Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

American Journal of Criminal Justice volume 46, pages 279–297 (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Notes

  1. United States v Booker (2005) - U.S. Supreme Court decision which essentially made the federal sentencing guidelines advisory.

  2. Missing data represents approximately 6.8% of the total sample.

  3. Similar to coding procedures found in prior research, ‘young’ offenders are those 29 years old and younger, and ‘old’ offenders are those 30 years and older (Franklin, 2013; Johnson & Betsinger, 2009).

  4. A test of parallel lines was analyzed to assess whether parameters of all categories were the same. The assumption of parallel lines is violated (p < .05), indicating that multinomial logistic regression is appropriate for the current analysis.

References

  • Albonetti, C. (1991). An integration of theories to explain judicial discretion. Social Problems, 38, 247–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez, A., & Bachman, R. (1996). American Indians and sentencing disparity: An Arizona test. Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 549–561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anwar, S., & Fang, H. (2015). Testing for racial prejudice in the parole board release process: Theory and evidence. The Journal of Legal Studies, 44(1), 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumer, E. P. (2013). Reassessing and redirecting research on race and sentencing. Justice Quarterly, 30(2), 231–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, A. J., & Harrison, P. M. (2001). Prisoners in 2000. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumstein, A., & Beck, A. J. (2005). Reentry as a transient state between liberty and recommitment. Prisoner reentry and crime in America, 63(2), 50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridges, G. S., & Steen, S. (1998). Racial disparities in official assessments of juvenile offenders: Attributional stereotypes as mediating mechanisms. American Sociological Review, 63, 554–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bronson, J., & Carson, E. A. (2019). Prisoners in 2017. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bynum, T. S., & Paternoster, R. (1984). Discrimination revisited: An exploration of frontstage and backstage criminal justice decision making. Sociology & Social Research.

  • Carroll, L., & Mondrick, M. E. (1976). Racial bias in the decision to grant parole. Law and Society Review, 11,93.

  • Clair, M., & Winter, A. S. (2016). How judges think about racial disparities: Situational decision-making in the criminal justice system. Criminology, 54, 332–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clear, T. R. (2009). Imprisoning communities: How mass incarceration makes disadvantaged neighborhoods worse. Oxford University Press.

  • Clear, T. R., Rose, D. R., & Ryder, J. A. (2001). Incarceration and the community: The problem of removing and returning offenders. Crime & Delinquency, 47(3), 335–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demuth, S. (2003). Racial and ethnic differences in pretrial release decisions and outcomes: A comparison of Hispanic, black, and white felony arrestees. Criminology, 41(3), 873–908.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doerner, J. K., & Demuth, S. (2010). The independent and joint effects of race/ethnicity, gender, and age on sentencing outcomes in US federal courts. Justice Quarterly, 27(1), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engen, R. L., Gainey, R. R., Crutchfield, R. D., & Weis, J. G. (2003). Discretion and disparity under sentencing guidelines: The role of departures and structured sentencing alternatives. Criminology, 41(1), 99–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, T. W. (2013). Sentencing Native Americans in US federal courts: An examination of disparity. Justice Quarterly, 30(2), 310–339.

  • Franklin, T. W. (2018). The state of race and punishment in America: Is justice really blind? Journal of Criminal Justice, 59, 18–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, T. W., Dittmann, L., & Henry, T. K. S. (2017). Extralegal disparity in the application of intermediate sanctions: An analysis of US district courts. Crime & Delinquency, 63(7), 839–874.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, T. W., & Henry, T. K. S. (2018). One day makes all the difference: Denying federal offenders access to “good time” through sentencing. Crime & Delinquency, 64, 115–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Free Jr., M. D. (2004). Bail and Pretrail release decisions: An assessment of the racial threat perspective. Journal Of Ethnicity In Criminal Justice, 2(4), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1300/J222v02n04_02.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gainey, R. R., Steen, S., & Engen, R. L. (2005). Exercising options: An assessment of the use of alternative sanctions for drug offenders. Justice Quarterly, 22, 488–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland, D. (Ed.). (2001). Mass imprisonment: Social causes and consequences. Sage.

  • Hagan, J. (1973). Extra-legal attributes and criminal sentencing: An assessment of a sociological viewpoint. Law & Society Review, 8, 357–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huebner, B. M., & Bynum, T. S. (2008). The role of race and ethnicity in parole decisions. Criminology, 46(4), 907–938.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, M. (2005). Downsizing prisons: How to reduce crime and end mass incarceration. NYU Press.

  • Johnson, B. D., & Betsinger, S. (2009). Punishing the “model minority”: Asian-American criminal sentencing outcomes in federal district courts. Criminology, 47(4), 1045–1090.

  • Johnson, B. D., & DiPietro, S. M. (2012). The power of diversion: Intermediate sanctions and sentencing disparity under presumptive guidelines. Criminology, 50, 811–850.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaeble, D. (2018). Probation and parole in the United States, 2016. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleck, G. (1981). Racial discrimination in criminal sentencing: A critical evaluation of the evidence with additional evidence on the death penalty. American Sociological Review, 46, 783–805.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knapp, K. A. (1993). Allocation of discretion and accountability within sentencing structures. U. Colo. L. Rev.64, 679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kubrin, C. E., & Stewart, E. A. (2006). Predicting who reoffends: The neglected role of neighborhood context in recidivism studies. Criminology, 44(1), 165–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kutateladze, B. L., Andiloro, N. R., Johnson, B. D., & Spohn, C. C. (2014). Cumulative disadvantage: Examining racial and ethnic disparity in prosecution and sentencing. Criminology, 52(3), 514–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, J., Grattet, R., & Petersilia, J. (2010). “Back-end sentencing” and reimprisonment: Individual, organizational, and community predictors of parole sanctioning decisions. Criminology, 48(3), 759–795.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, L., Miller, S. L., & Visher, C. A. (2019). The Strain of Procedural Injustice in Parole among Former Prisoners: A Test with a Mixed-Gender Sample. In Justice Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1637011.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • May, D. C., & Wood, P. B. (2005). What influences offenders’ willingness to serve alternative sanctions? The Prison Journal, 85, 145–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mechoulan, S., & Sahuguet, N. (2015). Assessing racial disparities in parole release. The Journal of Legal Studies, 44(1), 39–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, O. (2005). A meta-analysis of race and sentencing research: Explaining the inconsistencies. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21, 439–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, N. T., May, D. C., & Wood, P. B. (2008). Offenders, judges, and officers rate the relative severity of alternative sanctions compared to prison. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 46, 49–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, K. D., & Smith, B. (2008). The impact of race on parole decision-making. Justice Quarterly, 25(2), 411–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, N., & Tonry, M. H. (1991). Between prison and probation: Intermediate punishments in a rational sentencing system. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pager, D. (2008). Marked: Race, crime, and finding work in an era of mass incarceration. University of Chicago Press.

  • Petersilia, J. (1983). Racial disparities in the criminal justice system (vol 2947). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

  • Petersilia, J. (1999). Parole and prisoner reentry in the United States. Crime and Justice, 26, 479–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portillos, E. (1998). Latinos, gangs, and drugs. In C. R. Mann & M. S. Zats (Eds.), Images of color, images of crime (pp. 156–165). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, J. L. (1999). The “new parole”: An analysis of parole board decision making as a function of eligibility. Journal of Crime and Justice, 22(2), 193–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhine, E. E. (2012). The present status and future prospects of parole boards and parole supervision. In The Oxford handbook of sentencing and corrections.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhine, E. E., Petersilia, J., & Reitz, K. R. (2017). The future of parole release. Crime and Justice, 46(1), 279–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rios, V. M. (2006). The hyper-criminalization of black and Latino male youth in the era of mass incarceration. Souls, 8(2), 40–54.

  • Sacks, M., Sainato, V., & Ackerman, A. (2015). Sentenced to pretrial detention: A study of bail decisions and outcomes. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(3), 661–681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-014-9268-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlesinger, T. (2005). Racial and ethnic disparity in pretrial criminal processing. Justice Quarterly, 22(2), 170–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlesinger, T. (2007). The cumulative effects of racial disparities in criminal processing. JIJIS, 7, 261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartzapfel, B. (2015). Parole boards: Problems and promise. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 28(2), 79–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. (1993). Poor discipline: Parole and the social control of the underclass, 1890–1990. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. (2016). Written testimony 2016: House committee on corrections. Texas Criminal Justice Coalition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P., Goggin, C., & Gendreau, P. (2002). The effects of prison sentences and intermediate sanctions on recidivism: General effects and individual differences (rep. JS42–103/2002). Ottawa, Ontario: Solicitor General of Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spears, J. W., & Spohn, C. C. (1997). The effect of evidence factors and victim characteristics on prosecutors' charging decisions in sexual assault cases. Justice Quarterly, 14(3), 501–524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spohn, C. (2000). Thirty years of sentencing reform: The quest for a racially neutral sentencing process. In J. Horney (Ed.), Policies, process, & decisions of the criminal justice system: Criminal justice 2000 (Vol. 3, pp. 427–501). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spohn, C., Beichner, D., & Davis-Frenzel, E. (2001). Prosecutorial justifications for sexual assault case rejection: Guarding the “gateway to justice”. Social Problems, 48(2), 206–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spohn, C., & Holleran, D. (2000). The imprisonment penalty paid by young, unemployed black and Hispanic male offenders. Criminology, 38, 281–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffensmeier, D., & Demuth, S. (2000). Ethnicity and sentencing outcomes in US federal courts: Who is punished more harshly? American Sociological Review, 65, 705–729.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffensmeier, D., & Demuth, S. (2001). Ethnicity and judges’ sentencing decisions: Hispanic-black-white comparisons. Criminology, 39, 145–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffensmeier, D., Ulmer, J., & Kramer, J. (1998). The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology, 36, 763–798.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steen, S., & Opsal, T. (2007). “Punishment on the installment plan” individual-level predictors of parole revocation in four states. The Prison Journal, 87(3), 344–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steen, S., Opsal, T., Lovegrove, P., & McKinzey, S. (2013). Putting parolees back in prison: Discretion and the parole revocation process. Criminal Justice Review, 38(1), 70–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sykes, G. (1958). The society of captives: A study of a maximum security prison. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonry, M. (1998). Intermediate sanctions in sentencing guidelines. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 199–253). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonry, M., & Lynch, M. (1996). Intermediate sanctions. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 99–144). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Travis, J. (2007). Back-end sentencing: A practice in search of a rationale. Social Research: An International Quarterly, 74(2), 631–644.

    Google Scholar 

  • Travis, J., & Lawrence, S. (2002). Beyond the prison gates: The state of parole in America. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, S., Petersilia, J., & Deschenes, E. P. (1992). Evaluating intensive supervision probation/parole (ISP) for drug offenders. Crime & Delinquency, 38, 539–556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, J. T. (2001). Intermediate sanctions: A comparative analysis of the probability and severity of recidivism. Sociological Inquiry, 71, 164–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, J. T. (2012). Recent developments and new directions in sentencing research. Justice Quarterly, 29, 1–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hirsch, A. (1976). Doing justice: The choice of punishments. New York, NY: Hill & Wang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, P., Chiricos, T., & Bales, W. (2012). The imprisonment penalty for young black and Hispanic males: A crime-specific analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49(1), 56–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Western, B. (2006). Punishment and inequality in America. Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooldredge, J., Frank, J., Goulette, N., & Travis III, L. (2015). Is the impact of cumulative disadvantage on sentencing greater for black defendants? Criminology & Public Policy, 14(2), 187–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooldredge, J., & Gordon, J. (1997). Predicting the estimated use of alternatives to incarceration. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 13, 121–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zatz, M. S. (2000). The convergence of race, ethnicity, gender, and class on court decision making: Looking toward the 21st century. Criminal Justice, 3, 503–552.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Dr. Howard Henderson for facilitating the acquisition of the data, as well as Dr. Travis Franklin for his suggestions for improvement on previous drafts of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indiana University – Bloomington, Sycamore Hall 302, 1033 E. Third Street, Bloomington, IN, 47405-7005, USA

    Tri Keah S. Henry

Authors
  1. Tri Keah S. Henry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tri Keah S. Henry.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Henry, T.K.S. Revolving Doors: Examining the Effect of Race and Ethnicity on Discretionary Decision-Making in Parole Revocations. Am J Crim Just 46, 279–297 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09560-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09560-2

Keywords

search

Navigation