The History of Parole & Mandatory Release Chapter 3 The History of Parole & Mandatory Release

Parole The conditional release of a convicted offender from a correctional institution, under the continued custody of the state, to serve the remainder of their sentence in the community under supervision

Release Types Mandatory release: offenders enter the community automatically when their maximum term expires minus credited time off for good behavior. Mandatory release is decided by legislative statute or good-time laws. Discretionary release: offenders enter the community when members of a parole board decide they have earned the privilege of release while remaining under supervision

The Origins of Parole Manuel Montesinos, a Spaniard, in 1835 Parole is derived from the French parole d’honneur, meaning “word of honor” Parole originated in Europe with: Manuel Montesinos, a Spaniard, in 1835 Georg Michael Obermaier, a German, in 1842 Alexander Maconochie, an Englishman, in 1837

Marks System Implemented in 1840 by Alexander Maconochie, superintendant of the English penal colony on Norfolk Island Duration of sentence determined by prisoner’s industry & good conduct Prisoners earned daily “marks” based on their conduct & labor The more “marks” prisoners earned, their privileges increased; poor conduct led to a reduction in “marks” Good “marks” led to conditional release and eventually freedom to leave the island Maconochie’s system was very successful, but the public was skeptical. He was dismissed in 1844, ending his experiment

The Irish System Modeled after Norfolk Island by Sir Walter Crofton in 1854, based on: Strict imprisonment Indeterminate sentence Ticket-of-leave Prisoners released under the Irish System were supervised by police in rural areas and an inspector in Dublin.

Development of Parole in the U.S. Parole was first implemented at the New York Elmira Reformatory in 1876 Federal parole began in 1910 Four concepts justified parole in the U.S.: Reduction in the length of incarceration as a reward for good conduct Supervision of the parolee Imposition of the indeterminate sentence Reduction in the rising cost of incarceration

Medical Model Based on rehabilitation, it was the primary philosophy dominating corrections from 1930-1960 Assumed criminal behavior rooted in environmental & psychological aspects of offender’s life & could be corrected Parole & the indeterminate sentence were major parts of this philosophy Judge sentences offender to an indeterminate sentence Parole board determines release date based on when the offender is ready to be responsible

Just Deserts or Justice Model Replaced the medical model & indeterminate sentencing in the 1970s because of: Increasing crime rates The perceived failure of rehabilitation programs The perception that parole boards were incapable of making predictive judgments about offenders’ future behavior

Just Deserts Model In contrast to the rehabilitative idea, it changed the focus from the offender to the offense. Embraced determinate sentencing & the abolition of parole Took the position that indeterminate sentencing was vague, leading to disparities in sentencing based on race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, & place of conviction.

From Discretionary Parole to Mandatory Release As of 2001, 15 states had abolished parole & another 5 abolished discretionary release for violent offenses. Because of the trend toward determinate sentencing & abolishing discretionary release, between 24 to 39% of prisoners are released via discretionary release, whereas mandatory release numbers have increased.

Arguments for Discretionary Release Parole boards can impose prisoner participation in treatment programs Parole guidelines have improved methods of objective & open decisions Victims can attend parole hearings Automatic release decisions are made by computer Abolishing discretionary release does not necessarily increase public safety

Characteristics of Paroles Nearly 820,000 people were on parole in 2007 The Southern region had the highest incarceration rates, yet the lowest parole rates. The Northeast region had the opposite situation—a higher rate of parole & a lower rate of incarceration per 100,000 residents. Since 2000, 12% of parolees are women Parole success rates are lower than for probation; about 44% of all parolees successfully complete parole About 3 out of 10 parolees are removed from parole for too many rule violations; 1 out of 10 for new crimes

Contemporary Functions of Parole Parole is tasked primarily with protecting the public from released offenders. This goal is accomplished in 3 general objectives: Enforcing restrictions & controls on parolees in the community Providing services that help parolees integrate into a noncriminal lifestyle Increasing the public’s level of confidence in the effectiveness & responsiveness of parole services Parole as population control: In some states, parole also functions as the back doorkeeper: a safety valve to relieve overcrowded prisons

Saving Medical Costs Medical parole, or compassionate release, is the conditional release of prisoners with a terminal illness who are not risks to the public’s safety. Medical parole is not popular with the public & only about 300 people are released nationwide on medical parole.

Medical Parole in California In 2010, California passed a medical parole law that would allow the paroling authority to release prisoners who are permanently medically incapacitated & require 24 hour care but are no longer a threat If the parolee’s condition should unexpectedly improve, he or she can be sent back to prison Death row & life without parole inmates are not eligible

Release on California Medical Parole Steven Martinez: 42 years old, serving 157 years for rape & kidnapping 3 years into his prison sentence he was stabbed in the spine, is a quadriplegic, & cannot perform the simplest tasks. He care costs about $625,000/year Martinez was the first prisoner to be considered for medical parole in California His application was denied

Texas Board of Pardons & Parole Annual Report 2010 MEDICALLY RECOMMENDED INTENSIVE SUPERVISION (MRIS) Upon review of any eligible offender who qualifies for release to Medically Recommended Intensive Supervision (MRIS), the MRIS panel bases its decisions on the offender’s medical condition and medical evaluation, and whether the offender constitutes a threat to public safety. Offenders shall comply with the terms and conditions of the MRIS program and abide by a Texas Correctional Office for Offenders with Mental or Medical Impairments (TCOOMMI) approved release plan. Offenders remain under the care of a physician and in a medically suitable placement. MRIS Data Comparison YEAR 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Screened 1,600 941 1,319 1,318 1,443 Presented 401 290 438 337 428 Approved 161 101 103 59 106