Giving and getting parole: The changing characteristics of parole in England and Wales

Abstract

This article is written as part of a special issue of the European Journal of Probation, which seeks not simply to describe and to critique ‘parole’ as it has evolved over time, but to focus on the justifications and the actors involved in parole decision-making and supervision. This article explores the changing face of ‘parole’ in England and Wales. The Parole Board today has little in common with the Parole Board of 1967. The characteristics of the prisoners who appear before panels of the Board have also changed. ‘Parole’ is now a very different process, no longer ‘early conditional release’, but what might better be described as ‘delayed conditional release’. This requires a fundamental re-analysis of its purpose and the justifications for its use.

Prisoners' understanding and experiences of parole

“…Given the diversity of the characteristics of prisoners seeking parole, the inherent complexity of the decision‐making process and the far‐reaching consequences for those seeking parole, their families and the victims of crime (Padfield, 2019) it is vital that parole policy and practice is, as far as possible, empirically informed. However, the processes associated with parole, the experiences of those involved and the outcomes of parole decision‐making have been largely neglected in contemporary criminological literature (Griffin, 2018).…”

“…The Scottish Government (2018) has recently embarked upon a review of parole in Scotland. Amidst public scrutiny and heightened political and policy interest in parole, it is important that any changes that are introduced are informed by relevant research (Jones, 2018) and that the ‘human’ face of parole should be subject to greater attention (Padfield, 2019). To begin to address these concerns and to gain an understanding of prisoners’ experiences as a means of informing future policy and practice, the Parole Board for Scotland (PBS) authorised a survey, undertaken in conjunction with the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), of prisoners who had experience of the parole process.…”

Offender Managers Matter: new research highlights the key role of professional recommendations in parole decisions for domestic abusers.

“…However, a controlling, calculated perpetrator of intimate terrorism might be far more adept at concealing a relationship and any abuse within that relationship, even from the most capable offender manager. But while some of the risk manageability is inherent to the prisoner themselves, some is relative to the offender manager -parole board members reflected the 'luck' that Padfield (2019) highlighted: the same prisoner may or may not be released, depending on the confidence parole boards have in their probation officer. In marginal cases a comprehensive risk management plan often formed the final 'hook' on which parole boards felt comfortable hanging a release decision.…”

Parole, parole boards and the institutional dilemmas of contemporary prison release

“…Moments of crisis, such as the Worboys case in England and Wales, or the Dutroux scandal in Belgium, continue to undermine public confidence in the parole system (see Fitzgerald et al, 2021), while a host of previously excluded policy actors are now ‘pressing in’ on prison release decision-making with growing assuredness (Annison, 2020: 11). Release from prison is subject to a plethora of licence conditions (Padfield, 2019) and parole boards are now firmly established within a broader apparatus of risk management, community supervision and control (Barry, 2021; Hannah-Moffatt and Yule, 2011). The extraordinary growth of indeterminate sentencing in some jurisdictions has seen the locus of sentencing discretion move ‘downstream’ from the criminal courts (Rhine et al, 2017) and an expanding cohort of recall prisoners has renewed longstanding concerns about executive overreach and the limits of the liberal democratic state (Padfield and Maruna, 2006).…”