SAGE Journal Articles
Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.
Abstract
This study addresses the phenomenon of inmates voluntarily forgoing parole supervision and opting to remain in prison until the maximum expiration of their sentence. The research was conducted to inform public policy makers about the potential repercussions of this decision-making process and to help guide future policy and legislative proposals that would target this group of inmates. Bivariate and multivariate analyses are used to explore characteristics of this population with regard to postrelease recidivism and prerelease indicators of recidivism. A 2005 group of voluntary max outs are contrasted with those who are forced to max out due to continual parole denial as well as those who are released to parole supervision. All offenders were released in the state of New Jersey. Although several between-group differences were apparent between both max out groups and the parole group at a bivariate level, differences between the two max out groups were far less pronounced. Multivariate Cox regression models indicated that, after controlling for pertinent predictor variables, the likelihood of experiencing a new arrest and/or incarceration after release did not significantly differ according to group membership. Findings suggest that parole boards that make decisions in discretionary release systems should more closely analyze the release opportunities that already present themselves to their agencies but are not capitalized on. Because those who are forced to max through continual denial of parole demonstrated such similar prerelease characteristics to the voluntary max out group, it is unlikely that many who would have otherwise voluntarily maxed their sentence would be paroled if the ability to make this decision were taken away.
Abstract
Changes in sentencing practices, coupled with a decrease in prison rehabilitation programs, have placed new demands on the U.S. parole system. Nearly 700,000 parolees are “doing time” on the streets. Most have been released to a parole system that provides few services and imposes conditions that almost guarantee failure. This article examines the state of parole in today's corrections environment—from indeterminate and determinate sentencing policies to investing in prisoner reentry programs. Specifically, the article analyzes the following collateral consequences involved with recycling parolees in and out of families and communities: community cohesion and social disorganization, work and economic well-being, family matters, mental and physical health, political alienation, and housing and homelessness. The future of parole is also discussed, and the author urges a rethinking of discretionary parole release.
Abstract
This article compares the effects of indeterminate and determinate sentencing models on recidivism using a measure of parole board discretionary release and mandatory parole release under each sentencing model. Data collected from Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994: United States are used to conduct a state-specific comparison of the two release programs in six mixed-sentencing states. The results indicate that the effects of different sentencing models significantly vary across the six states. Whereas mandatory parole release was more likely to have a deterrent effect on recidivism in Maryland and Virginia, parole board discretionary release was more effective in New York and North Carolina. Release programs in Oregon and Texas showed no significant differences in their effects on recidivism.