Abstract
Three factors have supported the development of parole guidelines: criticism of the rehabilitation model as a basis for parole decision making and the accompanying movement toward a just deserts model of punishment, the development of sophisticated statistical procedures for risk assessment, and increasing questions about disparity in criminal justice decision making. This paper raises questions related to each of these three factors that should be addressed by the research community as guidelines are implemented. With respect to offense severity and sentence served, key considerations are the rationale for sentence lengths, the degree to which discretion is being structured, inmates' perceptions of the guidelines, and the effect of guidelines on time served. Under risk assessment and parole prediction, the accuracy of the salient factors as predictors, the problem of false positives, and the possibility of unan ticipated bias must be addressed. In terms of effects on the overall system, questions are raised about the extent to which discretion can be structured, the effect on correctional staffs of changing the purpose of correction, and the impact of such a shift on the already dwindling resources for the parolee. The paper closes with a call for a coherent program of research to accompany the implementation of guidelines.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
