Rethinking Conditional Release as an Assumption-Based Test of Offender Readiness

Published date01 June 2018
DOI10.1177/0734016817742475
Date01 June 2018
Subject MatterArticles
Article
Rethinking Conditional Release
as an Assumption-Based Test
of Offender Readiness
Christopher M. Campbell
Abstract
While many great strides have been made in supervision generally toward more evidence-based
practices, the primary tenets of conditional release have remained unchanged, untested, and
assumption based. This essay examines the fundamental tenets of conditional release and how they
have been widely overlooked in spite of the evidence-based movement. By laying out the problems
in practice, recording, and definition, as well as gaps in the literature, I display several areas where
future research can progress both knowledge and policy. I argue that the crux of issues surrounding
conditional release is the notion that it is a test of readiness and should be regarded as such. By
viewing the practice from this perspective, the inadequacies of state systems to address criminogenic
needs become glaringly apparent. Following this explication, it is consequently clear as to why the
released person may not be ready and how successful reentry may have less to do with individual
accountability and more to do with a rehabilitative ideal.
Keywords
community corrections, corrections, crime policy, courts/law, social constructions of crime/justice,
crime/delinquency theory, community-based corrections
As many jurisdictions shift their attention toward decarceration, many set out to decrease their
confined population with a renewed focus on increasing the use of community corrections (e.g.,
probation, see Phelps, 2013). Although it is the most widely used and a promising outlet, probation
remains subject to sentencing reform, which is often slow to mobilize. Other options exist in the
back end of the criminal justice process. Offender reentry to the community from confinement via
conditional release accounted for 856,900 supervised offenders in 2014 (Kaeble, Maruschak, &
Bonczar, 2015). As some of them will successfully reenter as law-abiding citizens, far more others
will become a member of our cities’ impoverished (Harding, Morenoff, & Herbert, 2013), homeless
(Hamilton, Kigerl, & Hays, 2013), and repeat offender populations (Maruschak & Parks, 2012).
Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA
Corresponding Author:
Christopher M. Campbell, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Portland State University, P.O. Box 751, 506
S.W. Mill St., Portland, OR 97207, USA.
Email: ccampbell@pdx.edu
Criminal Justice Review
2018, Vol. 43(2) 216-235
ª2017 Georgia State University
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734016817742475
journals.sagepub.com/home/cjr
Many jurisdictions supply various programs to combat and minimize membership to these failed
groups. Policies such as the Second Chance Act and most recently Justice Reinvestment Initiatives
have highlighted greater fiscal incentives for corrections departments to use more evidence-based
practices in tandem with conditional release (see Clear, 2011; Kleiman, 2011).
However, a fundamental problem encompasses this renewed focus in that the primary tenets of
conditional release have remained virtually unchanged and largely untested for well over a century.
For instance, expecting the released offender to abide by certain noncriminal conditions aims to
demonstrate the offender’s readiness for release. Such a fundamental tenet highlights the fact that
failing postrelease supervision consists of a litany of additional punis hments beyond the initial
sentence. Chief among them is more confinement. Confinement in particular is often employed
with little regard for the growing body of research that demonstrates confinement often provides
more harm than benefit (e.g., Austin & Fabelo, 2004; Loughran et al., 2009; Rydberg & Clark, 2016;
Stenius, 2005). Similarly, other punishments for failing supervision are carried out with little
attention to what is known to influence a person’s chance of recidivating upon release (i.e., risk–
need–responsivity models). For example, sustainable housing, maintaining gainful employment,
pro-social ties (family and otherwise), and addressing substance abuse issues or chemical depen-
dency triggers (to name a few) can all impact one’s likelihood to recidivate (Andrews & Bonta,
2010; MacKenzie, 2000, 2006). Although imposed in the name of public safety, if a punishment
infringes on known aspects that could reduce recidivism (and ergo further victimization), the punish-
ment would then ironically threaten the public’s safety. When considering the situation of technical
violators, the conflict between control and reintegration begs the question: What is the purpose of
punishment if it perpetuates recidivism?
This essay explores multiple facets of conditional release in relation to this question and others.
Throughout this article, I will explicate the fundamental tenets of the practice and highlight how they
have been widely overlooked in spite of the evidence-based movement. In a review of the extant
literature, I demonstrate that while relatively little is known about the practice of revocation, even
less evidence is available to justify its use. Most importantly, I argue that the crux of issues
surrounding conditional release is the notion that it is a test of readiness and should be regarded
as such. By viewing the practice from this perspective, the inadequacies of state systems to address
criminogenic needs become glaringly apparent. Consequently, it is clear as to why a released person
may not be ready to reintegrate and how successful reentry may have less to do with individual
accountability and more to do with a rehabilitative ideal. Additionally, a perspective of readiness
allows us to view conditional release, violations, and revocations in a way that helps to refine
measurement in research. The fact that revocations are defined in many ways, coupled with the
lack of specific empirical investigation, suggests that the practice of parole (discretionary or man-
datory) is an assumption-bas ed practice in an evidence-ba sed world. With a growing body of
research to suggest the many weaknesses of current conditional release practice (e.g., Lin, Grattet,
& Petersilia, 2010; Petersilia, 1999; Petersilia & Turner, 1993; Simon, 1993), one must ask: When
will conditional release and revocations be measured by evidence-based expectations? By prodding
such inquiry, the intention of this article is to highlight an inherent need to question, study, and
improve the utility and measurement of conditional release, while helping to guide future research.
Brief History of Conditional Release
Originating from England’s “ticket-of-leave” system of 1790 (i.e., conditional pardon to offenders
deemed worthy, see Henningsen, 1981; Parker, 1975), the assumptions that embody conditional
release are over two centuries old. Yet, in spite of their age, these assumptions continue to drive
practice in many Western countries regarding how parolee readiness is assessed. Since its formal
inception as parole in the United States by the 1870s, conditions for release have reflected the
Campbell 217

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT