free world. Parole is based on the belief that the majority of offenders can benefit from a period of transition back into the community. Conditional release affords a continuing measure of protection to the public while supporting parolees in their effort to become productive, law-abiding citizens. If parolees violate the conditions of their parole or commit crimes, parole can be revoked and the offenders returned to jail.

Not all offenders have the same potential and motivation to earn or to benefit from conditional release. Offenders must be judged on their own merits and in the light of their offenses, sentence lengths, and personal backgrounds. Parole authorities use risk assessment tools to evaluate the potential success of offenders if paroled. These studies help determine whether prisoners should be released and the conditions of parole.

Society benefits from a successful parole program. Most incarcerated offenders eventually complete their sentences and return to the community. Parole is viewed as a positive means of promoting successful reintegration. It also helps reduce unnecessary expenses at correctional institutions while, at the same time, maintaining an appropriate degree of supervision and control to ensure the protection of society. Parole also mitigates the potential harshness of criminal law, equalizes disparities in sentencing, and helps prison authorities maintain order and reduce crowding.

The purpose of parole is to improve public safety by reducing the incidence and impact of crime committed by parolees. Parole is not leniency or clemency but a logical extension of the sentence to provide the opportunity to return offenders to society after a reasonable period of incarceration and when they are assessed to have the capability and desire to succeed and live up to the responsibilities of their release.

Offenders who comply with the conditions of their parole and do not violate the law receive an absolute discharge at the end of their sentences. The parolee may be required to abstain from alcohol, keep away from undesirable associates, maintain good work habits, and not leave the community without permission. The revocation of parole occurs when the parolee commits a new crime or violates the conditions of parole. Half of all convicted felons are released on parole. In 2013 about seven out of ten people under the supervision of correctional institutions in the United States were on some form of parole or probation. An estimated 35 to 40 percent of all parolees have their paroles revoked and are sent back to prison.

Legal Issues

The U.S. Constitution does not require states to maintain a parole system. There is no constitutionally protected right to parole or to due process in release hearings unless state statutes or regulations create a liberty interest in parole release. The parole board can do just about anything it pleases with respect to a prisoner’s parole release. Whatever the board decides and does prevails, because it enjoys immense discretion in the parole decision process. Although parole boards are not constitutionally required to provide reasons for denying release, the use of state-mandated parole guidelines provides prisoners with such information.

Prisoners’ federal constitutional rights with respect to parole are limited. For example, the U.S. Constitution places few limits on parole boards. Boards may rely on allegations of conduct of which the prisoner was found innocent or may even consider information from charges of which the prisoner was not convicted. The board can deny parole because of the severity of a prisoner’s crime. The parole board may not consider race or inaccurate information to make its decision. To obtain judicial relief, prisoners must show that their files contain errors and that the board relied on false information in denying or revoking parole or time off for good behavior. Prisoners must also show that they requested prison authorities to correct their files but that the latter refused to do so. Often state law and regulations provide prisoners with greater rights. Even when an offender has a federal constitutional claim, a prisoner must exhaust remedies available in state courts before a federal court will intervene.

History of Parole

The parole system in the United States originated during the late 1870s. Well-behaved prisoners in the reformatory in Elmira, New York, had their prison sentences shortened. This system was based on programs developed in England and Ireland. The concept of parole was created by Alexander Maconochie, who was superintendent of the British penal colony on Norfolk Island, off the coast of Sydney, Australia, during the mid-nineteenth century. Sir Walter Crofton, director of the Irish prison system during the late nineteenth century, was influenced by Maconochie’s work. A modified version of the Irish system, under which a prisoner could earn early release from prison, was adopted in England and then at Elmira. Other American prisons copied the Elmira system.

A feature of the Elmira system was the indeterminate sentence. Under this system a judge imposed a prison sentence with a minimum and a maximum length. The parole board determined the prisoner’s release date. In most states inmates who followed prison rules were entitled to good time off—time deducted from a prisoner’s maximum sentence. A prisoner could shorten his sentence by one-third under the good-time-off system. A side effect of indeterminate sentencing was that persons convicted of the same crime could receive different sentences.

Under determinate sentencing systems, a judge imposes a sentence of a specific length. This sentencing system provides for early release because of good behavior—often one day off a sentence for every day served. In theory, this system promotes prison discipline. Violation of prison rules could result in jail time being added to the sentence.

The idea of parole release spread slowly throughout the United States until the Great Depression of the 1930s. Pressing economic conditions—notably the cost of incarceration, not the press of prison reform—led to the rapid spread of parole release systems. Conditional release is the term used to describe prisoners released on good time.

Many efforts to abolish or change the parole system have been tried. For example, the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 abolished parole eligibility for federal offenders who committed offenses after November 1, 1987. It also provided for the abolition of the U.S. Parole Commission on November 1, 1992. However, the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990, the Parole Commission Phaseout Act of 1996, and the Twenty-first Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act of 2002 extended the commission in five-year increments through November 1, 2005. A series of further legislation continued to extend the life of the board into the 2020s.

The history of prisons and parole in the United States shows that parole release has been used, and possibly misused, to maintain prison discipline and to reduce prison overcrowding. Parole boards evolved out of the power of governors to issue pardons to selected prisoners. Before the creation of parole boards, governors often used their pardoning powers to relieve overcrowding in state prisons. For example, during the mid-nineteenth century, pardons accounted for over 40 percent of prisoner releases.

The Parole Decision

The goal of all parole decisions is the protection of society. In the short term, the parole board examines whether there is a high degree of risk to society if it releases the prisoner. To meet the longer-term goal, the board considers whether parole would help the offender return to the community.

Parole may be discretionary or mandatory. Discretionary parole occurs when the parole board voluntarily grants parole before the offender completes a sentence. Mandatory parole is the automatic release of an offender upon completion of the sentence (less any good time credit). Under many state parole systems, the department of corrections determines when an offender is eligible for parole. The corrections department uses a formula that includes, but is not limited to, length of sentence, institutional adjustment, treatment or educational program involvement, and prior prison experience.

To guide its decision, the board conducts a risk assessment. The assessment has two parts—a preliminary risk assessment and a special factor evaluation. The first part includes gathering information about the offender. The information includes details of the offense, criminal history, social problems such as alcohol or drug use and family violence, mental status (especially if it affects the likelihood of future crime), performance on earlier releases, information about family relationships, and employment prospects. The board then consults statistical guidelines that assess the probability that the offender will commit another crime. The guidelines indicate how often a group of offenders with characteristics and histories similar to those of the prisoner under review commits new offenses. The second step focuses on a review of reports from psychologists, police, victims, and prison authorities.

After considering the evidence and holding a hearing with the prisoner, the board decides whether to grant parole. If denied, another parole review date may be set. The offender usually has the option to appeal the board’s decision when errors in fact, unknowingly considered during the review process, are identified later. The board reconsiders cases when significant new information is presented that was unavailable when the case was originally examined. If parole is granted, the board determines the conditions of release. A parole board may be independent of the prison system or a division of the organization that administers correctional institutions. In most states, parole board members are appointed by the governor.

The core services of parole boards are to help offenders develop release plans and to supervise persons released on parole. Parole authorities may also provide employment and life skills counseling, halfway house accommodations, counseling, community work programs, and family services. Parole board members usually hold release hearings in the state prison. Prisoners usually do not have legal representation at such hearings.

During the 1990s and into the twenty-first century, many states permitted victims or their next of kin to appear before the parole board. Some states permitted victims to introduce written statements at parole hearings. Such statements could include information concerning the crime, the extent and severity of the personal or family injury and economic loss, and the victim’s attitude toward the offender’s potential parole release. All parole boards consider opposition to an inmate’s parole from the police and news media. The parole board determines the actual amount of time to be served based on the prisoner’s institutional adjustments as measured by the prisoner’s accomplishments, vocational education, academic achievement, work assignments, therapy, and interpersonal relationships with other inmates and prison authorities. Other factors include the prisoner’s prospects for outside employment, education, training, eligibility for community services such as halfway house placements, and help with personal problems.

Overcrowded and underfinanced prisons pressure parole boards into accelerating the release of inmates. Unfortunately, there are too few parole officers to cope adequately with all the parolees.

During most of the twentieth century, parole boards decided when most prisoners would be released. With the advent of determinate sentencing and parole guidelines, releasing power has essentially been taken away from the parole boards in many states.

Parole Violations

Every paroled prisoner signs an agreement to abide by certain regulations, including obeying the law and not possessing or using narcotics or carrying weapons. Parole violations are either technical violations or new offense violations. Technical violations occur when the conditions of parole are violated. New offense violations involve an arrest and criminal prosecution and conviction. Parolees alleged to have committed a violation are given a preliminary hearing to determine whether there is probable cause to believe the conditions of parole were violated. If probable cause is determined, the offender is held in custody pending a hearing to determine whether parole should be revoked. The purpose of the revocation hearing is to determine whether the violation is serious enough to revoke parole and return the parolee to prison. If probable cause is not determined, the prisoner is released. Prisoners are entitled to due process at parole revocation hearings.

If after a reasonable length of time parolees continue to show that they can obey all the rules of parole, they may be discharged from parole supervision. At that time, they receive a certificate stating that the current sentence and parole obligations have been met and discharged.

Reinventing Parole

Parole boards are often criticized when a parolee commits a high-profile crime. Studies of intensive-supervision programs for high-risk parolees have found that the programs cut neither recidivism nor costs. Critics have favored some types of “three strikes and you’re out” laws or a no-parole policy after three convictions for some categories of violent and repeat felons. In an effort to reinvent the parole system, some experts have advocated use of a voucher system. For a specific period, parolees can use the voucher to seek an education, job training, drug treatment, or other services from state-selected providers. If parolees want to help themselves, they can. If not, they are on their own. Parolees who commit new crimes are sent back to prison to do their time and are given additional time for the new violation.

Some experts have advocated privatizing the parole system and would have bail bond agencies manage the parole system. With their own money at risk, bondsmen would supervise their parolees closely. Privatizing the parole system would save taxpayers money. Prisoners eligible for parole would be required to post a financial bond against specified violations such as reporting regularly to their bail bond agents or submitting to drug testing. Persons violating parole would forfeit their bond, generating revenue for the state and victim compensation. Bond would be set by the courts or parole boards based on the criminal’s history and prospects for a productive, law-abiding life.

According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics, the number of people on parole or probation began to decline in the twenty-first century, dropping 23 percent from 2012 to 2022. The number of people on parole dropped from 745,300 to 698,800 from 2021 to 2022.

Bibliography

Abadinsky, Howard. Probation and Parole. 13th ed. Boston: Pearson, 2017. Print.

Boston, John, and Daniel E. Manville. Prisoners’ Self-Help Litigation Manual, 10th ed. Oxford UP, 2010.

Clear, Todd R., Michael D. Reisig, and George F. Cole. American Corrections, 12th ed. Cengage, 2018.

Kaeble, Danielle. "Probation and Parole in the United States, 2022." Bureau of Justice Statistics, May 2024, bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/probation-and-parole-united-states-2022. Accessed 8 July 2024.

Morgan, Kathryn. Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections Work in Theory and Practice: Preparing Students for Careers in Probation and Parole Agencies. Durham: Caroline Academic, 2015. Print.

Schlager, Melinda. Rethinking the Reentry Paradigm: A Blueprint for Action. Durham: Carolina Academic, 2013. Print.

Schwartzapfel, Beth. "How Parole Boards Keep Prisoners in the Dark and Behind Bars." Washington Post. Washington Post, 11 July 2015, www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-power-and-politics-of-parole-boards/2015/07/10/49c1844e-1f71-11e5-84d5-eb37ee8eaa61‗story.html. Accessed 8 July 2024.

Travis, Jeremy, and Sarah Lawrence. Beyond the Prison Gates: The State of Parole in America. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 2002. Print.