The Giant That Never Woke

Abstract

This article argues that discretionary parole is the lynchpin to improved correctional practice. Calls to abolish discretionary parole have failed to consider its potential to steer correctional agendas toward sustainable evidence-based practices (EBPs) and effective reentry/transitional services. The history of corrections and parole is marked by tension between the goals of warehousing and correcting prisoners. Notwithstanding a growing body of impressive research that clarifies the importance of the implementation of EBPs to recidivism reduction, their ubiquitous implementation has been impeded by structural flaws within correctional organizations. Moreover, corrections practitioners and scholars have not addressed issues related to the professional competency of discretionary parole authorities as well as their potential to serve as a protective organizational factor that promotes offender rehabilitation and reintegration.

Predicaments in Prisoners’ Institutional Rehabilitation for Parole Release: Some Evidence from Malaysia

“…Petersilia () argues that the parole dossier should include a report on the crimes committed by prisoners as well as the institutional rehabilitation report. Paparozzi and Guy () contend that crucial consideration could include the likelihood of prisoners’ positive conduct in the community upon release. Abadinsky () asserts that the Board must be satisfied that a prisoner presents an acceptable risk to public safety and that adequate arrangements are in place for the prisoner in the community.…”

“…Parole has been established for the purpose of rehabilitating prisoners and successfully reintegrating them back into the community (Champion ). The importance of releasing prisoners under the parole system is to identify prisoners who have the best chance for rehabilitation while serving their sentence, and those who pose the least threat to public safety (Paparazzi and Guy ). Who is to be paroled is a question that has vital importance in the field of corrections today and the parole selection process by the Parole Board members has grave consequences on the effectiveness of the entire parole system (Cromwell and Del Carmen ).…”

Measuring Parole Officer Competencies to Advance Core Correctional Practice

“…Findings from numerous studies (Gottfredson, Mitchell-Herzfeld, & Flanagan, 1982;Paparozzi & Guy, 2009;Schlager & Robbins, 2008;Solomon, Kachnowski, & Bhati, 2005) have demonstrated that discretionary release and subsequent PO supervision has a significant positive impact in terms of offender outcomes. For instance, in an examination of the factors associated with successful sentence completion, Grant and Gillis (1999) found that the successful completion of day parole was associated with a reduction in both parole revocation rates, and general recidivism rates.…”

“…Nevertheless, as alluded to above (e.g., Caplan, 2007, Public Safety Canada, 2014 evidence that parole board members adhere to empirically established criteria is equivocal. Instead of relying primarily on actuarial methods, which have generally been found to be more accurate, liberal, and reliable than clinical methods (Grove, Zald, Lebow, Snitz, & Nelson, 2000), decisions appear to involve personal ideologies and at least some degree of subjectivity (Paparozzi & Guy, 2009 (Pardoel, 2013). These findings are consistent with similar research conducted in the U.S. (Morgan & Smith, 2005;Proctor, 1999 (Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2006;Barklage, Miller & Bonham, 2006;Skeem & Manchak, 2008).…”