Differences in Parole Decisions Associated with Decision-Makers

Abstract

Prison sentences set by a paroling authority vary, as expected, with characteristics of the offenders. Is part of the variation in sentences, however, associated not with the offenders but with the persons responsible for the decisions? Comparisons of sentences set by various parole board members may be misleading if differences in the types of offenders con cerned are not taken into account. If an experimental study of the question with adequate controls for "types of offenders" is not feasible, statistical controls might be substituted. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate a method for com paring decisions by parole board members. Study of the sentences of 2,053 men paroled in one year, analyzed according to six parole board members who participated in the hearing, demon strated the need for the study suggested. The groups of offenders were not directly comparable. When relevant characteristics of the offenders were taken into account, it was found that the decision-makers tended to make similar decisions.

Parole release decisions revisited: An analysis of parole release decisions for violent inmates in a southeastern state

“…California correctional authorities, who questioned the rehabilitative value of parole, used the practice to minimize the use of clemency and correct for sentences that were excessive (Messinger, 1985). The idea that the institutional, political, and economic environment, not the inmate or offense variables, significantly affected parole decisions was empirically tested in a number of studies (Barnett, 1981;Branham, 1983;DeGostin & Hoffman, 1974;Fabelo, 1984;Gottfredson & Ballard, 1966;Luther, 1995;Parsons, 1972;Pogrebin, Poole, & Regoli, 1986). In his study of a changing parole process, Simon (1993) noted that the transformation of the parole process was related to the political and economic changes of society.…”

Tools For Structuring Court Discretion: What Do They Work For And Why Don't They Work Better?

“…It has been demonstrated that systematic variation due to (unknown differences in) judges may be observed in sentencing (e.g., Goldkamp andGottfredson, 1981a, 1981b). The evidence in other areas is not clear: for example, Gottfredson and Ballard (1966) found no differences associated with parole decisionmakers after controlling for differences in cases seen.…”

Studying Parole in the “Spotlight”: Lessons from a Large American Jurisdiction

“…The parole board's main purpose then is to determine, based on the individual's institutional conduct and other related factors, whether or not those eligible have shown signs of rehabilitation, are likely to achieve successful reintegration into society, and what supervisory conditions would help in achieving that goal. 3 Heightened scrutiny of parole practices during the 1970s brought to light a range of negative consequences potentially associated with the discretionary nature of the parole decision, such as great variation and arbitrariness in parole outcomes, with similarly situated offenders receiving very different treatments (e.g., Carroll and Mondrick 1976;Gottfredson and Ballard 1966;Gottfredson 1979;Von Hirsch and Hanrahan 1979). All this raised basic questions of fairness and equal application of justice and provided the impetus for reform, including the abolition of parole in some jurisdictions.…”