1932

Abstract

Decisions tied to parole release, supervision, and revocation are major determinants of the ebb and flow of prison populations across two-thirds of US states. We argue that parole release, as an institution, has been an underacknowledged force in American incarceration and reincarceration policy and an important contributor to the nation's buildup to mass incarceration. In paroling states, no court or state agency holds greater power than parole boards over time actually served by the majority of offenders sent to prison. We examine the leverage exercised by parole boards through their discretionary release decisions and their powers to sanction violators of parole conditions. We note the state-by-state diversity and complexity associated with parole-release decisions and the absence of successful state systems that might serve as a model for other jurisdictions. We highlight the procedural shortfalls universally associated with parole decision-making. We discuss the long reach of parole supervision and the pains it imposes on those subject to its jurisdiction, including the substantial financial burdens levied on parolees. We then turn to the prospects for parole reform and outline a comprehensive blueprint for improving parole release in America.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011419-041416
2020-01-13
2024-04-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/criminol/3/1/annurev-criminol-011419-041416.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011419-041416&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Alper ME. 2016. By the Numbers: Parole Release and Revocation Across 50 States Minneapolis, MN: Robina Inst. Crim. Law Crim. Justice
  2. Am. Bar Assoc 2007. Report to the House of Delegates on Improvements in Probation and Parole Supervision Chicago: Am. Bar Assoc. Press
  3. Am. Law Inst 2011. Model Penal Code: Sentencing, Tentative Draft No. 2 Philadelphia, PA: Am. Law Inst
  4. Am. Law Inst 2017. Model Penal Code: Sentencing, Proposed Final Draft approved May 24, 2017 Philadelphia, PA: Am. Law Inst
  5. Andrews DA, Bonta J. 2010. Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychol. Public Policy Law 16:139–55
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Andrews DA, Bonta J, Hoge RD 1990a. Classification for effective rehabilitation: rediscovering psychology. Crim. Justice Behav. 17:119–52
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Andrews DA, Zinger I, Hoge RD, Bonta J, Gendreau P, Cullen FT 1990b. Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology 28:3369–404
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Ark. Times Staff, Brantley M 2005. Web special: Dumond case revisited—a reminder of Huckabee's role in his freedom. Arkansas Times, Sept. 1. https://arktimes.com/news/arkansas-reporter/2005/09/02/web-special-dumond-case-revisited
  9. Bashir A, Shur R, Torres T, Doherty F 2017. Parole Revocation in Connecticut: Opportunities to Reduce Incarceration New Haven, CT: Yale Law School
  10. Beck AJ, Shipley BE. 1989. Recidivism of prisoners released in 1983 Bur. Justice Stat. Rep. NCJ116261, US Dep. Justice Washington, DC:
  11. Bennett WJ, DiIulio JJ, Walters JP 1996. Body Count: Moral Poverty…And How to Win America's War Against Crime and Drugs New York: Simon & Schuster
  12. Bird M, Grattet R. 2016. Realignment and recidivism. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 664:176–95
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bogue B, Campbell N, Carey M, Clawson E, Faust D et al. 2004a. Implementing Evidence-Based Practice in Community Corrections: Principles of Effective Intervention Washington, DC: Natl. Inst. Correct
  14. Bogue B, Campbell N, Carey M, Clawson E, Faust D et al. 2004b. Implementing Evidence-Based Practice in Community Corrections: Collaboration for Systemic Change in the Criminal Justice System Washington, DC: Natl. Inst. Correct
  15. Bogue B, Campbell N, Carey M, Clawson E, Faust D et al. 2004c. Implementing Evidence-Based Practice in Community Corrections: Leading Organizational Change and Development Washington, DC: Natl. Inst. Correct
  16. Brown v. Plata Brown v. Plata 2011.)
  17. Bur. Justice Stat 2010. Rate (per 100,000 resident population) of sentenced prisoners under jurisdiction of State and Federal correctional authorities on December 31. Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics Online table 629 2009 Washington, DC: US Dep. Justice. https://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t6292009.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Burke P. 2004. Parole Violations Revisited: A Handbook on Strengthening Parole Practices for Public Safety and Successful Transition to the Community Washington, DC: Natl. Inst. Correct
  19. Burke P, Gelb A, Horowitz J 2007. When offenders break the rules: smart responses to probation and parole violations Public Saf. Policy Brief., Pew Charit. Trusts Washington, DC:
  20. Burrell WD. 2016. Risk and need assessment in probation and parole: the persistent gap between promise and practice. Handbook on Risk and Need Assessment: Theory and Practice FS Taxman 23–48 London: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Burrell WD, Rhine EE. 2013. Implementing evidence-based practice in community corrections: a review essay. Justice Res. Policy 15:1143–57
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Cahalan MW. 1986. Historical corrections statistics in the United States, 1850–1984 Bur. Justice Stat. Rep. NCJ100996, US Dep. Justice Washington, DC:
  23. Caplan JM. 2006. Parole system anomie: conflicting models of casework and surveillance. Fed. Probat. 70:3
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Carson EA, Golinelli D. 2014. Prisoners in 2012: trends in admissions and releases, 1991–2012 Bur. Justice Stat. Rep. NCJ243920, US Dep. Justice Washington, DC:
  25. Colo. Div. Crim. Justice, Colo. State Board Parole 2013. Analysis of Colorado State Board of Parole Decisions: FY 2013 Report Denver: Colo. Div. Crim. Justice
  26. Columbia Law Review 1960. Note, statutory structures for sentencing felons to prison. Columbia Law Rev 60:1134–72
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Corbett RP Jr 2015. The burdens of leniency: the changing face of probation. Minn. Law Rev. 99:51697–732
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Corda A, Alper M, Reitz K 2016. American Exceptionalism in Parole Supervision Minneapolis, MN: Robina Inst. Crim. Law Crim. Justice
  29. Corda A, Phelps M. 2017. American exceptionalism in community supervision. Perspectives Spring 2017 20–27
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Counc. State Gov. Justice Cent 2019. Confined and costly: how supervision violations are filling prisons and burdening budgets. Council of State Governments Justice Center https://csgjusticecenter.org/confinedandcostly/
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Cullen FT. 2013. Rehabilitation: beyond nothing works. Crime Justice 42:299–376
    [Google Scholar]
  32. De Giorgi A. 2017. Back to nothing: prisoner reentry and neoliberal neglect. Soc. Justice 44:183–120
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Doherty F. 2016. Obey all laws and be good: probation and the meaning of recidivism. Georget. Law Rev. 104:2291–354
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Durnescu I. 2011. Pains of probation: effective practice and human rights. Int. J. Offender Ther. Comp. Criminol. 55:4530–45
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Durose MR, Cooper AD, Snyder HN 2014. Recidivism of prisoners released in 30 states in 2005: patterns from 2005 to 2010 Bur. Justice Stat. Rep. NCJ244205, US Dep. Justice Washington, DC:
  36. Eaglin JM. 2013. Against neorehabilitation. South. Methodist Univ. Law Rev. 66:189–226
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Feeley M, Simon J. 1992. The new penology: notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology 30:4449–74
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Fitzgibbon W, Graebsch C, McNeill F 2016. Pervasive punishment: experiencing supervision. Handbook of Visual Criminology M Brown, E Carrabine 305–19 London: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Frankel ME. 1973. Criminal Sentences: Law Without Order New York: Hill & Wang
  40. Garland D. 2001. The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society Chicago: Univ. Chic. Press
  41. Gendreau P, Ross R. 1987. Revivification of rehabilitation: evidence from the 1980s. Justice Q 4:3349–407
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Glaser D. 1964. The Effectiveness of a Prison and Parole System New York: Bobbs Merrill
  43. Goodman P, Page J, Phelps M 2017. Breaking the Pendulum: The Long Struggle Over Criminal Justice New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  44. Greenberg DF, West V. 2001. State prison populations and their growth, 1971–1991. Criminology 39:615–53
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Harcourt BE. 2007. Against Prediction: Profiling, Policing, and Punishing in an Actuarial Age Chicago: Univ. Chic. Press
  46. Hughes T, Wilson DJ, Beck A 2001. Trends in state parole, 1990–2000 Bur. Justice Stat. Rep. NCJ184735, US Dep. Justice Washington, DC:
  47. Jacobs D, Carmichael JT. 2001. The politics of punishment across time and space: a pooled time-series analysis of imprisonment rates. Soc. Forces 80:161–91
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Jacobson M. 2005. Downsizing Prisons: How to Reduce Crime and End Mass Incarceration New York: NYU Press
  49. Jacobson MP, Schiraldi V, Daly R, Hotez E 2017. Less Is More: How Reducing Probation Populations Can Improve Outcomes Boston: Harv. Kennedy School
  50. Jankowski L. 1991. Probation and parole, 1990 Bur. Justice Stat. Rep. NCJ133285, US Dep. Justice Washington, DC:
  51. Kaeble D. 2018. Probation and parole in the United States, 2016 Bur. Justice Stat. Rep. NCJ251148, US Dep. Justice Washington, DC:
  52. Kalish CB. 1983. Probation and parole, 1982 Bur. Justice Stat. Rep. NCJ39874, US Dep. Justice Washington, DC:
  53. Kleiman M, Ostrom BJ, Cheesman FL II 2007. Using risk assessment to inform sentencing decisions for nonviolent offenders in virginia. Crime Delinquency 53:106–32
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Klingele C. 2013. Rethinking the use of community supervision. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 103:41015–70
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Klingele C. 2016. The promises and perils of evidence-based corrections. Notre Dame Law Rev 91:2537–84
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Knapp KA. 1993. Allocation of discretion and accountability within sentencing structures. Univ. Colo. Law Rev. 64:679–705
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Kraemer HC, Kazdin AE, Offord DR, Kessler RC, Jensen PS, Kupfer DJ 1997. Coming to terms with the terms of risk. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 54:337–43
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Langan PA, Levin D. 2002. Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994 Bur. Justice Stat. Rep. NCJ193427, US Dep. Justice Washington, DC:
  59. Leverentz AM. 2014. The Ex-Prisoner's Dilemma: How Women Negotiate Competing Narratives of Reentry New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press
  60. Lin J. 2019. Conducting reliable research on parole outcomes: factors to consider. Rep., Justice Res. Stat. Assoc., Washington, DC. https://www.jrsa.org/pubs/factsheets/jrsa-factsheet-parole.pdf
  61. Lofstrom M, Raphael S. 2016. Incarceration and crime: evidence from California's public safety realignment reform. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 664:196–220
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Lynch M. 2000. Rehabilitation as rhetoric: the ideal of reformation in contemporary parole discourse and practices. Punishm. Soc. 2:140–65
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Marvell TB, Moody CE. 1996. Determinate sentencing and abolishing parole: the long-term impacts on prisons and crime. Criminol. Public Policy 34:107–28
    [Google Scholar]
  64. McVey CC, Rhine EE, Reynolds CV 2018. Modernizing Parole Statutes: Guidance from Evidence-Based Practice Minneapolis, MN: Robina Inst. Crim. Law Crim. Justice
  65. Mears DP, Cochran JC. 2015. Prisoner Reentry in the Era of Mass Incarceration Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
  66. Monahan J, Skeem JL. 2016. Risk assessment in criminal sentencing. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 12:489–513
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Morris N. 1974. The Future of Imprisonment Chicago: Univ. Chic. Press
  68. Natl. Res. Counc 2007. Parole, Desistance from Crime and Community Integration Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  69. New Jersey State Parole Board 2010. The Parole Book: A Handbook on Parole Procedures for Adult and Young Adult Inmates Trenton: N. J. State Parole Board, 4th ed..
  70. Nicholson-Crotty S. 2004. The impact of sentencing guidelines on state-level sanctions: an analysis over time. Crime Delinquency 50:395–411
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Ohlin LE, Remington FJ. 1958. Sentencing structure: its effect upon systems for the administration of criminal justice. Law Contemp. Probl. 23:495–507
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Paparozzi MA, Caplan JM. 2009. A profile of paroling authorities in America: the strange bedfellows of politics and professionalism. Prison J 89:401–25
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Petersilia J. 2003. When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
  74. Petersilia J. 2008. California's correctional paradox of excess and deprivation. Crime Justice 37:207–78
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Pew Cent. States 2011. State of recidivism: the revolving door of America's prisons Rep., Pew Charit. Trusts Washington, DC:
  76. Pew Charit. Found 2018. 35 states take on criminal justice reform through justice reinvestment Rep., Pew Charit. Trusts Washington, DC:
  77. Phelps M, Curry C. 2017. Supervision in the community: probation and parole. Criminol. Crim Justice. http://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.013.239
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  78. Reitz KR. 2004. Questioning the conventional wisdom of parole release authority. The Future of Imprisonment M Tonry 199–236 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Reitz KR. 2006. Don't blame determinacy: US incarceration growth has been driven by other forces. Texas Law Rev 84:1787–802
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Reitz KR. 2012. The “traditional” indeterminate sentencing model. The Oxford Handbook of Sentencing and Corrections J Petersilia, KR Reitz 270–98 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Reitz KR. 2015. Economic rehabilitation of offenders: recommendations of the Model Penal Code (Second). Minn. Law Rev. 99:1735–77
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Reitz KR. 2018. American exceptionalism in crime and punishment: broadly defined. American Exceptionalism in Crime and Punishment KR Reitz 1–49 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Reitz KR, Klingele CM. 2019. Model penal code: sentencing—workable limits on mass punishment. Crime Justice 48:255–311
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Rhine EE, Petersilia J, Reitz KR 2017. The future of parole release: a ten-point plan. Crime Justice 46:279–338
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Rhine EE, Taxman FS. 2018. American exceptionalism in community supervision: a comparative analysis of probation in the United States, Scotland, and Sweden. American Exceptionalism in Crime and Punishment KR Reitz 367–409 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Rhine EE, Thompson AC. 2011. The reentry movement in corrections: resiliency, fragility, and prospects. Crim. Law Bull. 47:2177–209
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Robina Inst. Crim. Law Crim. Justice 2018. Profiles in parole release and revocation: examining the legal framework in the United States. Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/areas-expertise/parole-profiles
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Rosenfeld R, Wallman J, Fornango 2005. The contributions of ex-prisoners to crime rates. Prisoner Reentry and Crime in America J Travis, C Visher 80–104 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Rothman DJ. 1980. Conscience and Convenience: The Asylum and its Alternative in Progressive America Boston: Little, Brown
  90. Ruhland EL, Rhine EE, Robey JP, Mitchell KL 2017. The Continuing Leverage of Releasing Authorities: Findings from a National Survey Minneapolis, MN: Robina Inst. Crim. Law Crim. Justice
  91. Ruth H, Reitz KR. 2003. The Challenge of Crime: Rethinking Our Response Cambridge, MA: Harv. Univ. Press
  92. Sabol WJ, West CW, Cooper M 2009. Prisoners in 2008 Bur. Justice Stat. Rep. NCJ228417, US Dep Justice Washington, DC:
  93. Schwartzapfel B. 2015. Life without parole: inside the secretive world of parole boards, where your freedom may depend on politics and whim. The Marshall Project July 10. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/07/10/life-without-parole
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Shah R. 2017. The Meaning of Rehabilitation and its Impact on Parole: There and Back Again in California New York: Routledge
  95. Simon J. 1993. Poor Discipline: Parole and the Social Control of the Underclass, 1890–1990 Chicago: Univ. Chic. Press
  96. Smith KB. 2004. The politics of punishment: evaluating political explanations of incarceration rates. J. Politics 66:925–38
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Solomon AL, Jenny WL, Winterfield BE, Burke P, Stroker RP et al. 2008. Putting Public Safety First: 13 Parole Supervision Strategies to Enhance Reentry Outcomes Washington, DC: Urban Inst
  98. Spelman W. 2009. Crime, cash, and limited options: explaining the prison boom. Criminol. Public Policy 8:29–77
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Steen S, Opsal T. 2007. Punishment on the installment plan: individual-level predictors of parole revocation in four states. Prison J 87:3344–66
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Steen S, Opsal T, Lovegrove P, McKinzey S 2012. Putting parolees back in prison: discretion and the parole revocation process. Crim. Justice Rev. 38:170–93
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Stemen D, Rengifo AF. 2010. Policies and imprisonment: the impact of structured sentencing and determinate sentencing on state incarceration rates, 1978–2004. Justice Q 28:174–201
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Suellentrop C. 2006. The Right has a jailhouse conversion. New York Times Dec. 24. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/24/magazine/24GOP.t.html
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Tonry M. 1987. Prediction and classification: legal and ethical issues. Crime Justice 9:367–413
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Travis J. 2005. But They All Come Back: Facing the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry Washington, DC: Urban Inst
  105. Travis J, Lawrence S. 2002. Beyond the Prison Gates: The State of Parole in America Washington, DC: Urban Inst
  106. Travis L, Stacey J. 2010. A half century of parole rules: conditions of parole in the United States, 2008. J. Crim. Justice 38:4604–8
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Travis J, Western B, Redburn S 2014. The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring the Causes and Consequences Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  108. Van Sickle A, Villa M 2018. The great California prison experiment: Crime is up. The mystery is why. The Marshall Project Dec. 20. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2018/12/20/the-great-california-prison-experiment
    [Google Scholar]
  109. van Zyl Smit D, Corda A 2018. American exceptionalism in parole release and supervision. American Exceptionalism in Crime and Punishment KR Reitz 410–86 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Webster CM, Doob AN. 2018. Penal optimism: understanding American mass imprisonment from a Canadian perspective. American Exceptionalism in Crime and Punishment KR Reitz 121–80 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Werth R. 2011. I do what I'm told sort of: reformed subjects, unruly citizens, and parole. Theor. Criminol. 16:3329–46
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Werth R. 2013. The construction and stewardship of responsible yet precarious subjects: punitive ideology, rehabilitation, and “tough love” among parole personnel. Punishm. Soc. 15:3219–46
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Werth R. 2016. Individualizing risk: moral judgement, professional knowledge and affect in parole evaluations. Br. J. Criminol. 57:4808–27
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Western B. 2018. Homeward: Life in the Year After Prison New York: Russell Sage Found
  115. Zimring FE. 2016. Measuring the impact of complex penal change: a consumer's guide. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 664:304–307
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Zimring FE. 2019. The Insidious Momentum of Mass Incarceration New York: Oxford Univ. Press In press
  117. Zimring FE, Hawkins G. 1995. Incapacitation: Penal Confinement and the Restraint of Crime New York: Oxford Univ. Press
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011419-041416
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error