an analysis of parole decision making using a sample of sex offenders

More documents

Recommendations

Info

8 HUEBNER F.DOC 11/1/2006 8:49:12 AM 980 HUEBNER AND BYNUM climate on parole outcomes is warranted. In addition, quantitative research that considers the effect of the demographic and philosophical makeup of the parole board would further reveal the practical consequences and constraints of parole decision making. Second, the results should be tempered in relationship to possible biases that can arise from sampling and measurement errors. Our study was limited to the examination of sexual offenders remanded to prison in one state in one year. It is important to consider historical and cross-state variation in parole decision making, especially in light of recent changes in correctional policy. In addition, our study sample excluded men who were sentenced to prison but did not become eligible for parole during the study period. Therefore, study results are more representative of men with less serious instant convictions and fewer past criminal convictions, because these inmates would become eligible for parole before those sentenced for a very serious instant offense or with a substantial criminal history. Longer-term studies are needed to better understand the parole decision outcomes for serious offenders. Finally, because negative public perceptions of sexual offenders may have affected parole outcomes, future research should examine parole outcomes using a more diverse study sample. Finally, this research improves on the empirical modeling of parole decisions, but quantitative analyses cannot delve into the intricacies of the decision process. Existing research suggests that the process is as much a function of the individual decision maker and the parole board dynamic as it is the nature of the crime and individual inmate characteristics (Conley and Zimmerman, 1982; Garber and Maslach, 1977; Meyer, 2001). Future research should integrate ethnographic studies of parole board dynamics with quantitative analyses to understand the interplay between parole outcomes, individual decision makers, and organizational dynamics. Overall, this work has important implications for the study of parole, sex offenders, and focal concerns theory. Similar to their judicial counterparts, parole board officials use cues to make decisions based on limited information. The current study revealed that the parole readiness score, offender age, victim age, and institutional misconduct are among the most important considerations for parole decisions involving sex offenders. Although the study results are applicable only to the sample of men who became eligible for parole during the study period, and to the remaining states that employ parole boards, the findings further highlight potential bias in the criminal justice system. Because parole is largely hidden from public observation and comment, it is important to continue to consider the workings of this institution, particularly as it relates to other classes of offenders.
8 HUEBNER F.DOC 11/1/2006 8:49:12 AM PAROLE DECISION MAKING 981 REFERENCES Albonetti, Celesta A. 1991. An integration of theories to explain judicial discretion. Social Problems 38:247–66. Allison, Paul D. 1984. Event History Analysis: Regression for Longitudinal Event Data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Barbaree, Howard E., Michael Seto, Calvin M. Langton, and Edward J. Peacock. 2001. Evaluating the predictive accuracy of six risk assessment instruments for adult sex offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior 28:490–521. Beck, J. L., and Peter B. Hoffman. 1985. Reliability in guideline application: Initial hearings—1982. Federal Probation 49:33–41. Blumstein, Alfred, Jacqueline Cohen, Somnath Das, and Soumyo Moitra. 1988. Specialization and seriousness during adult criminal careers. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 4:303–45. Bridges, George S., and Robert D. Crutchfield. 1988. Law, social standing and racial disparities in imprisonment. Social Forces 66:699–724. Britt, Chester. 1996. The measurement of specialization and escalation in the criminal career: An alternative modeling strategy. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 12:193–22. Britt, Chester. 2000. Social context and racial disparities in punishment decisions. Justice Quarterly 17(4): 707–32. Broadhurst, Roderic G., and Ross A. Maller. 1992. The recidivism of sex offenders in the Western Australian prison population. British Journal of Criminology 32:54–80. Bynum, Timothy S., and Raymond Paternoster. 1985. Discrimination revisited: An exploration of frontstage and backstage criminal justice decision making. Sociology and Social Research 69:90–108. Carroll, John S. 1978. Causal attributions in expert parole decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36:1501–511. Carroll, John S., and Pamela A. Burke. 1990. Evaluation and prediction in expert parole decisions. Criminal Justice and Behavior 17:315–32. Carroll, John S., and M. Mondrick. 1976. Racial bias in the decision to grant parole. Law & Society Review 11:1193–207. Carroll, John S., and John W. Payne. 1977. Crime seriousness, recidivism risk, and causal attributions in judgments of prison term by students and experts. Journal of Applied Psychology 62:595–602.
Page 1 and 2: 8 HUEBNER F.DOC 11/1/2006 8:49:12 A
Page 19: 8 HUEBNER F.DOC 11/1/2006 8:49:12 A
Page 31: 8 HUEBNER F.DOC 11/1/2006 8:49:12 A

an analysis of parole decision making using a sample of sex offenders

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?