Parole Revocation Research Articles

Studying Parole Revocation Practices: Accounting for Dependency Between Competing Events.

When individuals are released from prison, they typically enter a period of post confinement community supervision. While under community supervision, their behaviors are subject to special conditions requiring them to report to supervisors and prohibiting certain behaviors such as drug and alcohol use. Many supervisees are returned to prison because they violate those special conditions, or because they commit minor crimes that would not result in prison were they not being supervised. But others are returned to prison for serious new crimes. We distinguish the two as nuisance behaviors (the former) and pernicious behaviors (the latter). Our research applies competing events survival analysis to distinguish a structural model that accounts for nuisance behaviors from a structural model that accounts for pernicious behaviors. We demonstrate that returning offenders to prison for technical violations and minor crimes may reduce the incidence of major crimes because the occurrence of nuisance behaviors and pernicious behaviors are highly correlated. Our findings support the theory that nuisance behaviors signal the likelihood of pernicious behaviors.

Revocation at the Founding

The Supreme Court is divided over the constitutional law of community supervision. The justices disagree about the nature of a defendant’s liberty under supervision, the rights that apply when the government punishes violations, and the relationship between parole, probation, and supervised release. These divisions came to a head in 2019’s United States v. Haymond, where the justices split 4–1–4 on whether the right to a jury trial applies to revocation of supervised release. Their opinions focused on the original understanding of the jury right at the time the Constitution was ratified. This Article aims to settle the debate over the law of revocation at the Founding. In the late-eighteenth-century United States, there was a close legal analogue to modern community supervision: the recognizance to keep the peace or for good behavior. Like probation, parole, and supervised release, the recognizance was a term of conditional liberty imposed as part of the sentence for a crime, providing surveillance and reporting on the defendant’s behavior, with violations punishable by imprisonment. Given these similarities, the best way to determine if the original understanding of the jury right would apply to revocation proceedings today is to ask whether the common law required a jury for punishing violations of a recognizance. Fortunately, Founding Era legal authorities make the answer to that question clear: Yes, at the time the Constitution was ratified, punishing recognizance violations required a jury trial. This requirement disappeared during the nineteenth century only due to the development of probation and parole, which changed the structure of community supervision from an additional penalty into a delayed punishment. Because supervised release is structured as a penalty, not a delay, the original understanding of the jury right would apply to revocation of supervised release, even if not to revocation of probation or parole. The law of revocation at the Founding preserves lost constitutional rights that deserve modern recognition and renewal.

International Law Enforcement Observer XII

Aim: Issue XII of the Observer covers topics that could have a significant impact on both public safety strategy and the future development of criminal justice policy. There is no doubt that the strengthening of constitutional values and the need to make the functioning of state power more effective are new challenges for law enforcement. The following reviews report on research from abroad that can serve the development of policing, law enforcement and criminal justice.Methodology: In addition to the traditional jurisprudential methodology, the literature increasingly draws on political science disciplines with a global perspective. A good example is Tamás Suszter’s paper, which gives us a picture of how the situation of NGOs in some countries has been assessed in recent times. Róbert Berei also reports on ground-breaking research in his report on the organisational culture of the Metropolitan Police Service in London in 2023. BernadettBacsó’s analysis is not far behind, confronting the reader with the lessons of the so-called German police family model. Typical criminological reactions are highlighted by Barbara Mágó when she notes that ‘the majority of narratives on human trafficking focus on criminals exploiting vulnerable victims’.Findings: One of the findings of the study analysing the situation of NGOs is that, ‘It is important to note, however, that although the laws against NGOs do not appear to be a cause of wider human rights repression in the period under review, this does not mean that they do not have a deterrent effect on the functioning of NGOs.’ A new feature in the criminological analysis of trafficking is the analysis from the perspectives of consent, coercion and fraud, which ‘... provides a somewhat more nuanced view of the rigid legal definition, and empirical studies present a less hostile picture of trafficking. The approach of the study can thus be considered as a niche one.’ Róbert Bogotyán cites a US example from the field of penitentiary law when he states, ‘The late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries saw a dramatic jump in parole revocations: both new offenses and parole violations were now sufficient to contribute to the increase in American incarceration.’Value: Despite the diversity of the reviews in the fields of constitutionalism, public security, law enforcement, criminal justice and prison culture, they are united in their defence of human values. From civilian control to the reintegration of those serving their sentences, the common theme is the effective and humane service of public order and public safety.

Parole and Early Release from Punishment: Problems of Improving Application Mechanisms in the Republic of Kazakhstan and Foreign Experience

Objective: The article provides a comparative study of the institution of parole in the Republic of Kazakhstan with current foreign legislation. The positive experience of the legislation on parole is outlined, conflicts and problems of the current legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan on parole are identified, and recommendations are offered for further improvement of the institution of parole.
 
 Theoretical framework: During the study, statistical material presented on the website of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Kazakhstan, other scientific works on the presented topic, as well as foreign experience of other countries were studied
 
 Method: The following methods were used in the research process: system-theoretical and logical analysis of the problem; expert assessment of the relevant norms of national legislation and the practice of its application; constructive and critical analysis of conceptual approaches to reforming the institution of parole.
 
 Results and conclusion: Based on the current legislative acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan and foreign countries, as well as scientific literature, the article analyzes the conditions for the abolition of parole, on the basis of which proposals are made for the wording of Part 7 of Art. 72 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Also, the practice of applying preventive measures by government, law enforcement agencies, and public groups does not always properly demonstrate their effectiveness. Therefore, from our point of view, the legislation should provide for measures to improve them. Which indicate the advisability of developing a large comprehensive plan for the reintegration of parolees into life in society, which relate to all spheres of life. And regarding the principle of work of district inspectors and probation inspectors, which is identical, de-bureaucratization effect.
 
 Originality and value: Issues related to the theory and practice of applying parole to convicted persons or the non-application of certain types of punishment to a certain category of persons are quite often discussed in the scientific literature both in Kazakhstan and in foreign countries. However, taking into account the changes made to Kazakhstan's regulatory legal acts (criminal, criminal procedural, criminal executive legislation, regulatory decisions of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan) on issues of parole, in our opinion, some rough edges are revealed that require resolution. At the same time, the practice of applying the institution of parole shows that there are still issues that are subject to additional legislative regulation in order to eliminate any doubts in the interpretation of the law, which indicates the relevance of their research. Since frequent changes in legislation have caused and continue to cause difficulties for individual courts in the correct application of the above regulations. For example, issues related to the revocation of parole, or the reversal of an application for parole. The latter is what happens most often in practice.

Innovation through Litigation: Prison Reform and the Legal Opportunity Structure in Taiwan

AbstractDrawing on the theory of the legal opportunity structure, this article traces the progress of prison reform in Taiwan by highlighting how a case of parole revocation in the beginning led to an overhaul of the prison system in the end. This article argues that, through four interpretations of the Constitutional Court and the legal opportunity structure shaped thereby, including the split between courts, creation and expansion of inmates’ access to court, and the support from allies, the prison reform was eventually achieved. Theoretically, this article makes two contributions to the literature: (1) the combination of inactive legislature and reactive executive branch as the political context is decisive to the openness of the legal opportunity structure for it increases the receptivity of a proactive judiciary; (2) the international human rights frame incorporated into the legal stock by the Constitutional Court made the prison reform an ongoing process rather than a done work.

Exploring Back-end Sentencing: A Study of Predictors of Parole Revocation through a Focal Concerns Theoretical Framework

Parole revocation, the process of returning individuals to incarceration due to non-compliance with conditions of community supervision, contributes to mass incarceration and is tied to the complex process of back-end sentencing. This discretionary decision is typically opaque, and theoretical understanding is limited. Applying the focal concerns framework, this study employs population-level data from an American jurisdiction on individuals who are on parole and have violated their supervision (n = 13,121). We found that practical, extralegal considerations such as the amount of time left on parole, the number of programs geared toward people on parole, and whether they participated in community programs after release from prison significantly influenced back-end sentencing. These results question the assumed relationship between individual-level and systemic factors during revocations while also providing empirical support for broadening the scope of theoretically relevant domains.

Causes of Parole Revocation Through the Lens of the Youth: A Qualitative Analysis of Potential Factors

Studies on the experience of reentry following confinement in a correctional facility for youth offenders is limited, and often quantitative. Using qualitative data gathered through structured interviews with 43 youths, this study examined potential risk and protective factors connected with parole revocation. For this sample, the most significant risk factors experienced were related to substance use, failure to receive needed mental health services, and poor relationships and communication with their parole officer. The findings underscore the importance of social support for youth recently released from secure care confinement, and specific examples of actions and approaches that can interfere with youths’ feelings of support are provided. Multiple policy and programming recommendations for the juvenile justice system are offered.

Parole Revoked: Justifying Rerelease for Juvenile Lifers

A juvenile lifer’s parole can be revoked and justified for technical or new crime violations of supervision conditions. We analyze narratives contained in revocation decisions issued to juvenile lifer candidates by one state parole board. Our qualitative content analysis reveals that most parole revocations stem from technical violations rather than any new criminal activity. In addition, decision statements qualify aspects of a juvenile lifer candidate’s case in opposite ways, where identified themes are presented as accomplishments to grant parole, but as claims made by the candidate to deny rerelease. In categorizing candidates as deserving or undeserving of parole, suitability for rerelease is represented in the parole board’s interpretation of risk in terms of a candidate’s moral responsibility. By doing so, parole revocation review decisions avoid acknowledging the obstacles in juvenile lifer reentry.

Public Support for Using “Second Chance” Mechanisms to Reconsider Long-Term Prison Sentences for Drug Crimes

Using a national sample of U.S. adults (N = 371), this study experimentally examines (1) public support for the use of strategies that provide early release (i.e., “second chance” mechanisms) to individuals serving long-term prison sentences for drug crimes; and (2) how levels of support, and reasons for support, may vary depending on the type of drug-related offense. Results show moderate levels of support for using second chance mechanisms, both generally and in relation to specific strategies commonly available across jurisdictions, for a range of drug offenders. Yet participants showed significantly more support for using presumptive parole, elimination of parole revocations for technical violations, second-look sentencing, and compassionate release in the cases of those incarcerated long term for serious trafficking of marijuana, as compared to serious trafficking of serious drugs. Data also suggest that the public finds a range of factors—including the original sentence being extreme by international standards, extreme due to racially biased practices, out of step with current sentencing values/practices, too costly, and continuing to incarcerate someone unlikely to be a public safety threat—as at least moderately important to their support for the use of second chance mechanisms across drug crimes, and the importance of these factors to that support does not appear to differ significantly based on the type of drug offense. The importance of these results for policy making and utilization are discussed, as well as implications for reducing our historical reliance on drug-related incarceration.

Revolving Doors: Examining the Effect of Race and Ethnicity on Discretionary Decision-Making in Parole Revocations

Approximately 20% of offenders under community supervision in the United States are currently on parole. While parole board members possess a wide range of discretionary power, the factors influencing this decision-making process have yet to be fully explored. Previous research has generally examined factors that influence time to release on parole or parole disposition (i.e. granted or denied) as the primary discretionary decision outcomes for parole boards. In contrast, few studies have examined the parole revocation process. Using data from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, the current study addresses this limitation by examining the legal and extralegal factors that influence the decision to revoke parole status. Special attention is given to the role of race/ethnicity in the decision to terminate parole agreements. Findings suggest that race/ethnicity significantly influences parole revocation outcomes.

Illicit substance use after release from prison among formerly incarcerated primary care patients: a cross-sectional study

BackgroundMore than 80% of people in jail or prison report having used illicit substances in their lifetimes. After release from incarceration, resumption of substance use carries risks, including parole revocation, exacerbation of mental health conditions, transmission of infectious diseases, and drug overdose.MethodsThis cross-sectional study used baseline data from the Transitions Clinic Network (TCN, www.transitionsclinic.org), a multi-site prospective longitudinal cohort study of post-incarceration medical care. We investigated substance use among adults, with at least one chronic health condition or age ≥ 50 years, who had been recently released from incarceration and initiated care at a TCN site. Our primary outcome was any self-reported illicit substance use (heroin or other opioids, cocaine, cannabis, amphetamines, hallucinogens, MDMA, or illicit use of prescription medications) following release from incarceration. Alcohol use post-release was a secondary outcome. Using multivariable logistic regression, we also explored factors associated with illicit substance use.ResultsAmong 751 participants, median age was 47; participants were mostly male (85%), non-white (47% black, 30% Hispanic), and on parole (80%). The proportion of participants reporting any illicit substance use and any alcohol use soon after release from incarceration was 18% and 23%, respectively. In multivariable regression, variables significantly associated with post-release illicit substance use were male gender (aOR = 3.91, 95% CI: 1.73–8.81), housing with friends or family (aOR = 3.33, 95% CI: 1.20–9.28), years incarcerated during latest prison term (aOR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.89–0.98), weeks elapsed before engagement with TCN (aOR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.03–1.10), being on parole (aOR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.34–0.99), and having a drug use disorder (aOR = 2.27, 95% CI: 1.40–3.68).ConclusionsAmong individuals seeking medical care after release from incarceration, self-reported substance use was lower than previously reported estimates of post-incarceration substance use. Known risk factors, such as male gender and having a drug use disorder, were associated with illicit substance use, as were novel risk factors, such as less supervised housing. Though illicit substance use post-incarceration can carry severe consequences, treatment and surveillance interventions should be targeted toward individuals with greatest risk.

The decision to disclose: Employment after prison

Despite awareness that a criminal record negatively affects employment prospects and that releasees are likely to internalize the stigma of their criminal history, the ramifications of such processes remains underresearched in the context of labor force participation after imprisonment. Building on past scholarship on disclosure, we examine how disclosure serves as a form of stigma management—thereby allowing people to exert some semblance of control over how they are viewed by others, particularly in light of new media technologies. Unique to our study is that we followed releasees (although there was attrition due to death, parole revocation, and recidivism) over three years. This opportunity provided insight into how releasees’ use of disclosure changed with experiences on the job market and over time as participants increasingly disassociated their current identity from their prison experiences and criminal history.

Better to Stay Home: Evaluating the Impact of Day Reporting Centers on Offending

This article reports the findings of a quasi-experimental evaluation of community resource centers (CRCs)—nonresidential, day reporting centers employed for recent parolees. CRC participants ( n = 2,789), drawn from release cohorts in 2008, 2009, and 2010, were matched using propensity scores to similar parolees who did not participate in CRC programming ( n = 16,500). At the conclusion of the scoring and matching process, 2,789 CRC–parolee pairs were identified, including the full population of program participants. Outcome measures, including rearrest, reconviction, and parole revocation rates, after 1, 2, and 3 years are reported. Across all release cohorts, CRC participants were arrested and revoked at significantly higher rates, resulting in higher rates of returns to custody. Implications for correctional policy are considered.

Surviving Parole Reentry: Examining the Impact of Prerelease, Postrelease, and Boundary-Spanning Programs

ABSTRACTDo reentry programs including those that are boundary-spanning (operating before and after release from incarceration) help lengthen the time parolees go without being revoked and sent back to prison? In this retrospective study, we examine the impact of three related programs on participants by calculating the length of time they survived without revocation. We considered how long those who participated in only a prerelease program, only a postrelease program, or in both programs (boundary-spanning) sequentially survived when compared to a nonparticipating control group. Those in the boundary-spanning program experienced less parole revocation. However, we found that parolees in the postrelease-only program survived the longest. Demographic and parole experience-related variables examined to contextualize these findings and their practical implications are discussed.

Making American Sentencing Just, Humane, and Effective

American sentencing laws are rigid, harsh, and often unjust. Mass incarceration is a tragedy and a national embarrassment. Laws enacted in the 1980s and 1990s that mandated lengthy prison terms are the primary causes. The challenges are to undo mass incarceration, repeal or fundamentally overhaul the laws that caused it, and rebuild American sentencing systems. American legislators have not yet seriously addressed the subject. Hundreds of minor changes have recently been enacted, but they nibble at the edges—creating narrow exceptions to harsh laws for first offenders, narrowing criteria for probation and parole revocation, and establishing new treatment and “reentry” programs. These changes are important to individuals they affect but will not reverse mass incarceration or prevent individual injustices. Meaningful change will occur only when the mandatory minimum, three-strikes, life without parole, truth in sentencing, and comparable laws that required prison terms of historically unprecedented severity are repealed and new laws authorizing the release of large numbers of current prisoners are enacted and implemented. Whether these things happen will determine whether mass incarceration and wholesale injustices are much different in 2025 than they were in 2017.

Variation in the incarceration length-recidivism dose–response relationship

PurposeThis research seeks to examine whether the dose–response relationship between incarceration length and recidivism varies across different conviction offense categories and measures of parole failure. MethodsWe approximate a large fixed panel of parolees from the National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) to implement a dose–response analysis of the relationship between incarceration length and the prevalence and timing of recidivism. Marginal mean weighting through stratification (MMW-S) is utilized to limit confounding effects from selection bias. ResultsWe observe that incremental doses of incarceration length increase the likelihood and hasten the timing of parole revocations, and reduce the likelihood and slow the timing of new sentences. Considerable heterogeneity was observed in these effects across conviction offenses, as the direction of effects changed beyond certain thresholds, and was not constant across offender groups. ConclusionsThese results do not provide consistent support for a suppressive, criminogenic, or null effect for incarceration length on recidivism.

“Were You Drunk at the Time?”: The Influence of Parole Boards on Accounts and Neutralization Techniques in State Parole Hearings

This paper examines the collaborative nature of accounts and neutralization techniques that are employed in parole hearings. Prior research using neutralization theory has largely overlooked the role of other actors in the development of neutralizations, examining them through interviews or narratives where interaction is either scripted or limited and thus has little bearing on the production of such accounts. In contrast, this study evaluates real time interaction, examining how parole board members propose, respond to, and modify neutralizations issued by inmates seeking parole. Ethnographic observations of 438 regular parole and parole revocation hearings, videotapes of 40 such hearings from the larger corpus, and interviews with a state parole board demonstrate how accounts are shaped by interactions that may influence social control decision making and criminal justice outcomes.

A Propensity Score Approach towards Assessing Neighborhood Risk of Parole Revocation

Previous research pertaining to parole has primarily concentrated on individual level characteristics as predictors of parole success, holding offender residency as a constant. Recently, there has been a growing realization that we need to understand how neighborhood contexts impact successful reintegration. It is difficult to evaluate the increased risk associated with neighborhood characteristics on parole revocation because residency after prison is not randomly assigned. Consequently, methodological adaptations must be made to account for selection into disadvantaged neighborhoods. To reduce overt bias, we used two propensity score strategies, matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting, to determine the impact of parolee residence on parole outcome. Our analytic strategies indicated a weaker effect for neighborhood context when compared to traditional models. In essence, we found that both techniques were effective at decreasing the threat to internal validity allowing for greater confidence in reporting an average treatment effect. The implications of our findings are discussed as well as the utility of these analyses in criminal justice research.

Impartial justice: the real Supreme Court cases that define the constitutional right to a neutral and detached decisionmaker

Acknowledgements Preface Introduction: A Short History of What It Means to Be a Neutral, Impartial, and Unbiased Decisionmaker Part One: An Impartial Jury Trial in Criminal Cases 1. Prejudicial Pretrial Publicity: Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966) 2. Avoiding Mob Justice: Frank v. Mangum (1915) and Moore v. Dempsey (1923) 3. Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection: Batson v. Kentucky (1986) and Miller-El v. Dretke (2005) 4. Sex Discrimination in Jury Selection: Hoyt v. Florida (1961) and Taylor v. Louisiana (1975) 5. Death-Qualified Juries: Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968) and Lockhart v. McCree (1986) Part Two: Due Process and the Right to an Impartial Judge 6. Mayor-Judges with a Financial Stake in the Outcome: Tumey v. Ohio (1927) and Ward v. Village of Monroeville (1972) 7. A Judge Hearing a Contempt Proceeding after Being Vilified by the Defendant: Mayberry v. Pennsylvania (1971) 8. Non-Lawyer Judges: North v. Russell (1976) 9. The Judge Who Was Bribed in Other Cases: Bracy v. Gramley (1997) 10. A Judge Deciding a Case Involving a Major Campaign Supporter: Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. (2009) Part Three: Due Process and the Right to an Impartial Decisionmaker in Quasi-Judicial, Non-Court Settings 11. Parole Revocation: Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 12. Medical License Review: Withrow v. Larkin (1975) 13. Mental Health Commitments for Juveniles: Parham v. J.R. (1979) 14. Prison Discipline: Edwards v. Balisok (1997) 15. Enemy Combatant Cases: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) Conclusions Catalog of Cases Bibliography Index

Establishing Construct and Predictive Validity of the Prison Inmate Inventory for Use With Female Inmates

This study establishes the validity of the Prison Inmate Inventory for use among female inmates (N = 628). Contrast groups were used to establish construct validity; negative binomial regression analysis was used to confirm predictive validity. Female inmates who were arrested at a younger age demonstrated more severe problems with violence, antisocial traits, distress, adjustment to prison life, and judgment. Results from the negative binomial analysis revealed that inmate risk (low and severe) predicted expected counts of probation revocations, parole revocation, and escape attempts. Expected counts were not related to race/ethnicity in this sample.