Predicting parole decision in Kansas via discriminant analysis

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

“…She also concluded that participation in institutional programs, disciplinary infractions, marital status, and age also influenced parole decisions although not as strongly as offense-related variables. Bonham (1986) found that both primary variables (seriousness of the offense, time served, parole plan, recidivism risk, institutional behavior, and program use) and secondary variables (age, history of drug use) had an impact on parole decisions. Primary variables, however, were better predictors of parole decisions than secondary variables.…”

“…Given the amount of discretion exercised by the parole board, there was some concern with how parole release decisions were made. Criminologists agreed that there was a lack of knowledge regarding how parole boards made release decisions (Bonham, 1986;Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1988).…”

“…The first problem was the lack of accurate offender information on which to base their decisions (Bonham, 1986). Parole board members often did not have access to accurate data regarding offender characteristics, how decisions might be related to criminal justice system goals, or consequences of parole decisions (Bonham, 1986). A second problem was related to the lack of knowledge regarding significant variables related to parole decisions (Bonham, 1986).…”

“…Parole board members often did not have access to accurate data regarding offender characteristics, how decisions might be related to criminal justice system goals, or consequences of parole decisions (Bonham, 1986). A second problem was related to the lack of knowledge regarding significant variables related to parole decisions (Bonham, 1986). Often, it was difficult to identify major variables that parole boards used in making their decisions or the nature of the relationship between these variables and parole decisions.…”

Elucidating the Factors that Influence Parole Decision-Making and Violent Offenders’ Performance on Parole

“…The most noteworthy change occurred subsequent to the introduction of mandatory sentencing, which saw the limitation and, in some cases, removal of the discretionary decision-making powers of parole authorities in jurisdictions across the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. These reforms occurred in the context of criticisms focusing on the unstructured and inconsistent nature of the parole decision-making process (Bonham, Janeksela, & Bardo, 1986;Heinz, Heinz, Senderowitz, & Vance, 1976;Petersilia, 2001). Contemporary parole authorities typically adopt one of two broad approaches.…”