Parole System in the United States

The United States is the world’s third-largest country by population, but it has the largest prison population. How best to manage the criminal justice system and its prisoners is a long-standing matter of public policy. Various strategies have been implemented, one of them being the parole system. Parole is the release of prisoners before their sentence has been completed based on good behavior. After release, parolees are monitored to ensure that they function lawfully within society. Failing that, they are returned to prison.

Supporters of the parole system believe that one of the main goals of jails and prisons is rehabilitation, and that certain categories of criminals who demonstrate that they can behave well during incarceration should be eligible for parole. Release provides them the chance to return to a normal life and reintegrate into society while also reducing financial burden on state and federal tax-based programs and alleviating crowded prisons. Some supporters also argue that too much emphasis is placed on incarceration in the U.S. and that other programs encouraging reform should be more widely implemented.

Detractors of the parole system believe that being lenient with criminals does not serve as an effective deterrent to crime, and that the foremost goal of incarceration is to help protect society. Releasing prisoners on parole has not always met with success, and has sometimes exposed society to further harm. Therefore, opponents argue, fewer prisoners should be eligible for parole. Some detractors also argue that the overall effectiveness of incarceration has been improved by more stringent laws and harsher punishments for infractions.

The parole system is a highly politicized issue and one that has undergone regular reform at the state and federal levels. The U.S. Parole Commission has aimed to balance the human rights of prisoners, the strain on state and federal institutions, and the promotion of public safety.

Understanding the Discussion

Discharge: The release of parolees from parole; discharge from the parole system can take place for both successful and unsuccessful parolees.

Discretionary Parole: The conditional release of a prisoner based on the authority of the parole board.

Mandatory Parole: The conditional release of a prisoner once a predetermined portion of his/her sentence has been served.

Parole Violators: Parolees who are returned to prison when they violate the terms of their parole or commit a new offense.

Recidivism: The state of a criminal returning to crime.

Reentry: The return of prisoners into society with parole supervision.

Truth-in-Sentencing: The requirement that prisoners serve a certain portion of their sentence before they become eligible for parole.

History

The numerous changes that have been made to the U.S. criminal justice system reflect changing views of prisoners and human behavior, as well as the growth of the country’s population and the development of a wide variety of societal problems. Originally under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, responsibility for federal prisoners was transferred to the Department of Justice in 1872.

The first efforts to provide well-behaved prisoners with early release date to the late nineteenth century, when some prisons implemented a credit system whereby prisoners could accrue credits that would reduce their sentences in exchange for good behavior. This system was eventually implemented throughout federal prisons. The Attorney General was also granted the authority to reduce prison sentences.

A federal parole system was created in 1910. It authorized parole boards to release prisoners after a certain portion of their sentence was completed and established the role of parole officers, who became responsible for ensuring that parolees abided by the law as they readjusted to society. In the event that parole was violated, a system of warrants for apprehending prisoners was also created. One lenient clause, established in 1913, established that prisoners serving life sentences could be considered for parole after fifteen years. In contrast, the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act of 1938 made provisions for juveniles to be released at any time after their incarceration, according to the parole board’s discretion.

The parole system was further codified in 1939. The prisoner’s application for parole was set out, as were the prisoner’s hearing in front of the parole board and the conditions of parole. There was a strong emphasis on the parolee’s rehabilitation, including the effort to secure employment and an investigation of the situation to which the parolee would return.

Prison population has fluctuated according to the historical moment. Prison population decreased, for example, after Prohibition was repealed and also during World War II, when some prisoners were allowed to contribute to the war effort. After the war, the prison population increased again for a number of reasons. Such fluctuations are perceived as necessitating reforms. For instance, a spike in juvenile offenders brought about the stricter Youth Corrections Act of 1950. Six years later, the Uniform Narcotic Control Act established a mandatory period of prison time before offenders were eligible for parole.

Further reforms were instituted with the Parole Commission and Reorganization Act of 1976. Some of the changes made the system more lenient and offered more rights to prisoners, such as a broadened right to appeal decisions of the parole board and more regimented case review periods.

The 1984 Comprehensive Crime Control Act introduced major reforms of the Parole Commission. Though the commission was initially supposed to be phased out, its life was extended and it was not ultimately terminated. The commission maintained jurisdiction over prisoners whose offenses were committed before a certain date, while the new act governed cases after that date. It created explicit guidelines for sentencing federal offenders, including their chances for parole.

Overcrowding in prisons led to several new programs. One was the Special Curfew Parole, which allowed a greater number of prisoners to be paroled but monitored them more closely as they reentered society. Another was the Reparative Work Project, which allowed prisoners to be eligible for parole sooner if they completed a certain number of volunteer work hours. These programs both proved economically sound and socially useful.

The debate over the parole system continues. Beginning in the 1970s, the severity of laws governing prisoners increased in response to fears over crime. Supporters of the parole system argue that the trend toward greater severity has not reduced crime, however. They continue to emphasize the importance of prisoner rehabilitation. Rather than spending on the construction of more prisons, money should be invested in programs that assist prisoners in the rehabilitation process. Such programs would prove especially useful for drug offenders, it is argued, who need treatment, not imprisonment. Supporters of the parole system also point out that advances in technology, such as electronic tethers and GPS units, have made the system more effective as they allow the whereabouts of parolees to be traced at every moment.

Detractors warn of a parole system that is too lenient, arguing that society must be protected from crime and criminals must be punished for their offenses. They support strict, uniform sentencing laws and argue that the reforms of 1984 require time to take full effect but have already proven their efficacy. At base, detractors have a view of human nature that suggests that behavior is not easy to modify, making the chance of reforming prisoners low. In this view, recidivism among parolees is the general trend. However, statistics suggest a long-term trend of approximately 41 percent of parolees successfully completing their term.

The Parole System Today

In comparison to other democratic countries, the US federal sentencing system stands out as particularly severe. Some countries, for example, do not allow courts to sentence prisoners to life without parole, arguing that such a punishment is cruel and does not encourage prisoners to make changes in their lives. In contrast, the US not only does so, but does so for juveniles. Criminologists have maintained that this severe system plays a major part in the high recidivism rates of the US, as oftentimes data on the number of released prisoners who have been re-incarcerated includes those who did not re-offend but who violated some condition of their parole.

Concern over the ballooning costs of the penitentiary system and the trend toward building more prison complexes to accommodate the growing prisoner population has led to attacks on the prevailing system of federal sentencing. Arguing that it has been neither cost-effective nor effective in reducing crime, its opponents suggest a return to the pre-1984 system of the parole commission.

Issues involving parole boards gained headlines in Massachusetts in December 2010 after a parolee named Dominic Cinelli fatally shot a police officer during a robbery. Cinelli was granted parole despite having previously earned three life sentences. In response, Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick replaced several members of the parole board.

These essays and any opinions, information, or representations contained therein are the creation of the particular author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of EBSCO Information Services.

Bibliography

Books

Clear, Todd R., and Harry R. Dammer. The Offender in the Community. 2nd ed. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2003. Print.

Jacobson, Michael. Downsizing Prisons: How to Reduce Crime and End Mass Incarceration. New York: New York UP, 2005. Print.

Sieh, Edward W. Community Corrections and Human Dignity. Sudbury: Jones, 2006. Print.

Stevens, Dennis J. Community Corrections: An Applied Approach. Upper Saddle River: Prentice, 2006. Print.

Periodicals

Anderson, George M. "Parole Revisited." America 4 Mar. 2002: 10–12. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 5 Jan. 2016. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=6282576&site=pov-live.

Bierschbach, Richard A. "Proportionality and Parole." University Of Pennsylvania Law Review 160.6 (2012): 1745–88. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 Jan. 2016. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=77324825&site=ehost-live.

Caplan, Joel M. "Parole System Anomie: Conflicting Models of Caseworth and Surveillance." Federal Probation Dec. 2006: 32–36. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 Jan. 2016. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=26902389&site=ehost-live.

Cohen, Laura. "Freedom's Road: Youth, Parole, and the Promise of Miller v. Alabama and Graham v. Florida." Cardozo Law Review 35.3 (2014): 1031–89. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 Jan. 2016. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=94686085&site=ehost-live.

Gleicher, Lily, Sarah M. Manchak, and Francis T. Cullen. "Creating a Supervision Tool Kit: How to Improve Probation and Parole." Federal Probation June 2013: 22–27. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 Jan. 2016. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=89332143&site=ehost-live.

Kleiman, Mark A. R., and Angela Hawken. "Fixing the Parole System." Issues in Science and Technology 24.4 (2008): 45–52. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 Jan. 2016. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=33306402&site=ehost-live.

Maruna, Shadd, Dean Dabney, and Volkan Topalli. "Putting a Price on Prisoner Release: The History of Bail and a Possible Future of Parole." Punishment & Society 14.3 (2012): 315–37. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 Jan. 2016. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=77961756&site=ehost-live.

Russell, Sarah French. "Review for Release: Juvenile Offenders, State Parole Practices, and the Eighth Amendment." Indiana Law Journal 89.1 (2014): 373–440. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 Jan. 2016. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=93745149&site=ehost-live.

Thorngate, Steve. "Death without Killing." Christian Century 19 Aug. 2015: 22–25. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 Jan. 2016. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=108682936&site=ehost-live.

Websites and Digital Files

Levenson, Michael. "Patrick Nominates Four to Parole Board." Boston.com. Boston Globe Media Partners, 5 Mar. 2011. Web. 6 Jan. 2015. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/03/05/patrick%5Fnominates%5Ffour%5Fto%5Fparole%5Fboard/.

Nicks, Denver. "8 Shocking Facts from the ACLU's Report on Life without Parole." Time. Time, 14 Nov. 2013. Web. 5 Jan. 2016. http://nation.time.com/2013/11/14/8-shocking-facts-from-the-aclus-report-on-life-without-parole/.