An Analysis of Parole Decision Making Using a Sample of Sex Offenders: A Focal Concerns Perspective

Abstract

We use data from pre‐sentence investigations and official parole board records to study the correlates of parole release among a sample of men incarcerated for sexual offenses. Cox proportional hazard models are used to estimate change in the likelihood of parole over time, and the focal concerns theory provides the theoretical framework for the analyses. The findings suggest a complex interplay of legal and extralegal factors in understanding parole release decisions. Parole officials weigh heavily offense seriousness, institutional misconduct, and parole readiness scores in making release decisions. In addition, study results reveal that victim and offender age is a salient factor in determining parole judgments. Overall, the current analysis provides a baseline for future research on parole decision making in general, and sexual offenders, in particular.

Applying DEMATEL to Investigate the Relationship Between Factors Affecting Parole Boards’ Decision-Making in Taiwan

“…Also, the results are consistent with those of Huebner and Bynum's (2006) study, which indicated that the parole board members emphasize crime characteristics and criminal history during the parole decision process. However, in Lindsey and Miller's (2011) study, the parole board members considered the execution of corrections and evidence of adjustment in prison (e.g., program participation and violent behavior in prison) as the top factors for denying parole, which differs from the findings of this study.…”

Applying DEMATEL to Investigate the Relationship Between Factors Affecting Parole Boards’ Decision-Making in Taiwan

“…Also, the results are consistent with those of Huebner and Bynum's (2006) study, which indicated that the parole board members emphasize crime characteristics and criminal history during the parole decision process. However, in Lindsey and Miller's (2011) study, the parole board members considered the execution of corrections and evidence of adjustment in prison (e.g., program participation and violent behavior in prison) as the top factors for denying parole, which differs from the findings of this study.…”

How do parole board members in England and Wales construct decisions about whether to release perpetrators of intimate partner violence from prison?

“…The results were also consistent with previous findings (Caplan, 2010; Huebner & Bynum, 2006; Tzeng, 2014) identifying associations between the nature and severity of the offence(s) and the Parole Board's decision. However, this association did not relate to the type of offence but to the nature of IPV involved, using Johnson's (2006) distinction between offenders who exert control over their victims (‘intimate terrorism’) and those whose behaviour is chaotic and not involving control (‘situational couple violence’).…”

“…This is not only consistent with broader findings around the importance of ‘parole readiness’ (Huebner & Bynum, 2006) and the risk management plan (Bradford & Cowell, 2012, p. 10) but resembles the ‘willingness to take a chance’ identified as a more random variable by Padfield (2017). These findings suggest that what seems like a ‘punt’ based on the offender's characteristics may be driven by the reassurance provided by the quality of the OM's plan.…”

Gaining insight, changing attitudes and managing ‘risk’: Parole release decisions for women convicted of violent crimes

“…On the whole, however, parole candidates in the two decision groups (granted or denied parole) did not differ significantly with respect to various individual, offence and institutional characteristics. In contrast to previous findings about male prisoners, victim type, offence seriousness, criminal history and remorse were not significantly associated with release decisions for women who have committed acts of serious violence (Bottomley, 1973;Caplan, 2007;Hood and Shute, 2000b;Huebner and Bynum, 2006;McLeod, 1989;Parsonage et al, 1994;Slovenko, 2006;Smith et al, 1997). Nor did age, race, criminal history, offence committed, institutional misconducts, history of mental illness, substance abuse, security classification or remorse appear to underlie board members' decisions to grant or deny parole.…”

Applying DEMATEL to Investigate the Relationship Between Factors Affecting Parole Boards’ Decision-Making in Taiwan

“…Also, the results are consistent with those of Huebner and Bynum's (2006) study, which indicated that the parole board members emphasize crime characteristics and criminal history during the parole decision process. However, in Lindsey and Miller's (2011) study, the parole board members considered the execution of corrections and evidence of adjustment in prison (e.g., program participation and violent behavior in prison) as the top factors for denying parole, which differs from the findings of this study.…”

How do parole board members in England and Wales construct decisions about whether to release perpetrators of intimate partner violence from prison?

“…The results were also consistent with previous findings (Caplan, 2010; Huebner & Bynum, 2006; Tzeng, 2014) identifying associations between the nature and severity of the offence(s) and the Parole Board's decision. However, this association did not relate to the type of offence but to the nature of IPV involved, using Johnson's (2006) distinction between offenders who exert control over their victims (‘intimate terrorism’) and those whose behaviour is chaotic and not involving control (‘situational couple violence’).…”

“…This is not only consistent with broader findings around the importance of ‘parole readiness’ (Huebner & Bynum, 2006) and the risk management plan (Bradford & Cowell, 2012, p. 10) but resembles the ‘willingness to take a chance’ identified as a more random variable by Padfield (2017). These findings suggest that what seems like a ‘punt’ based on the offender's characteristics may be driven by the reassurance provided by the quality of the OM's plan.…”

Gaining insight, changing attitudes and managing ‘risk’: Parole release decisions for women convicted of violent crimes

“…On the whole, however, parole candidates in the two decision groups (granted or denied parole) did not differ significantly with respect to various individual, offence and institutional characteristics. In contrast to previous findings about male prisoners, victim type, offence seriousness, criminal history and remorse were not significantly associated with release decisions for women who have committed acts of serious violence (Bottomley, 1973;Caplan, 2007;Hood and Shute, 2000b;Huebner and Bynum, 2006;McLeod, 1989;Parsonage et al, 1994;Slovenko, 2006;Smith et al, 1997). Nor did age, race, criminal history, offence committed, institutional misconducts, history of mental illness, substance abuse, security classification or remorse appear to underlie board members' decisions to grant or deny parole.…”

Applying DEMATEL to Investigate the Relationship Between Factors Affecting Parole Boards’ Decision-Making in Taiwan

“…Also, the results are consistent with those of Huebner and Bynum's (2006) study, which indicated that the parole board members emphasize crime characteristics and criminal history during the parole decision process. However, in Lindsey and Miller's (2011) study, the parole board members considered the execution of corrections and evidence of adjustment in prison (e.g., program participation and violent behavior in prison) as the top factors for denying parole, which differs from the findings of this study.…”

How do parole board members in England and Wales construct decisions about whether to release perpetrators of intimate partner violence from prison?

“…The results were also consistent with previous findings (Caplan, 2010; Huebner & Bynum, 2006; Tzeng, 2014) identifying associations between the nature and severity of the offence(s) and the Parole Board's decision. However, this association did not relate to the type of offence but to the nature of IPV involved, using Johnson's (2006) distinction between offenders who exert control over their victims (‘intimate terrorism’) and those whose behaviour is chaotic and not involving control (‘situational couple violence’).…”

“…This is not only consistent with broader findings around the importance of ‘parole readiness’ (Huebner & Bynum, 2006) and the risk management plan (Bradford & Cowell, 2012, p. 10) but resembles the ‘willingness to take a chance’ identified as a more random variable by Padfield (2017). These findings suggest that what seems like a ‘punt’ based on the offender's characteristics may be driven by the reassurance provided by the quality of the OM's plan.…”

Gaining insight, changing attitudes and managing ‘risk’: Parole release decisions for women convicted of violent crimes

“…On the whole, however, parole candidates in the two decision groups (granted or denied parole) did not differ significantly with respect to various individual, offence and institutional characteristics. In contrast to previous findings about male prisoners, victim type, offence seriousness, criminal history and remorse were not significantly associated with release decisions for women who have committed acts of serious violence (Bottomley, 1973;Caplan, 2007;Hood and Shute, 2000b;Huebner and Bynum, 2006;McLeod, 1989;Parsonage et al, 1994;Slovenko, 2006;Smith et al, 1997). Nor did age, race, criminal history, offence committed, institutional misconducts, history of mental illness, substance abuse, security classification or remorse appear to underlie board members' decisions to grant or deny parole.…”