Complications of Increase Parole Caseloads, Essay Example

One of the primary issues in the context of the criminal justice system is that of recidivism. In the broadest sense, criminal offenses are usually met with some sort of sentence that involves monitoring, behavioral treatment and intervention, incapacitation, or a combination of all three. Regardless of the severity of the criminal offense or the nature and length of the sentence, the question of what happens after an offender completes the requirements of the sentence is of paramount importance. The larger societal interest in seeing adjudicated offenders reintegrate into society is mirrored by the efforts of those within the criminal justice system to determine how to ensure such reintegration is as smooth and successful as possible. In recent decades, however, there has been a shift from a rehabilitate sentencing model to a punitive and incapacitative sentencing model. This shift has meant that many offenders are subject to mandatory sentences with little discretionary input from judges and parole boards. With this in mind, the question of how to ensure that inmates who often received little or no behavioral treatment or other support while incarcerated are able to make successful transitions back into the world after release. This paper examines several of the key issues and concerns related to recidivism and reintegration and offers several possible ways in which the overall rates of successful reintegration might be improved.

Background and Overview

For much of the 20^th century the most common approach to dealing with serious offenders was to apply an indeterminate sentencing model. The term “indeterminate sentencing” means that sentences were developed and implemented on a case-by-case basis, with the overarching goal of applying a sentence that best served the needs of both the offender and of society (Zhang, Zhang & Vaughn, 2009). Judges handing down indeterminate sentences would take into consideration such issues as the severity of the offense, the offender’s criminal record and background, the possibility and applicability of rehabilitative treatment and behavioral interventions during incarceration, and the perceived likelihood of recidivism after the completion of the sentence. In this context, sentencing still included a punitive component, but the underlying theory held that rehabilitation was a fundamental aspect of sentencing (Zhang et al).  This focus on rehabilitation was believed to be both morally just and in the best interests of society, as a rehabilitated offender would present less danger to society upon release. Indeterminate sentencing allowed judges, members of parole boards, and other agents within the criminal justice system to make rehabilitation the central point and purpose of sentencing.

In the past several decades there has been a paradigm shift in the U.S. criminal justice system from indeterminate sentencing to determinate sentencing. As the term implies, determinate sentencing means that sentences are increasingly determined by indices related to the nature of offenses, with sentences predetermined by law and handed down upon conviction of specific crimes (Zhang et al). This shift has removed much of the discretionary power from judges and paroles boards and placed it in the hands of legislators and politicians, marking a significant change not just in how the criminal justice system functions, but in how society perceives the purpose and nature of that system. In short, the movement from indeterminate to determinate sentencing models means that the focus on rehabilitation has been supplanted by a focus on punishment and incapacitation.

As the nature of sentencing related to incarceration has moved towards a more punitive model, the post-incarceration model of parole has undergone similar changes. In the age when indeterminate sentencing was the standard, parole boards had far greater discretion in terms of when they reviewed individual cases, how they made determinations about whether or not to release offenders, and the length and structure of post-incarceration parole conditions(Ostermann, 2012). Just as determinate sentencing has taken significant discretionary power away from judges, similar legislation has constricted the discretionary power of parole boards. Although there are some exceptions, most determinate sentences and mandatory-minimum sentences also include specifications about when and under what conditions an offender may be considered eligible for parole. Such specifications typically include determinations about how much time an offender must serve of his or her sentence before being eligible for a parole review, as well as other contingencies specific to particular criminal offenses (Ostermann). Parole boards still have some autonomy and discretion when making determinations about parole eligibility, though determinate sentencing also typically comes with mandatory-parole and mandatory-release dates as well (Ostermann). Offenders who complete a certain percentage of their sentences must be released on parole or, if offenders chose to complete their sentences, must be released without supervision upon completion.

In the context of the determinate sentencing model, the issues of post-incarceration periods and reintegration take on greater significance. A range of studies have shown that offenders who undergo post-incarceration supervision –such as in the context of parole- are less likely to recidivate than those who are released with no supervision (Palermo, 2009). Because this is such a broad determination made about such a wide range of different offenders, offenses, and post-incarceration conditions, however, it is not safe to assume that mandatory parole automatically equates to reduced recidivism. There are myriad factors and issues to consider when making determinations about the efficacy of parole and whether offenders should, under most conditions, be forced to submit to mandatory post-incarceration supervision.

The Efficacy of Mandatory Parole

As determinate sentencing has become the norm in the criminal justice system, the parameters and standards under which parole board operate have become more consistent and restrictive. Where an indeterminate sentence would mean that parole boards would exercise discretion in deciding when to review cases for parole and under what conditions parole would be granted, determinate sentencing models remove much of that discretion, Instead, sentencing guidelines dictate when offenders become eligible for parole review, and may also specify conditions an offender must meet, such as completing treatment programs or other interventions while incarcerated. Conversely, offenders who opt to forgo parole board reviews and instead voluntarily “max out” their sentences must be released without post-incarceration supervision (Ostermann). This lack of flexibility means that parole boards have less discretion related not just to the terms and conditions of parole, but also have less oversight in determining whether parole can be applied.

Concerns about recidivism and the question of whether parole and other post-incarceration supervision and intervention can reduce the rate at which individuals reoffend have led some states to implement mandatory parole terms for specific offenses (Ostermann). The underlying philosophy of such laws is that if more offenders are subject to parole, the overall rates of recidivism will drop accordingly. While this line of reasoning seems logical on its face, some studies have indicated that the issue is more complicated than it first appears (Ostermann). While the overall data indicate that offenders who are subject to parole supervision are less likely to reoffend, that finding does not take into account a number of factors, such as whether an offender who is released under such mandatory conditions has the same likelihood to recidivate as an offender who was released under standard early parole. With the data showing that mandatory parole does not always equate to reduced recidivism, the question of how to achieve such reductions remains open.

Assessing Recidivism in Context

The failure of mandatory parole and post-incarceration supervision to automatically translate to reduced recidivism demonstrates that bringing about such reductions is that a one-size-fits-all approach does not work. This realization could be taken as evidence that determinate sentencing is itself a failed model, but such a conclusion would perhaps be an overreach. What is clear from the available evidence is that intervention of some sort is typically crucial for reducing recidivism. What is also clear is that the nature and the context of such interventions must be tailored to fit the individual offender. Some offenders might benefit from substance abuse treatment or other behavioral interventions while incarcerated, while others may benefit from support and assistance related to housing and employment after release (Labreque et al, 2014). Housing and employment are closely correlated with reductions in recidivism (Labreque et al), though the needs of individual offenders to receive support in these areas will naturally differ depending on their circumstances. These factors must be considered when making determinations not just about how offenders are dealt with after incarceration, but also during incarceration.

Looking Ahead

Some states are taking the lead on developing and implementing programs that coordinate the various functions of sentencing, treatment and interventions during incarceration, and post-incarceration supervision and support. The state of Virginia, which has the nation’s lowest overall recidivism rate, has put in place a system that provides job training, computer training, housing assistance, and other support (“News Brief,” 2014). A similar pilot program in Pennsylvania has been developed in a partnership between a public nonprofit organization and the state government (“News Brief”). These programs are based on the idea that parole itself is insufficient to reduce recidivism, and that offenders must receive appropriate support after being released. In the era of determinate sentencing, taking a “determinate support” approach to individual cases may be the best way to balance the needs of offenders and the needs of society to ensure the best possible outcomes for reintegration.

References

Labrecque, R., Luther, J., Smith, P., & Latessa, E. (2014). Responding to the Needs of Probation and Parole: The Development of the Effective Practices in a Community Supervision Model With Families. Offender Programs Report, 18(1).

News Briefs. (2014). Corrections Today, January/February, 80.

Ostermann, M. (2012). Recidivism and the propensity to forgo parole release. Justice Quarterly, 29(4), 596–618.

Palermo, G. (2009). Reintegration and Recidivism. International Journal Of Offender Therapy And Comparative Criminology, 53(3).

Zhang, Y., Zhang, L., & Vaughn, M. (2009). Indeterminate and Determinate Sentencing Models: A State-Specific Analysis of Their Effects on Recidivism. Crime \& Delinquency.