Parole Revoked: Justifying Rerelease for Juvenile Lifers

• Author: Stuti S. Kokkalera,Beatriz Amalfi Marques
• Date: 01 May 2022
• Published date: 01 May 2022
• DOI: 10.1177/00938548221079254
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2022, Vol. 49, No. 5, May 2022, 619 –637.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221079254

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2022 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

619

PAROLE REVOKED

Justifying Rerelease for Juvenile Lifers

STUTI S. KOKKALERA

BEATRIZ AMALFI MARQUES

Sam Houston State University

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 identi-

fied 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.

Keywords: revocation; rerelease; parole violations; parole board; juvenile lifers

INTRODUCTION

A substantial segment of America’s incarcerated population comprises individuals

returning to prison for violating their conditions of parole (Henry, 2021; Lin et al., 2010).

Breach of parole can be in the form of a technical violation or the allegation of a crime.

Technical violations are those in which an administrative condition is not met such as fail-

ing to report to the parole officer, not maintaining employment, and/or testing positive for

using alcohol or other illicit substances. Regardless of type of violation, the ultimate discre-

tion to revoke parole rests with the parole board (Reitz & Rhine, 2020).

AUTHORS’ NOTE: The authors are grateful to Robert Werth for his comments on an earlier draft of this

manuscript. This manuscript was also part of a virtual workshop on contemporary parole research in April

2021 with several scholars and we appreciate their suggestions for improvement. We also want to thank Phillip

Alvin Jones, who was incarcerated at 19 years old and is currently serving his 31st year in prison. Phillip read

early and revised drafts of the manuscript to provide detailed feedback based on his own experience of appear-

ing before the parole board. We are very grateful to have his encouragement and support in submitting this

work for publication. We also want to thank Kristina Block and Jacob Kaplan for their feedback on this manu-

script. There is no funding source nor conflict of interest to disclose. Correspondence concerning this article

should be addressed to Stuti S. Kokkalera, Assistant Professor, Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology,

Sam Houston State University, 816 17th Street, C205, Huntsville, TX-77341; e-mail: sxk078@shsu.edu.

1079254CJBXXX10.1177/00938548221079254Criminal Justice and BehaviorKokkalera, Marques / Parole Revoked

research-article2022

620 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

Among those returning to prison for violating parole conditions are juvenile lifers. Nearly

3,000 individuals who were sentenced to life as teenagers are now eligible for discretionary

release due to U.S. Supreme Court decisions banning life without parole (“LWOP”) for

nonhomicide offenses and automatic LWOP for homicide offenses (Associated Press,

2017). An even larger segment of the juvenile lifer population is serving parole-eligible life

sentences and has regularly appeared before parole boards (Nellis, 2017). Recent media

reports highlight the challenges in the transition to community supervision after decades of

incarceration (New Hampshire Public Radio [NHPR], 2021), and specifically for juvenile

lifers (Futuro Media, 2021).

Juvenile lifer candidates are unique in that their route to the criminal legal system is

based almost exclusively on the nature of their sentencing offense. They spend decades

incarcerated before they are released on parole and will likely be supervised for the remain-

der of their lives. Reentry is significantly different for juvenile lifers because they are incar-

cerated in adult environments at a much younger age (Altschuler & Brash, 2004). After

having spent a major part of their developmental stages institutionalized, they are expected

to cope with the challenges of a community that looks different than what it was before their

entry into the prison system. Yet, there is not much we know about the nature of their parole

violations and how parole boards justify decisions to grant or deny rerelease for those on

lifetime supervision.

Parole decisions are “symbolically significant” because they depict the parole board’s

justification for “condoning or condemning criminal behavior” (Hawkins, 1983, p. 102).

The decision to rerelease a candidate who has been reincarcerated following revocation

represents a parole board’s willingness to give a second or third chance. Our goal is to

unpack how a parole candidate’s record is presented as either deserving or undeserving of

release in written decision statements. To do so, we closely examine revocation decision

statements issued by one state parole board1 between 2007 and 2020 for juvenile lifer can-

didates who received parole-eligible life terms or LWOP sentences to illustrate the sym-

bolic in discretionary decision-making.

SYMBOLIZING DISCRETIONARY RELEASE

There are currently 34 states with indeterminate sentencing schemes that allow for dis-

cretionary release as determined by a separate parole board (Reitz & Rhine, 2020). Written

decisions, or decision statements, produced following hearings are “symbolic judgements”

where “in granting parole,” the parole board makes a “statement of forgiveness” (Hawkins,

1986, p. 1211). When parole is denied, the candidate is presented as “a badly-behaved pris-

oner not deserving of parole” (Hawkins, 1986, p. 1211). Put simply, the symbolic in parole

decision-making is reflected in how the parole board engages in “condoning or condemn-

ing” prison conduct (Hawkins, 1983, p. 102). In addition, the seriousness of the sentencing

offense can also be a factor in deciding release as noted in prior research on individuals

sentenced as adults (Conley & Zimmerman, 1982; Huebner & Bynum, 2006, 2008). Release

can also be justified based on the parole board’s view of a candidate’s rehabilitative efforts

(Connor, 2016), disciplinary infractions (Hawkins, 1983), victim or prosecutorial objec-

tions (Caplan, 2007), and proposed reentry plans (Hannah-Moffat & Yule, 2011). Parole

board members can also assess retributive time based on a candidate’s moral character in

terms of their remorse and reparative actions (Dagan, 2021).