Legitimacy of parole as a consequence of policy shock: The lived experiences of incarcerated persons during the parole moratorium in Pennsylvania, U.S.

• Published date: 01 July 2024
• Author: Yu‐Heng Chen,E. Rely Vîlcică,Jeffrey T. Ward,Makayla Maynard,Cadee Eberhardt,Ajima Olaghere
• Date: 01 July 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12239

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Legitimacy of parole as a consequence of policy

shock: The lived experiences of incarcerated persons

during the parole moratorium in Pennsylvania, U.S.

Yu-Heng Chen | E. Rely Vîlcic

a | Jeffrey T. Ward |

Makayla Maynard | Cadee Eberhardt | Ajima Olaghere

Department of Criminal Justice, Temple

University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

Correspondence

Yu-Heng Chen, Department of Criminal

Justice, College of Liberal Arts, Temple

University, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA.

Email: yu-heng.chen@temple.edu

Funding information

Temple University

Abstract

This study examines the consequences of a policy shock

to the criminal legal system through the prisms of the

lived experiences of incarcerated persons. The study

draws on a qualitative analysis of 159 unsolicited letters

from incarcerated individuals in the Pennsylvania

Department of Corrections written during the 2008–

2009 Moratorium on prison releases. The results indi-

cate that the moratorium eroded their trust and exacer-

bated an already existing crisis in procedural justice

and legitimacy for discretionary parole, underscoring

both direct and collateral consequences of this policy

shock on the lived experiences of those most directly

affected. Several policy implications emerge that can

help improve or restore procedural justice and legiti-

macy of discretionary parole and corrections, more

generally.

1|INTRODUCTION

Yet I still sit here in prison when I could be at liberty being a taxpayer instead of a tax bur-

den.

Letter 92a

Policy shocks to the criminal legal system can have myriad consequences for justice-

involved persons, their families, the public at large, and the functioning of the system itself. The

potential for policy shocks to the system is increasing; internet usage and social media acceler-

ate the pace of information sharing and the impact of emotive response, thereby elevating the

potential for reactionary policymaking to relatively infrequent—albeit potentially serious—

events. Both knee-jerk reactionary reforms and risk-averse decision making have been

DOI: 10.1111/lapo.12239

©2024 University of Denver and Wiley Periodicals LLC.

246 Law & Policy. 2024;46:246–276.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/lapo

implicated as critical reasons why true reform fails to take root (Engel et al., 2022; Laskorunsky

et al., 2023). Regardless of intentions, rapid policy decisions invite scrutiny, and it is important

to understand whether policy shocks affect perceptions of legitimacy and operations of the

criminal legal system. Understanding the intersection of public opinion and criminal justice pol-

icy is a crucial area of inquiry (Fitzgerald et al., 2023b; Pickett, 2019), yet it is also vital to

understand the viewpoints of those who are most directly affected by swift changes in criminal

justice policies (e.g., the incarcerated and victims). To aid understanding of how sweeping and

rapid policy changes can affect perceptions and emotions of the justice-system involved, we

hone in on a state-wide moratorium on parole in Pennsylvania in 2008 that provides a key

instantiation of a policy shock in criminal justice.

In September 2008, the then-Governor of Pennsylvania, Edward Rendell, imposed a state-

wide moratorium on all parole releases, immediately following a high-profile homicide of a

police officer in Philadelphia by a recently released parolee.

1

This followed on the heels of

a series of homicides and other violent crimes attributed to other individuals who had also been

on parole supervision at the time of the crimes. In considering the implications of the morato-

rium on the correctional system itself, Vîlcic

a(

2016a,2016b) contended that the:

“…moratorium on all parole releases to ensure that no parolee would have a

chance to reoffend—raised a host of consequences which had the potential to offset

the original intent of the desired policy change (that is, a reduction in violent

crime). These ranged from serious prison overcrowding issues, to overly cautious

parole decision making, both resulting in prisoner discontent that had the potential

to exacerbate the already existing problems in managing the growing prison popu-

lation”(p. 83).

Imposing a moratorium on parole/prison releases seems to be a recurring “corrective”solu-

tion by the executive branch in reaction to high-profile homicides. Most recently, for example,

the Governor of Alabama also imposed a moratorium on the state’s parole, following the mur-

der of a family by a recently released parolee (Laskorunsky et al., 2023) and California’s Gover-

nor has also attempted to prevent parole release of persons convicted of murder (Chabria &

Luna, 2019). While understanding the unintended consequences of moratoriums for the parole

and correctional processes and agencies is valuable indeed—and can offer lessons to jurisdic-

tions facing similar crises—it is just as critical to understand and examine the consequences of

such a policy shock on incarcerated individuals who would otherwise be eligible for parole con-

sideration, and especially those awaiting their parole release. The present study provides just

such a unique opportunity to examine the lived experiences of those incarcerated during the

Pennsylvania moratorium period (September 2008 to March 2009), via unsolicited writings of

prisoners in real time as they faced the implications of the moratorium on parole releases across

the state.

2

At the time the moratorium was imposed, the Governor also called for an indepen-

dent inquiry into the state’s parole and correctional processes, conditioning the lifting of the

moratorium on the findings of this investigation (the final report was released in March 2010,

with two intermediate reports issued in late 2008, see Goldkamp et al., 2010).

3

Unexpectedly,

during the review period, the research team tasked with conducting this independent research

received an unsolicited corpus of 159 letters from people in prisons across the state and their

families. As these letters had not been anticipated, and were not part of the original research

plan, they were not analyzed during that investigation; however, they were saved by the original

research team, who deemed them valuable for understanding the moratorium from the lived

experiences of incarcerated people—and later passed them on to the research team conducting

the present study. In this research, relying on this corpus of letters as the main data source, we

are able to assess perceived consequences of a policy shock (i.e., the moratorium on parole) on

CHEN ET AL.247