Running head: HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF PAROLE 1 History and Evolution of Parole Latrisha Y. Akins Valdosta State University Professor McIntyre CRJU 4700 IB 20 July 2013
HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF PAROLE 2 The origin of parole is accredited to the works of three individuals, they include: Alexander Maconochie (1840), Walter Crofton (1854) and Zebulon Brockway (1876). Abadinsky (2012) wrote that Maconochie, who was a superintendent of the British Penal colony on Norfolk Island, philosophy was based on reforming the individual: the convict was to be punished for past and trained for the future (p. 120). His establishment of a three stage system consisted of marks that could be earned by inmates, contingent upon good behavior. Crofton, the director of the Irish prison system, had similar views to that of Maconochie. His system included four stages, the latter containing the ticket of leave. The ticket of leave allowed prisoners to be released under supervision (Abadinsky, 2012, p.121). Brockway, superintendent of the Elmira Reformatory, was influenced by Crofton s Irish system. His system involved military-style uniforms, marching and discipline, it was known as the Elmira system (America s first parole system). Proceeding Brockway, the system of indeterminate sentencing and parole was adopted. Indeterminate sentencing allowed facilities to hold an inmate as long they could until it was believed that the behavior of the offender had changed. As noted in Abadinsky (2012), by 1944, all 48 states had enacted parole legislation (p. 123). Parole, comes from the French word parol refers to word of honor (Abadinsky, 2012, p.119). Over time the meaning of parole has come to be defined as, an inmate s promise to conduct him or herself in law-abiding manner and according to certain rules in exchange for release (Petersilia, 2000, p. 36). Carter & Wilkins (1970) stated that, parole is a procedure by which prisoners are selected for release and a service by which they are provided with necessary controls, assistance and guidance as they serve the remainder of their sentences within the free community (p.180). Offenders are generally released under conditions, after having served a portion of their sentence in a correctional facility. Parole is considered to be a privilege for
HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF PAROLE 3 inmates who meet the requirements for eligibility. The aims of parole are to reduce the problems of overcrowding (enabling them to make more room for those who wait), rehabilitate the offender by encouraging good behavior in inmates and to supervise the convict after parole has been granted. Parole is a treatment program, in the interest of society and individual, whereas, he is under supervision and treatment by a person trained in parole work (Dressler, 1959, p.44.). Parole serves many purposes: one of the purposes of parole is to give inmates an opportunity to serve the remainder of their sentence in the community under supervision and to get used to life outside of a correctional facility. This supervision and support benefits the wider community by reducing the risk that offenders will commit further offenses when released into the community (Department of Justice). The assistance obtained by parolees include treatment programs, helping them find employment and/or residence and any other issues that may arise while trying to adjust back into society. A second purpose of parole is to protect society by helping the convicts get back established; thus preventing them from further committing new crimes. This view point has seldom been claimed as leniency because of the excess number of convicts who have returned back to prison. According to Carter & Wilkins (1970) experts have indicated that, prisoners serve as much time in confinement in jurisdictions where parole is widely used as in those where it is not (p.186). Eligibility for an offender to be granted parole varies, depending upon the type of sentence given to them by the court. If parole is granted, the earliest time an offender can be paroled out is the date set for release or after the eligibility date. (USDOJ). Dressler (1959) pointed out that, some prisoners who are serving life terms will never be eligible for parole (p.62), in most cases these are for crimes such as capital felony, murder and first degree
HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF PAROLE 4 aggravated sexual assault. However, these inmates may eventually come out by consent of a governor or through serving their maximum sentence (Dressler, 1959, p. 62). In most states, the decision of whether an inmate shall be granted parole is done by a parole board. Dressler (1959) suggested that in a few instances, paroles from city and county institutions are granted by the court of convictions (p.64). A parole board consists of experienced people who are capable of making judgments regarding the release of an offender to the return of an offender back to society. These members may include people such as judges or even psychiatrists. In Probation and Parole, Abadinsky (2013) noted that parole can be administered independently or as part of a department that administers prisons, with or without being combined with probation because parole is administered centrally on a statewide basis (p. 145). Parole board members are generally appointed by the governor for six-term years by the governor; many lacking relevant background or education (Abadinsky, 2013, p.148). The Department of Justice defines parole hearing as an interview to determine whether or not an inmate should be released from prison to parole supervision in the community. Parole hearings are diverse. For adults, hearings are not guaranteed in all states; decisions are made based on written reports. In some states, a panel of parole board members will interview eligible inmates; in others, inmates are interviewed by a parole examiner who reports to the board with a recommendation (Abadinsky, 2013, p.149). Hearings give parole boards an opportunity to identify important information needed in making their decision, it aims to create conditions to enhance treatment goals for inmates and it allows parole boards to increase the involvement of inmates in the decisions which affects them (Carter & Wilkins, 1970, p.192). Abadinsky (2013) quoted that parole release is considered as discretionary, and therefore, an inmate has no liberty interest and no right to parole, he cannot lose anything, thus
HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF PAROLE 5 due process at a parole release hearing is not required (p. 159). The parole process begins when the parole board sets the terms and conditions of the release date of the prison inmate (Carter & Wilkins, 1970, p.208). The inmate is responsible for the establishment of his parole program by indicating his destination, work and resident plans. The plan is investigated by his parole officer and if he is satisfied a Release Program Study is prepared. The agent has the right to deem the program of the parolee as satisfied, denied or postponed. In the prerelease process, inmates main concern is to be released and officials share that same interest for different reasons. In an attempt to determine whether the prerelease task works, it is believed that the combination of the interests and concerns of the inmates, officials and parole agent that make these procedures work (Carter & Wilkins, 1970, p.214). All parolees are required to sign an agreement to abide by regulations that are tailored to them upon their release. Common standard parole conditions are: parolees must meet with their assigned parole officer, obey all rules and regulations, report any changes in residence must not own a firearm or commit any crimes, must not leave the state without consent of parole officer and seek and maintain employment (Petersilia, 2000, p.43). The mission of parole is to protect the citizens upon release of offenders back to society. Their goals includes identifying programs that are best suited for the offender, establishing conditions of supervision that both control and rehabilitate the offender, closely monitor offenders compliance with supervision and protect victims by providing the necessary information swiftly. Petersilia (2000) noted that parole was founded to primarily foster offender reformation rather than increase punitiveness or surveillance (p.34). Although offenders are spending more time in prison and are faced with tremendous amounts of difficulties obtaining success in the outside world, seemingly crime has decreased but the prison population has increased.
HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF PAROLE 6 According to Beck, reality is that more than nine out of ten prisoners are released back into the community and with an average U.S. prison term served of 15 month, half of all inmates in U.S. prisons today will be back on the streets in less than two years (1999). Studies show that over the last two decades, the number of prisoners being released back into the community has steadily increased. This must mean that parole has had some form of success since its adoption. Imprisonment can cause psychological breakdowns, depression and mental illnesses, which is another reason the focus is more on rehabilitation rather than punishment of an offender. The foundation of rehabilitating the offender is based on treatment. Treatment involves both time and skill. There are several ways to treat law-violators or any individual who signifies unacceptable behavior but each personality is different, making it harder to accomplish the goal of change. Carter and Wilkins (1970) concluded that the objective, regardless of the approach, is to create in a person self-acceptance which did not exist before (p.289) thus making it a little easier and more stable. In my opinion, there are still more improvements that can be made in order to make parole a much more successful rendition, but it will require dedication, persistence and motivation on the behalf of all parties involved.
HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF PAROLE 7 References Abadinsky, H. (2012). Probation and Parole: theory and practice (11 th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. American Probation and Parole Association (1987, January). Parole. In 209 Position Statement. Retrieved from http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/dynamicpage Beck, Allen J. (1999). Trends in U.S. Correctional Populations. In The Dilemmas of Corrections. (Eds). Kenneth Haas and Geoffrey Alpert. Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc. Carter, R., & Wilkins, L. (Eds.). (1970). Probation and Parole: Selected Readings. New York, London, Sydney, Toronto: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Department of Justice. Corrections Victoria. (2013). Parole. In Corrections, Prisons & Parole. Retrieved from http://www.corrections.vic.gov.au/home/parole Dressler, D. (1959). Practice and Theory of Probation and Parole. New York: Columbia University Press Petersilia, J. (2000). Parole and Prison Reentry in the United States, 1, 33-46. Retrieved from http://www.appa-net.org The United States Department of Justice. (N.D). In U.S. Parole Commission. Retrieved from www.justice.gov