Philosophies and Decision Making in Parole Board Members
| Author | Ebony L. Ruhland |
| Date | 01 November 2020 |
| Published date | 01 November 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032885520956566 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2020
Article
The Prison Journal
2020, Vol. 100(5) 640 –661
Philosophies and
© 2020 SAGE Publications
Article reuse guidelines:
Decision Making in
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885520956566
DOI: 10.1177/0032885520956566
journals.sagepub.com/home/tpj
Parole Board Members
Ebony L. Ruhland1
Abstract
Parole boards have discretion to make prison release decisions by applying
a number of factors. While prior research has identified factors that are
important, little is known about how parole board members interpret the
factors and the degree to which members’ characteristics affect decision
making. Using board transcripts, this study explored: (1) how members’
philosophies influence factors used in release decisions and; (2) how board
members define and frame factor meanings. The findings provide insights
into decisions that may create release disparities.
Keywords
parole, parole boards, parole release decisions
Introduction
Parole boards have access to an abundance of information to assist in release
decisions (Ruhland, et al., 2016), and have discretion as to its use and impor-
tance (Rhine, 2012). Board member variations in the use of discretion can lead
to disparities in determining who is released. Quantitatively, we know what
factors are important in parole board release decisions, but little is known
about the way members make meaning of the factors used to determine readi-
ness for release, meanings that have consequences for release decisions.
1University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA
Corresponding Author:
Ebony L. Ruhland, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, Teachers/Dyer
Complex, PO BOX 210002, Cincinnati, OH 45221, USA.
Email: ebony.ruhland@uc.edu
Ruhland
641
Using a secondary analysis of qualitative interviews with board mem-
bers, the author addressed two key research questions: (1) How do indi-
vidual parole board members’ release philosophies affect the factors used to
make their release decisions? and (2) How do parole board members define
and frame the meaning of the factors used to determine release readiness?
Analyses of responses to these questions are central to understanding parole
board members’ in-depth decision making processes and to identifying dif-
ferences in how board members use and define release factors related to
release disparities. For example, decisions across members may be incon-
sistent and depend heavily on the beliefs of board members who are con-
ducting the release interviews.
Background
Parole Release Guidelines and Risk Assessments
Concerns over broad, unstructured discretion have led some parole boards to
develop parole release guidelines and implement risk assessment measures
(McVey et al., 2018; Rhine et al., 2017). Standardized risk assessments seek
to reduce the impact of human biases and the reliance on “gut instinct” in
parole decision making (Andrews et al., 2006). Parole risk predication has
been in practice since the 1920s (Schuessler, 1955), but parole board use of
risk assessment tools has increased significantly since 1988 (Burkes et al.,
2017). All parole boards in U.S. state with indeterminate sentencing practices
reported using a risk assessment measure, in response to the 2015 Robina
Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice Survey (Ruhland et al., 2016).
While risk assessments have increased, the extent to which the instruments
inform decisions or are even relied upon for the release decision varies across
state parole boards (Thomas & Reingold, 2017).
Parole release guidelines were created to reduce disparities in sentence
length (Tonry, 2007) and to attain greater consistency between parole board
members’ decisions (Thomas & Reingold, 2017). Guidelines often weigh
time served, current offense seriousness, and risk of reoffending as standards
for release determinations or recommendations (Mechoulan & Sahuguet,
2015). Further, they may provide a release date or suggestions relative to the
decision to grant or defer release (Palacios, 1994). Guideline recommenda-
tions can be overridden by board members; they are not legally bound to
accept them by statute or policy (Rhine et al., 2017). Ultimately, the parole
decision remains within the authority of the board member.
Rehabilitation factors. A key function of parole boards is to individualize sen-
tences and release once it is determined that rehabilitation has been achieved
642
The Prison Journal 100(5)
(Walker, 1993). In assessing rehabilitation, parole boards review the degree
to which individuals sentenced to prison have used the time to participate in
a variety of treatment and other programs to better themselves. Parole is
designed as a means to motivate individuals to change (Vilcia, 2018). If
rehabilitation is successful, the individual will be less likely to recidivate
upon release. Commonly considered parole board rehabilitation factors
include prison conduct and the completion of programs while incarcerated
(Ruhland et al., 2016).
To make sound decisions, it is important that parole board members
understand those factors that correlate with criminal offending, as well as
evidence-based strategies and program interventions that reduce reoffending
(McVey et al., 2018; Paparozzi & Caplan, 2009). It is essential that these
factors actually provide evidence of rehabilitation through a reduction in
recidivism. Notably, there is a correlation between prison conduct and recid-
ivism upon release; individuals with higher incidences of prison misconduct
have a greater likelihood of recidivating upon release (Cochran et al., 2014).
Prison programming and its relationship to reentry success is dependent on
programming type. For example, while a research study found that earning
a college degree while incarcerated supported finding employment upon
release, it did not reduce recidivism (Duwe & Clark, 2014). Further, there is
greater impact from programs that address criminogenic needs; these are
more likely to reduce recidivism (Latessa et al., 2014). Therefore, the focus
of parole boards on a candidate’s institutional behavior and programming
type is warranted and aligned with current evidence-based research on tar-
geting criminogenic risks and needs.
Remorse. In evaluating rehabilitation, paroling authorities also value
highly an individual’s remorse for past offenses; a demonstration of
remorse during the interview is important (Brinke et al., 2012). Its absence
is believed to reveal a risk for future offending, and individuals who lack
remorse are viewed as having character flaws that are deserving of more
punishment (Zong et al., 2014).Over the course of punishment, an individ-
ual who is achieving rehabilitation reflects on the harms and begins to take
responsibility for past actions (Collica-Cox & Sullivan, 2017). However,
a study of judges’ attitudes toward remorse found some believed that lack
of remorse should not warrant more punishment because, if an individual
is innocent, they cannot be expected to show remorse (Zong et al., 2014).
Regardless, some have argued that assessing remorse is in the purview of
the parole board’s roles and responsibilities (Martel, 2010).While remorse
is a highly valued factor for parole boards, there is little research linking the
expression of remorse to recidivism (Bandes, 2016). Furthermore, remorse
Ruhland
643
and what it is or is not, is not consistent across interdisciplinary fields
(Bandes, 2016). Often, individuals believe that remorse can be measured
by the facial expressions or the demeanor of a person, although there is no
evidence to support this (Bandes, 2016). Nonetheless, it often remains a
salient factor for parole board members (Connor, 2016).
Retributive factors. The justice system’s response to crime reflects a tension
between utilitarian goals that are forward-looking and emphasize rehabilita-
tion and backward-looking ones, stressing sentencing as retribution related to
the seriousness of the offense of conviction (Rhine, 2012). Parole board deci-
sions are often caught within this tension, with members predominantly con-
cerned with the amount of prison time served and the severity of the current
crime, as well as criminal history and input from the victim (Caplan, 2007).
This orientation has remained constant over time (Burns, et al., 1999; Rhine
et al., 1991; Tewksbury & Connor, 2012).
Board members’ priority concern with the current offense demon-
strates a greater alignment with the goal of retribution (Vilica, 2018) than
rehabilitation. Inmates are commonly not released at their first eligible
release date because parole board members are concerned with the suffi-
ciency of the amount of time served (Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1988).
Prior research indicates that, as the severity of the crime increased, so did
the amount of time incarcerated, with the author concluding that “parole
board members appear to believe that an inmate is not ready for parole
until he has suffered commensurately for the crime he has committed”
(Scott, 1974, p. 217). Consistent with a retributive framework, this
thought process is not linked with discretion (Cullen & Jonson, 2017).
However, when parole board members consider if enough punishment has
been served, they are using discretion informed by retributive goals. As
Reamer (2017), a former board member, wrote:
Punishment may not always deter future crime . . . but it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial