Examining Parole Decision-Making Pre- and Post-COVID-19: Does Elderly Status Matter?

• Published date: 01 November 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00938548241267307
• Author: Victoria Rivera Laugalis,Stuti S. Kokkalera,Beatriz Amalfi Wronski
• Date: 01 November 2024

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2024, Vol. 51, No. 11, November 2024, 1715 –1733.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548241267307

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2024 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1715

EXAMINING PAROLE DECISION-MAKING

PRE- AND POST-COVID-19

Does Elderly Status Matter?

VICTORIA RIVERA LAUGALIS

Loyola University New Orleans

STUTI S. KOKKALERA

BEATRIZ AMALFI WRONSKI

Sam Houston State University

Beatriz Amalfi Wronski is now affiliated to University of North Texas.

Due to the growing concerns of mass incarceration, coupled with the recent global pandemic of COVID-19, parole is in the

spotlight as an avenue for early release. At the start of COVID-19, the elderly incarcerated population received attention due

to their vulnerabilities. In this article, the likelihood of parole release and the amount of time candidates must wait postdenial

are examined by accounting for the COVID-19 period and a parole candidate’s elderly status. Data come from a U.S. state

parole board’s written decisions issued between 2017 and 2022 for individuals sentenced to life with the possibility of parole.

While logistic regression models showed COVID-19 and elderly status did not influence the likelihood of release, ordinary

least squares (OLS) models found that having a hearing after the onset of the pandemic was significantly associated with

shorter interval term lengths. The article concludes with implications for replicating similar studies to understand discretion-

ary release outcomes.

Keywords: parole; elderly; COVID-19; life sentence; parole decisions

INTRODUCTION

The parole system provides an opportunity to reduce the prison population by promoting

rehabilitation and releasing individuals back into society (Hritz, 2021). While an important

mechanism of early release, the institution of parole expands the reach of correctional authori-

ties to the community. In fact, many have claimed that parole inflates the criminal justice sys-

tem causing a net-widening ethical problem (Cracknell, 2018). A shift in rehabilitation-oriented

AUTHORS’ NOTE: An earlier version of this article was presented at the American Society of Criminology

annual meeting in Philadelphia, PA, in 2023. In addition, data coding and analyses were supported by the 2023

Larry Hoover Summer Research Fellowship, funding provided to selected Sam Houston State University

criminal justice graduate students. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Victoria

Rivera Laugalis, Department of Criminology and Justice, Loyola University New Orleans, 6363 St. Charles

Ave., New Orleans, LA 70118; e-mail: vrlaugal@loyno.edu.

1267307CJBXXX10.1177/00938548241267307Criminal Justice and BehaviorRivera Laugalis et al. / EXAMINING PAROLE DECISIONS PRE- AND POST-COVID

research-article2024

1716 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

criminal justice policy combined with a lack of oversight over parole boards have led to incon-

sistent parole release rates (Cohen, 2023; Laqueur & Copus, 2022). Although parole decisions

are based on the consideration of factors indicated in state statutes (E. Ruhland et al., 2017),

perceptions of heightened culpability and offense characteristics can weigh heavier than reha-

bilitation in parole decisions (Aviram, 2020). Minimal explicit guidelines for meeting rehabili-

tative goals give parole boards immense discretion, permitting practices and outcomes that

may not match the intended goals of the parole system (Hritz, 2021; Reitz & Rhine, 2020).

An equally important aspect of the parole board’s discretionary authority is determining

the time a candidate must wait before appearing for another hearing after being denied

parole. Previous literature has referred to this time between hearings as a deferral period

(Friedman & Robinson, 2014) or as an interval term (Kokkalera, 2022). Almost all state

parole boards have the authority to fix a particular amount of time, although a range may be

provided legislatively. For instance, California’s Marsy’s law, passed in 2008, fixed a maxi-

mum deferral period of 15 years for those serving life sentences (Friedman & Robinson,

2014). In other states, the range can extend from a 1-year period to up to 5 or 10 years

(Kokkalera, 2022). The lack of empirical attention on these deferral periods or interval

terms is surprising given that it is an added layer of discretion exercised by parole boards

that determines ultimate sentence length (Friedman & Robinson, 2014; Kokkalera, 2022;

Reitz & Rhine, 2020).

When COVID-19 jeopardized the safety and security of incarcerated individuals

starting in March 2020, specific policies were implemented to address the increased

health risk to people in prisons (Prison Policy Initiative, 2024; Wang, 2022). For exam-

ple, compassionate and early release policies allowed more vulnerable or elderly incar-

cerated individuals to be released from prison, consequently reducing prison populations

during the pandemic (Prison Policy Initiative, 2024). However, the new COVID-19

policies and their implementation varied across jurisdictions (Haley, 2022), and the

effects on parole decisions are not yet fully understood. Some states held fewer parole

hearings in 2020, and a reduction in admissions may have been more impactful than

compassionate release policies on reducing incarceration (Prison Policy Initiative,

2021). Even without specific policies, however, some states became cognizant of reduc-

ing prison populations, largely targeting elderly incarcerated people due to their vulner-

abilities (Prison Policy Initiative, 2024). Efforts to extend the home confinement

policies initiated by the CARES Act in March 2020 continued through 2022 (U.S.

Department of Justice, 2023). The pandemic highlighted the importance of public

health and prison partnerships to meet the health and safety needs of incarcerated indi-

viduals, especially those who are elderly (Barnert et al., 2021). Therefore, the pandemic

in conjunction with the current age of an incarcerated individual might influence parole

board decisions as well as interval terms postdenial.

This article fills a gap in the literature by examining the influence of the COVID-19 pan-

demic on the likelihood of parole release and the length of the interval term for incarcerated

individuals serving life sentences, with specific attention to a candidate’s current age. Data

from written parole board decisions in a U.S. state were analyzed to explore differences

pre- and post-COVID-19 (considered as the time period between March 12, 2020, and

December 31, 2022, for the purposes of the analyses) and the role of elderly status at the