Parole Decisionmaking: A Comparative Analysis

Abstract

The research literature on parole decisionmaking contains numerous inconsistencies across studies concerning the relative influence of legal, institutional and socioeconomic background variables on board members' actions. In part, this can be traced to methodological differences in defining and conceptualizing the variables, especially the dependent (outcome) measures. More recently, however, several studies highlighted the importance of parole board members' decision goals as a factor mediating information use. This paper proposes that the sentencing structure and the amount of discretion it affords decisionmakers may have a profound influence on both decision goals and data selection. The first section reviews the literature in terms of aframework emphasizing two main goals: retributive evaluations of present offense severity and risk predictive assessments of post-release behavior. The results are next presentedfrom an empirical study that contrasted two systems (in Israel and a northeastern American state) which differed greatly in their sentencing structures and the amount of discretion exercised by parole decisionmakers. The findings confirmed selective emphases on retributive evaluations in the jurisdiction with wide discretion and risk assessment in the jurisdiction of constricted discretion. In the final section, the implications of these results are discussed, especially concerning the design of bail, sentencing and parole guidelines that attempt to combine retributive and risk assessment elements.