The Future of Parole Release

Examining the policies of paroling authorities in the United States to support evidence-based practices

“…Approximately, two-thirds of states have some form of a PA that exercises significant discretion in back-end sentencing decisions (Matthews et al, 2020; Reitz, 2020). Even though PAs have a prominent role in determining the amount of time served by sentenced individuals in the United States, they are less understood relative to their other correctional counterparts (Rhine et al, 2017). There is a wealth of research examining sentencing decisions by judges at the front end and a large body of evidence identifying “what works” to reduce recidivism when people re-enter the community, yet less research has examined the “black box” of PA decisions to release, revoke, set conditions, or other areas within their authority (Petersilia and Reitz, 2012; Rhine et al, 2017).…”

“…These policies might focus on the release practices of PAs, including the development of structured release guidelines. Release guidelines are a formal policy that outline specific criteria to guide decision-makers in identifying people appropriate to release from prison with the ultimate goal to incorporate criteria related to public safety and preparedness for release (Rhine et al, 2017). Other back-end policies might include earned time credits, improving administrative practices in release decisions, and expanding options like medical parole (Harvell et al, 2016).…”

Legal Ruralism and California Parole Hearings: Space, Place, and the Carceral Landscape*

“…Parole is a notoriously understudied component of the U.S. criminal justice system (Rhine, Petersilia, and Reitz 2017; Wacquant 2002), yet post‐sentencing criminal justice decisions affect millions of Americans each year. One in 55 U.S. adults is on parole, probation, or a combination of the two (Kaeble 2018:1).…”

“…For the most part, there is little consensus about the factors that predict parole outcomes, and almost no work on the sociological dynamics of the hearings. The social processes within parole boards' decision‐making have “long neglected by academic, research, and policy communities” (Rhine et al 2017).…”

Gendered views on parole: exploring how emotion and emotion management help to explain gender differences in the Australian public’s views on parole

“…The perceived public sentiment around parole may also be taken into consideration by parole board members in their decisions (Samra-Grewal & Roesch, 2000), with recent claims that "the public's increased attention to crime policy have not been lost on parole boards" (Rhine, Petersilia, & Reitz, 2017, p. 287). This increased attention may, particularly in the aftermath of incidents of violent reoffending by parolees, place additional pressure on parole boards to reduce the rate at which they grant parole (Rhine et al, 2017). Restrictions placed on prisoners' parole eligibility coupled with the possibility of more conservative parole release rates could have a significant impact on Australian prison population rates.…”