Institutional Treatment of Criminal Offenders - Chapter 15 - Release from Incarceration.

What factors should a parole board consider when it evaluates a prisoner for release?

According to “American Corrections,” release is usually granted to prisoners who have served the amount of time stipulated by the guidelines and who meet the following three criteria:

· They have substantially observed the rules of the institution in which they have been confined.

· Their release will not depreciate the seriousness of the offense or promote disrespect for the law.

· Their release will not jeopardize the public welfare.

“Released” is a powerful 45-minute documentary that was conceptualized in 2013 to address the experiences of individuals formerly involved in the criminal justice system. Often, these individuals have participated in job development programs intended to prepare and correct them with employment opportunities. However, opportunities for meaningful and sustainable employment are frequently scarce.

The film challenges us to reflect on how we view returning citizens. It confronts how people released from prison continue to pay for the mistakes of their past while still holding out hope for the future.

When prisons release inmates before they complete their full sentence and keep them under government watch, it’s called parole. Most states allow parole boards to grant the early release, although many also limit or abolish parole altogether.

Parole boards, which are often made up of political appointees with no professional experience in criminal justice, evaluate whether someone should be released by looking at several factors – most importantly, crime severity, crime type, and criminal history. The hope is that these characteristics can give an idea about whether a prisoner will get out and commit more crime.

The result is a system that many criminal justice reformers call a failure. And with lawmakers from both political parties looking to shrink America’s massive incarcerated population, advocates want parole reform at the front.

Suppose that you have been asked to decide whether the department of corrections or an independent agency should have authority over release decisions. Where would you place that authority? 

I would place that authority on the U.S. Parole Commission. The U.S. Commission is an independent agency with parole jurisdiction over all eligible federal prisoners and paroled offenders. The U.S. Parole Commission authorizes methods of release and conditions under which release occurs; prescribes, modifies, and monitors compliance with the terms and conditions governing offenders’ behavior while on parole or mandatory or supervised release; issues warrants for violation of supervision; determines probable cause for the revocation process; revokes parole, mandatory, or supervised release; releases from supervision those offenders who are no longer a risk to public safety; and promulgates the rules, regulations, and guidelines for the exercise of USPC’s authority and the implementation of a national parole policy.

Why?

Because the Parole Commission continues to develop and implement enhanced strategies to evaluate reentry and supervision that will ensure community safety, reduce serious violent crime, and reduce recidivism. In FY 2011, the average cost for the Bureau of Prisons to confine an inmate was about $29,000 annually. Based on this figure and the Parole Commission’s projection that nearly 300 offenders annually can be diverted from lengthy stays in federal prisons, the American taxpayer can avoid almost $9 million in prison costs each year by promoting alternatives to incarceration and reducing recidivism. The additional benefits increase dramatically when one considers that those returned to the community will find work and become tax-paying citizens, adding to the coffers of the U.S. Treasury.

The Parole Commission continues to support the Second Chance Act of 2007 objective to ensure the safe and successful return of prisoners to the community.

Given the current public attitude toward criminals, what do you see as the likely future of parole release? 

American parole boards have played a critical role in the formulation and administration of states’ prison policies in recent decades—and could play an equally important part in helping end mass incarceration. Long neglected by academic, research, and policy communities, systems of discretionary prison release are in need of improvement, if not “reinvention.” A plan for revitalization of parole release should lay out a comprehensive and aspirational model for the future. It must address the institutional structure of parole boards, how much release discretion they are given, the substantive grounds for release decisions, the use of risk assessments in the decisional process, decision-making tools such as parole release guidelines, the requirements of fair and reliable procedures, victims’ rights at parole hearings, the need for parole supervision in some but not all cases, the intensity of parole conditions, and the length of parole supervision.

Governor Nathan Deal signed an executive order on February 23rd to “ban the box” on applications for state employment in Georgia. This order will remove the question about felony convictions from the initial job application and postpone it to a later point in the hiring process. This policy is intended to provide those with a criminal record a fair shot at showing employers why they are the best candidate for a job without being automatically screened from the hiring process simply because they have a felony conviction.

Second Peer’s Post – Dorethea

What factors should a parole board consider when it evaluates a prisoner for release? According to American Correction structuring parole decisions, in reply to the criticism that the release decisions of parole boards are somewhat random, many states have embraced parole guidelines. Release is usually granted to prisoners who have served the amount of time stipulated by the guidelines and who meet the following three criteria: 1) They have substantially observed the rules of the institution in which they have been confined. 2) Their release will not depreciate the seriousness f the offense or promote disrespect for the law. 3) Their release will not jeopardize the public welfare.