Parole within the correctional system

 

Parole can be defined as a period of supervision by the community that is afforded to inmates once they have served their minimum sentence or have displayed good behavior over a certain period of incarceration (Parole from Past to Present). Parole is granted by the Parole Board, which only makes such a decision following the attainment of reasonable assurances that the inmate involved will not become a public security risk or a menace to society. Such assurances are provided by the corrections facility in which the inmate is incarcerated and are a critical factor because they allow for a consideration of the entire history of the inmate’s stay at the facility as a means of determining whether or not they deserve to be paroled. Additionally, while the individual (parolee) is on parole, he or she is put under the supervision of an agent that is employed by the Department of Corrections in order to make sure that they adhere to the conditions of their parole as well as to determine whether the individual involve has indeed become rehabilitated and can therefore be a responsible member of society. Once the parolee has successfully completed their parole period, they end up being discharged from their sentence. However, in a scenario where there are violations of the parole terms by the parolee, including any of the standard or special conditions that have been set as a condition for being paroled, the parolee will often end up being sent back to prison in order to serve the rest of their sentence. Therefore, the Parole Board has jurisdiction over the parolee until such a time as the latter has either been discharged from parole or has served their maximum sentence.

The main objective of this paper is to study the history of parole, its current status, and the potential role that it is going to play in the corrections system as it is being reformed.

History

The parole system is a fairly resent development that has in recent decades become a critical part of the corrections system. This has come about despite the considerable opposition and obstacles that were put in its path during its initial stages, as there was widespread belief that it was being too lenient to criminals and that it could potentially compromise the criminal justice system. However, during its initial stages, parole was adopted by a majority of states in the United States as well as countries such as New Zealand, Canada, England, Australia, France, and Belgium, with the result being that there was the promotion of a situation where there was the aim of rehabilitation of inmates over their punishment (Brown, 1915). The advances that have been made since the beginnings of parole and its widespread adoption in the 20^th century among the countries named above have shown it to be an effective means of making sure that there is the advancement of the interests of both the inmates that qualify and society. Furthermore, it has proven to be an effective system that requires a number of reforms, including thorough standardization as a means of ensuring that there is the enhancement of the corrections system. In the United States, for example, the interchange of experiences of parole between states has allowed for the establishment of common standards as well as progress concerning how best to enhance the effectiveness of parole. It has allowed for a consideration of improvements of the system in a way that provides for greater efficiency in the process. However, since its beginnings, parole has received a number of criticisms, which have discouraged the reform of the system in order to increase its use as a means of reducing recidivism as well as promote rehabilitation among inmates.

At the beginning of the 20^th century, each state in the United States moves towards the creation of parole within the corrections system. This was based on the belief that parole was to function as an enhancement to the rehabilitative functions of correction facilities (Burke, 2011). It allowed for the creation of parole boards, whose major function was to ensure that there was an evaluation of the readiness and determination of when rehabilitation has taken place among inmates. It is also pertinent to note that these boards had considerable power to such an extent that it was not uncommon for the personal biases of board members to determine the fate of inmates; including the denial of parole for the most deserving of individuals. A notable case is that of Pittman v. the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, which involved Pittman accusing the latter of not granting him credit for the time he had spent at liberty because he was a convicted parole violator ("Pittman v. PA BD. OF PROBATION AND PAROLE," 2017). Previously, the granting of parole was done in the context of a sentencing scheme that was indeterminate and was therefore completely unpredictable. However, beginning in the 1960s, the sentencing system changed in such a way that there was the adoption of a model that was more determinate (Burke, 2011). However, parole still faced considerable criticisms, among which was that rehabilitation was not possible and that nothing that was done to achieve it actually worked. Another criticism was that there was a lack of standards among parole boards when it came to making their decisions and because of this, the decisions that they made were often based on the arbitrariness or biases of their members; resulting in their not being fair. Finally, there was the belief that releasing inmates earlier than the time prescribed for their sentence made the corrections system soft on crime.

Current status

The major aim of parole in the modern world is to ensure that there is the reduction of recidivism. However, it is pertinent to note that this should not be the central strategy of the corrections system because the major focus is the reduction of overcrowding in prisons rather than a focus on rehabilitation (Tonry, 2011). A consequence of this situation has been that parole has been used for the wrong purposes with the aim of promoting a reduction in the prison population rather than a focus on the welfare of the inmates. Additionally, because of the considerable expense that is in the process of dealing with parole cases as well as keeping tabs on parolees following their release, this program has not been replicated as efficiently as it should. Instead, because of a lack of focus on rehabilitation, parole has not been as effective a tool as intended. The recidivism rate continues to remain very high and this has been a cause of concern because it shows that the current parole program is not effective in making sure that the inmates that are given parole are provided with the opportunities that they need to reintegrate into society. The current situation is one that proves that more needs to be done to ensure that there is the promotion of the interests of inmates so that they are provided with the means through which they can reform rather than being punished while incarcerated. A parole and probation program that is vastly improved has the potential of ensuring that there is a reduction in the recidivism rate as well as the costs associated with corrections (Gottschalk, 2011). A focus on job training and treatment for substance abuse, in addition to effective parole supervision that is modeled on the HOPE program (Kleiman, 2011) that has been so effective in Hawaii could be the remedy in enhancing the current parole system.

Future

The correction system is moving from a strategy aimed at deterrence, and punishment, which involves control and custody over inmates, to one that is deliberately focused on changing behavior. These efforts are important because they focus more on making sure that the behavior of individuals are changed for the better so that they avoid committing crimes and instead focus more on becoming productive members of society (Puzauskas & Morrow, 2018). It is noteworthy that future efforts at corrections reform will have parole and the resulting probation as one of its most important features because of the manner through which it has come to be viewed as a viable alternative to long incarcerations that tend to end up being counterproductive. The significance of parole will also be based on the establishment of secure and safe correctional systems which emphasize the reduction of risk over anything else. The focus of the correctional system will therefore be seeking to makes sure that there is there is the reduction of incidents of offender reentry into the correctional system, and instead, there will be efforts aimed at the rehabilitation of offenders so that they have a positive experience once they leave custody. Also, there are already efforts in place that place emphasis on a diversion of investment from a heavy reliance on incarceration and placing it in policies aimed at the generation of safer and stronger communities. Parole will therefore be at the center of the new strategy because it will be a means of determining whether offenders have been rehabilitated following their going through the reformed correctional system.

Conclusion

The parole system, which is increasingly being recognized as an essential aspect of the rehabilitation of offenders, is one that can work in harmony with the way that society treats crime. The advancement of ideas of the treatment of crime by society is significant because it allows for the promotion of rehabilitation over the punishment of offenders. Parole offers a viable alternative to the long incarceration of offenders because it provides them with the opportunity to make sure that they become responsible members of society. Furthermore, parole will allow for a reduction of costs in relation to the corrections system because there will be an allowance for more investment in promoting the necessary reforms aimed at enhancing public safety and the prevention of crime. This can be done through raising social awareness as well as the provision of opportunities for paroled offenders to be reabsorbed into society. However, the reform of the corrections system with parole as one of its major aspects will require the commitment of the justice system as well as policymakers in order to enhance its effectiveness.