Examine and Discuss the Concept of Parole

Examine and Discuss the Concept of Parole

Do you believe the parole interview process provides enough information to decide if the inmate is eligible?

The parole interview process is insufficient to decide if an inmate can be paroled (Caplan, 2010). Typically, the inmate appears before the Board of Parole as his minimum prison term is nearly over. The parole eligibility date is the Earliest Release Date (ERD). About eight months before the parole eligibility date, a report is prepared as the inmate is scheduled to be considered by the board. Several factors are put into consideration by the board to find out whether the prisoner is eligible for parole. According to the state law, an inmate cannot be granted liberty on parole unless the Parole Board is assured reasonably after considering all the circumstances and facts, including the inmate’s social and mental attitude, and behavior during his time in prison. It should ensure that the inmate will not pose a danger to the public and society. One Parole Board member interviews the inmate, and the interview’s scope includes the inmate’s social, criminal, and drug abuse history, previous probation or parole adjustments, prison conduct, parole plans, and programming, among other factors. The inmate must have a representative who cannot be an attorney or a fellow inmate. A majority vote of the parole panel usually decides on parole. If an inmate is granted parole, they are allowed out under a parole agent’s supervision for a specific amount of time; the parole is conditional, and the parole is expected to comply with the terms set by the Board of Parole.

Do you need a new, unplagiarized copy of “Examine and Discuss the Concept of Parole”? Contact us.

Should the process be changed? If yes, what recommendations would you make and why?

The process of parole should be changed (Marble, 2017). The rules of the current Parole Board that govern the operations of the board give a blanket interdiction on the information released regarding the proceedings of the parole and the names of people involved in those proceedings. Practically, the provisions imply that the Board of Parole is forbidden to publicly disclose any details concerning the decisions made and the reasons behind the findings. The findings of the board are occasionally revealed to the offender’s victims by the board if at all they are registered in the Victim Contact Scheme (VCS) and any other condition of a license relating particularly to that victim. However, the reason behind the decision nor the license condition fully set that the Board of Parole considers it necessary to manage the offender after being released is revealed to the victims.

The presumptions of not disclosing any details originate partly from the board’s historical basis as a body of advisory to ministers; its recommendations would not be publicly disclosed, and the non-disclosure presumption was carried through the board’s transition to a quasi-judicial and independent body. However, it is pretty essential to introduce more transparency to the parole process and a strong argument that the present prohibition on information release goes too far. Also, to increase the public’s confidence in the operations of the Board of Parole, the people involved must understand what is done by the Parole Board and the decision-making process for the context degree to be provided.

How to do discretionary release and expiration release differ? Provide examples of each.

The United States Criminal Justice currently imprisons over two million people and releases over two hundred thousand yearly (Kuziemko, 2013). Every one of these releases involves a trade-off between two basic social costs. It has been discovered that it is very costly to keep individuals incarcerated; the operating expenses of the country’s jails are approximately sixty billion per annum. On the other hand, the costs associated with releases are high as well, considering the highly disproportionate number of crimes committed by the individuals who are newly released. For instance, studies have suggested that the individuals released in the past year are responsible for fourteen percent of all murders. That being said, there are various types of releases, and this section will discuss two types of releases, namely, expiration release and discretionary release, and how they differ.

Expiration release

If a prisoner fails to be released by conditional release or by the Board of Parole, he must remain in prison until his maximum expiration date (Kuziemko, 2013). After he reaches the full date, the individual’s legal obligation to serve a custodial sentence or the parole supervision period ends. An expiry of sentence release is free from any conditions since it is a full release when an individual has served his complete sentence. This applies to offenders regarded as too dangerous to return to the community under statutory release. Further, some offenders eligible for parole prefer staying in jail until they finish their sentence.

On the other hand, discretionary parole involves the decision to release an inmate from prison whose sentence is yet to expire but on conditions of sustained lawful behaviors. This is also subjected to monitoring and supervision by parole agents in communities; the agent is meant to ensure that the parolee complies with the release terms (Kuziemko, 2013). The parolee must be monitored and abide by the conditions tailored to mitigate recidivism risks and boost the inmate’s reintegration into the community. Under discretionary release, the individual is not mandated to return to an institution nightly. Still, to report to the parole agent regularly and, in some cases, to the police. Offenders on discretionary release have pre-parole conditions that they must complete before being released to parole supervision. Some examples of those conditions are attending and conducting various sessions like group therapy, pre-social life skills, or therapeutic community. Also, they might be given some post-parole special needs; an example includes substance use assessments.

With new technology such as electronic monitoring and GPS monitoring, do you believe there is a possibility that higher-risk offenders will be released on parole based on the belief that electronic monitoring devices permit close monitoring and supervision? 

Electronic monitoring (EM) has been ongoing for the past twenty years, and the motives for its use are diverse. Some agencies using Electronic monitoring deliver affordable and humane sanctions, while others seek to reduce crowding in prisons or to avoid more jails being constructed (John K. Roman, 2012). Nevertheless, all Electronic Monitoring programs aim to suppress offenders’ criminal behaviors by monitoring them. EM advocates hope the latter is instrumental in reducing long-term recidivism.

GPS, on the other hand, can continuously track the offenders in real time; it identifies their whereabouts and movements by the location information to the monitoring centers and triangulates signals from cellular towers and satellites (John K. Roman, 2012). These devices usually are ankle bracelets worn by offenders who have been restricted in terms of movements by the Parole Board. In some jurisdictions, those ankle bracelets have been replaced with smartphones with installed GPS. For instance, sex offenders are barred from playgrounds and schools, and domestic violence offenders are regularly forbidden from near the homes of their victims or their places of work. If they happen to enter the prohibited areas, the devices will immediately alert the supervising agency, and action will be taken. But the use of GPS and EM does not guarantee a reduction in the recidivism rate; as such, the possibility of releasing high-risk offenders should not be high just because the EM will put them in check.

Without mutual support and supervision, the effect of Electronic Monitoring is limited to the duration prescribed with a modest short-term benefit after the monitoring is over (JR, 2017). According to research, curfews and Electronic Monitoring contributes to desistance processes by reducing individuals’ links with people, places, situations, and networks associated with their offense and encouraging their connection and reconnection with the influences connected with desistance like employment and family. The regime of EM structure might bring some average level and mproved responsibility for the monitored individuals in the reintegration process; however, as a stand-alone measure, Electronic Monitoring is not likely to bring in a long-standing change.

Similar Post: Regulating Advertisers

References

Caplan, J. M. (2010). What Factors Affect Parole: A Review of Empirical Research. A journal of correctional philosophy and practice, 71 (1).

John K. Roman, A. M. (2012, September). The Costs and Benefits of Electronic Monitoring for Washington D.C. Retrieved from urban.org: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/412678-The-Costs-and-Benefits-of-Electronic-Monitoring-for-Washington-D-C-.PDF

JR, R. (2017). The Impact of Electronic Monitoring and Disruptive Innovation on Recidivism Rates in Federal Prisons: A Secondary Data Analysis. Biometrics & Biostatistics International Journal, 5 (4).

Kuziemko, I. (2013). HOW SHOULD INMATES BE RELEASED FROM PRISON? AN ASSESSMENT OF PAROLE VERSUS FIXED-SENTENCE REGIMES*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 371–424.

Marble, D. (2017, October). The Impact of Discretionary Release on Offender Recidivism Using Survival Analysis. Retrieved from researchgate.net: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320544614_The_Impact_of_Discretionary_Release_on_Offender_Recidivism_using_Survival_Analysis

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

---

Week 6 – Assignment – Examine and Discuss the Concept of Parole

Instructions

You have been chosen to interview for a position on the state parole board. During the interview, you are asked the following questions. Provide your responses in the form of a paper, and then provide examples to support your answers:

• Do you believe the parole interview process provides enough information to decide if the inmate is eligible?
• Should the process be changed? If yes, what recommendations would you make and why?
• How to do discretionary release and expiration release differ?  Provide examples of each.
• With new technology such as electronic monitoring and GPS monitoring, do you believe there is a possibility that higher-risk offenders will be released on parole based on the belief that electronic monitoring devices permit close monitoring and supervision?  Support your argument with examples from the readings and your research.

Support your paper with a minimum of three scholarly resources.  In addition to these specified resources, other appropriate educational resources, including older articles, may be included.

Length:  5-7 pages, not including title and reference pages

Your paper should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts presented in the course by providing new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards where appropriate.