Abstract
This chapter points to a notable renewal of interest in paroling authorities emerging alongside the nation’s fitful transition from a historically unprecedented period of growth in rates of imprisonment to the new normal of chronic mass incarceration. In a majority of states, paroling authorities possess varying degrees of leverage that when exercised may increase or decrease, sometimes dramatically, states’ prison populations. This chapter explores the proposition that parole decision-making may have contributed to the long arc of mass incarceration. It goes on later to challenge paroling authorities in forthcoming years to exercise the leverage they possess to support an agenda of decarceration or prison downsizing. The groundwork for doing so has been established by a tangible shift in discourse and far-reaching efforts supportive of sentencing and correctional reform. The actual capacity to pursue meaningful prison downsizing must necessarily confront the bifurcation of contemporary penal policy manifest in harsh statutory barriers that rigidly sort nonviolent from violent offenders, often banishing the latter from parole or release consideration of any kind. Providing a strategic path forward, this chapter presents five recommendations for parole boards committed to prison downsizing within a framework that is justice-centered, informed by evidence-based practice, and inclusive of individuals serving time for both violent and nonviolent crimes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The link to the Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice is https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/. The website houses a variety of articles, reports, research briefs, blogs, and other information covering issues pertaining to sentencing reform, probation, parole, and other justice-related areas. These materials are available for retrieval.
- 2.
A forthcoming multivolume report features a fundamental reworking of the nation’s criminal sentencing laws. Titled the Model Penal Code: Sentencing (American Law Institute, in press), this document represents a major overhaul of its well-known predecessor report issued in 1962. Pertinent to this chapter, the new Model Penal Code: Sentencing recommends the abolition of discretionary parole release systems by all states (see MPCS 6.11(9), (10)), and Appendix B (The Question of Parole Release Authority). This comprehensive document, alongside the voices calling for its reform, will likely stimulate a robust discourse regarding the future of parole in the years ahead.
- 3.
This discussion has centered mainly on the states for reasons that will become clear later in this section. Depending on the source, prison population totals may refer to rates or numbers alone at the federal and/or state level. The choice that is made shifts when the peaks in numbers, rates, and percentages occur. When viewed in terms of numbers alone, the state and federal prison population combined reached its highest point in 2009 at 1,615,487 (Carson, 2018, 2020; Reitz, 2019).
- 4.
Garland (2017) and Zimring (2020) both comment on the surprising extent to which the emergence and staying power of mass incarceration represented actions dispersed in time and space taken by every state and the federal system all moving in basically the same direction. Garland’s argument that there was no centralized national campaign serving to direct these changes is reinforced by Zimring’s claim that the absence of state level coordination yet the shared directions taken independently by the states represent a unique historical moment in sentencing and punishment policy; one unlikely to occur in the near future given the absence of urgency relative to the nation’s continuing incarceration crisis.
- 5.
The nine states were Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. The tenth state, Arizona, operated an indeterminate system from 1972 to 1993; a period of significant population growth. After switching in 1994 to a determinate system, Arizona experienced less prison growth through 2007 (Reitz, 2020a; see footnote #16).
- 6.
Justice reinvestment emerged in the early 2000s as a response to the unprecedented growth of mass incarceration. The intent behind this concept was to redirect a percentage of corrections expenditures saved by diverting individuals from prison by reinvesting in the capacities of communities to manage them locally. Over time this model was replaced by (JRI) (Sabol & Baumann, 2020).
- 7.
These factors, albeit important, are augmented by the tangible benefits that may accrue should parole boards mobilize around prison downsizing, especially in concert with departments of corrections. The benefits include reduced crowding, cost savings, shortened terms for individual offenders, and a quicker and more focused engagement with reentry and its transitional needs.
- 8.
Paroling authorities not only determine if and when individuals may be released from prison, but also the conditions of their supervision post-release, and any period of reincarceration they may face for violating parole rules. For a discussion of these features, see Reitz and Rhine (2020).
- 9.
It is important to note that of the 15 states showing growth, the top five represented indeterminate sentencing jurisdictions, while another four were determinate sentencing states. The states in the middle were all jumbled together relative to their sentencing structures (Reitz, 2020a, Table 1).
- 10.
Stickier regimes impose greater requirements that must be satisfied for parole and corrections officials to effect dramatic changes in prison release policy. Those seeking such changes must, for example, propose legislation, or seek to amend sentencing guidelines. This is because of the relatively fixed relationship that exists between the sentence imposed and the amount of time the individual is likely to serve (Reitz, 2020a).
- 11.
- 12.
Serious concerns have been raised regarding the disproportionate impact risk assessment tools may have on racial minorities and the poor (Harcourt, 2007; Starr, 2014). It is essential that the use of such instruments be validated on local offender populations, receptive to public challenge, committed to the removal of race-tainted variables, and attentive to how their application at the backend of the system may serve to concentrate race and class bias within correctional systems (Rhine et al., 2017; McVey et al., 2018).
- 13.
Parole hearings will be scheduled for offenders determined to be in noncompliance, or upon request of the victim. In such instances, the presumption of parole is removed though the offender may still be released (Rhine et al., 2018b).
- 14.
- 15.
This recommendation is directed mainly at individuals serving life with the possibility of parole (LWP) and enhancing their prospects for release. Though it is the author’s view that life without parole terms (LWOP) should be commuted to (LWP), more than 100 laws were enacted between 2000 and 2013 in roughly two-thirds of the states expanding the reach of (LWOP) (Seeds, 2017, p. 598). Virtual life sentences represent extraordinarily long terms of imprisonment that an individual is not likely to survive (Nellis, 2017, p. 9). Yet they are not considered equivalent to life sentences. Those serving life without parole or virtual life sentences offer a pool of offenders for whom some form of executive clemency is required prior to becoming available for parole consideration or some other form of release. These exclusionary barriers reflect the imprint of the bifurcation of American penal policy.
- 16.
A volunteer group called Parole Prep works with individuals serving life sentences in the New York Prison System. Their goal is to prepare the lifers before each hearing, so they are successful at securing release. The Vera Institute for Justice says the success rate for the last 3Â years for lifers without such preparation has been 36%. The Executive Director of Parole Prep states that through their assistance the success rate stands at 60%. Parole Prep has helped 149 individual lifers exit prison (Gonnerman, 2019).
- 17.
Pronounced demographic disparities are embedded in the criminal justice system’s response to crime, both nonviolent and violent. With respect to the latter, in 2016, nearly half of all life-sentenced inmates (including life with and without parole) were African American, and two-thirds were people of color (Nellis, 2017, 2018). The nation’s policy of bifurcation, if left unexamined, virtually ensures the continuation of such demographic disparities if sentencing, correctional, and paroling authorities do not become more willing to consider the release of such individuals. The recommendations provide a series of responsive, interlocking measures for addressing these crucial concerns (Kleinstuber & Coldsmith, 2020; Prescott et al., 2020).
References
Alexander, M. (2010). The New Jim Crow: Colorblindness in the age of mass incarceration. New York Press.
American Law Institute. (in press). Model penal code: Sentencing. American Law Institute.
Aviram, H. (2020). Yesterday’s monsters: The Manson family cases and the illusion of parole. University of California Press.
Barker, V. (2009). The politics of imprisonment: How the democratic process shapes the way America punishes offenders. Oxford University Press.
Beckett, K. (2018). The politics, promise, and peril of criminal justice reform in the context of mass incarceration. Annual Review of Criminology, 1, 235–259. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092458
Burkes, K. J., Rhine, E. E., Robey, J. P., & Ruhland, E. L. (2017). Releasing authority chairs: A comparative snapshot across three decades. Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota Law School. Retrieved from https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/sites/robinainstitute.umn.edu/files/parole_chairs_report_final.pdf
Carson, E. A. (2018). Prisoners in 2016. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p16.pdf
Carson, E. A. (2020). Prisoners in 2018. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p18.pdf
Clear, T. R., & Frost, N. A. (2014). The Punishment Imperative: The rise and failure of mass incarceration in America. New York University Press.
Cullen, F. (2013). Rehabilitation: Beyond nothing works. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 46, pp. 299–376). University of Chicago Press.
Garland, D. (2017). Penal power in America: Forms, functions and foundations. Journal of the British Academy, 5, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.5871/jba/005.001
Ghandnoosh, N. (2017). Delaying a second chance: The declining prospects for parole on life sentences. Sentencing Project. Retrieved from https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Delaying-a-Second-Chance.pdf
Ghandnoosh, N. (2019a, September 17). U.S. prison population trends: Massive buildup and modest decline. Sentencing Project. Retrieved from https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/u-s-prison-population-trends-massive-buildup-and-modest-decline/
Ghandnoosh, N. (2019b, April 2). The next step: Ending excessive punishment for violent crime. Sentencing Project. Retrieved from https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/the-next-step-ending-excessive-punishment-for-violent-crimes/
Ghandnoosh, N. (2020, May 19). U.S. Prison decline: Insufficient to undo mass incarceration. Sentencing Project. Retrieved from https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/u-s-prison-decline-insufficient-undo-mass-incarceration/
Gonnerman, J. (2019, November 25). Prepping for parole. The New Yorker. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/12/02/prepping-for-parole
Goodman, P., Page, J., & Phelps, M. (2017). Breaking the pendulum: The long struggle over criminal justice. Oxford University Press.
Gottschalk, M. (2015). Caught: The prison state and the lockdown of American politics. Princeton University Press.
Harcourt, B. E. (2007). Against prediction: Profiling, policing, and punishing in an actuarial age. University of Chicago Press.
Kleinstuber, R., & Coldsmith, J. (2020). Is life without parole an effective way to reduce violent crime? Criminology & Public Policy, 19(2), 617–651. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12496
Klingele, C. (2016). The promises and perils of evidence-based corrections. Notre Dame Law Review, 91(2), 537–584. Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol91/iss2/2/
Mathews, B., Walker, A., & Rhine, E. E. (2018). Awakening the sleeping giant: The future of paroling authorities in America. Corrections: Policy, Practice and Research, 5(3), 206–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2018.1470478
Mauer, M., & Nellis, A. (2018). The meaning of life: The case for abolishing life sentences. The New Press.
McVey, C. C., Rhine, E. E., & Reynolds, C. V. (2018). Modernizing parole statutes: Guidance from evidence-based practice. Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota Law School. Retrieved from https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/sites/robinainstitute.umn.edu/files/parole_ebp_report.pdf
Nellis, A. (2017, May 3). Still life: America’s increasing use of life and long-term sentences. Sentencing Project. Retrieved from https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/still-life-americas-increasing-use-life-long-term-sentences/
Nellis, A. (2018, December). The facts of life sentences. Sentencing Project. Retrieved from https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Facts-of-Life.pdf
Nellis, A. (2019, August 29). Virtual life sentences. Sentencing Project. Retrieved from https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/virtual-life-sentences/
Paparozzi, M. A., & Caplan, J. M. (2009). A profile of paroling authorities in America: The strange bedfellows of politics and professionalism. Prison Journal, 89(4), 401–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885509349559
Paparozzi, M. A., & Guy, R. (2009). The giant that never woke: Paroling authorities as the lynchpin to evidence-based practices and prisoner reentry. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 25(4), 397–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986209344561
Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. Oxford University Press.
Pew Charitable Trusts. (2018, July 11). 35 states reform criminal justice policies through justice reinvestment. Pew Trusts. Retrieved from https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2018/07/35-states-reform-criminal-justice-policies-through-justice-reinvestment
Prescott, J. J., Pyle, B., & Starr, S. B. (2020). Understanding violent-crime recidivism. Notre Dame Law Review, 95(4), 1643–1698. Retrieved from http://ndlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/9.-Prescott-et-al..pdf
Price, M. (2018). Everywhere and nowhere: Compassionate release in the states. Families Against Mandatory Minimum Sentences. Retrieved from https://famm.org/wp-content/uploads/Exec-Summary-Report.pdf
Pro, G., & Marzell, M. (2017). Medical parole and aging prisoners: A qualitative study. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 23(2), 162–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078345817699608
Reitz, K. R. (Ed.). (2018). American exceptionalism in crime and punishment. Oxford University Press.
Reitz, K. R. (2019). Measuring changes in incarceration rates: Shifts in carceral intensities as felt by communities. Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law, 24(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38B27PR7N
Reitz, K. R. (2020a). Prison-release reform and American decarceration. Minnesota Law Review, 104(6), 2741–2779. Retrieved from https://minnesotalawreview.org/article/prison-release-reform-and-american-decarceration/
Reitz, K. R. (2020b). The compelling case for low-violence-risk preclusion in American prison policy. Behavioral Science and Law, 38(3), 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2461
Reitz, K. R., & Rhine, E. E. (2020). Parole release and supervision: Critical drivers of American prison policy. Annual Review of Criminology, 3, 281–298. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011419-041416
Rhine, E. E., Mitchell, K. L., & Reitz, K. R. (2018a). Levers of change in parole release and revocation. Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota Law School. Retrieved from https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/sites/robinainstitute.umn.edu/files/parole_landscape_report.pdf
Rhine, E. E., Petersilia, J., & Reitz, K. R. (2017). The future of parole release. In M. Tonry & D. S. Nagin (Eds.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 46, pp. 279–338). University of Chicago Press.
Rhine, E. E., & Thompson, A. C. (2011). The reentry movement in corrections: Resiliency, fragility, and prospects. Criminal Law Bulletin, 47(2), 177–209.
Rhine, E. E., Watts, A., & Reitz, K. R. (2018b, April 3). Parole boards within indeterminate and determinate sentencing structures. Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota Law School. Retrieved from https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/news-views/parole-boards-within-indeterminate-and-determinate-sentencing-structures
Ruhland, E. L., Rhine, E. R., Robey, J. P., & Mitchell, K. L. (2017). The continuing leverage of releasing authorities: Findings from a national survey. Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota Law School. Retrieved from https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/sites/robinainstitute.umn.edu/files/final_national_parole_survey_2017.pdf
Russell, S. F. (2019). Second looks at sentences under the First Step Act. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 32(2), 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2019.32.2.76
Sabol, W. J., & Baumann, M. L. (2020). Justice reinvestment: Vision and practice. Annual Review of Criminology, 3, 317–339. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011419-041407
Schrantz, D., DeBor, S., & Mauer, M. (2018, September 5). Decarceration strategies: How five states achieved substantial prison population reductions. Sentencing Project. Retrieved from https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/decarceration-strategies-5-states-achieved-substantial-prison-population-reductions/
Seeds, C. (2017). Bifurcation nation: American penal policy in late mass incarceration. Punishment and Society, 19(5), 590–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474516673822
Serin, R., & Gobeil, R. (2014, September). Analysis of the use of the structured decision making framework in three states. National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/028408.pdf
Slater, S. (2020, January 1). Can you talk your way out of a life sentence? The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/01/magazine/prison-parole-california.html
Starr, S. B. (2014). Evidence-based sentencing and the scientific rationalization of discrimination. Stanford Law Review, 66(4), 803–872. Retrieved from http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/04/66_Stan_L_Rev_803-Starr.pdf
Sullentrop, C. (2006, December 24). The Right has a jailhouse conversion. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/24/magazine/24GOP.t.html
Tonry, M. (2016). Sentencing fragments: Penal reform in America, 1975-2025. Oxford University Press.
Travis, J. (2005). But they all come back: Facing the challenges of prisoner reentry. Urban Institute Press.
Travis, J. (2014). Assessing the state of mass incarceration: Tipping point or the new normal? Criminology and Public Policy, 13(2), 567–577. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12101
Travis, J., Western, B., & Redburn, S. (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United States: Exploring causes and consequences. National Academies Press.
Useem, B., & Piehl, A. M. (2008). Prison state: The challenge of mass incarceration. Cambridge University Press.
Watts, A. (2017, April 7). Parole release reconsideration in states with discretionary parole release. Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota Law School. Retrieved from https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/news-views/parole-release-reconsideration-states-discretionary-release
Watts, A., & Rhine, E. E. (2018, April 16). Opinion: The human cost of politicized parole consideration. Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota Law School. Retrieved from https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/news-views/opinion-human-cost-politicized-parole-consideration
Weisburg, R., Mukamal, D. A., & Segall, J. D. (2011, September). Life in limbo: An examination of parole release for prisoners serving life sentences with the possibility of parole in California. Stanford Criminal Justice Center. Retrieved from https://law.stanford.edu/publications/life-in-limbo-an-examination-of-parole-release-for-prisoners-serving-life-sentences-with-the-possibility-of-parole-in-california/
Western, B. (2018). Homeward: Life in the year after prison. Russell Sage Foundation.
Zimring, F. E. (2020). The insidious momentum of mass incarceration: Diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rhine, E.E. (2022). Paroling Authorities and the Challenge of Leverage in an Era of Chronic Mass Incarceration. In: Jeglic, E., Calkins, C. (eds) Handbook of Issues in Criminal Justice Reform in the United States. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77565-0_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77565-0_20
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-77564-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-77565-0
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)