Given wide-ranging interest in the predictors of recidivism, it is surprising that relatively little research has focused on a major factor influencing offenders' ability to re-offend—conditional release decisions. Using a correlational design and hypothetical offender vignettes, this study examined conditional release decisions in a sample of 31 parole board members from Canada and New Zealand. Results revealed marked inter-individual differences, not related to demographic characteristics, in the parole decisions reached, as well as in the amount and types of file information considered. Results also demonstrated variation in decisions by offender type, as well as in the frequency with which different file information was accessed. These patterns offered preliminary evidence of the use of adaptive decision making techniques among board members, with case reviews focusing on specific information known to be related to parole outcome. Though useful in the face of time pressures, such techniques may be inconsistent with legislated requirements.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndrewsD.A.BontaJ.1995. LSI-R: The Level of Service Inventory – Revised, Toronto, , Canada: Multi-Health Symptoms.
2.
AndrewsD.A.BontaJ.2006. The psychology of criminal conduct, , 4th ed., Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Company.
3.
BontaJ.LipinskiS.MartinM.1992. The characteristics of Aboriginal recidivists. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 34: 517–521.
4.
BottomleyA.K.1973. Parole decisions in a long-term closed prison. British Journal of Criminology, 13: 26–40.
5.
CallahanL.A.SilverE.1998. Factors associated with the conditional release of prisoners acquitted not guilty by reason of insanity: A decision tree approach. Law and Human Behavior, 22: 147–163.
6.
CarrollJ.S.BurkeP.A.1990. Evaluation and prediction in expert parole decisions. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17: 315–332.
7.
CarrollJ.S.WienerR.L.CoatesD.GalegherJ.AlibrioJ.J.1982. Evaluation, diagnosis, and prediction in parole decision making. Law & Society Review, 17: 199–228.
8.
ConleyJ.A.ZimmermanS.E.1982. Decision making by a part-time parole board: An observational and empirical study. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 9: 396–431.
9.
1992. Corrections and Conditional Release Act
10.
DhamiM.K.2003. Psychological models of professional decision making. Psychological Science, 14: 175–181.
11.
GendreauP.LittleT.GogginC.1996. A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works!. Criminology, 34: 575–607.
12.
GilesM.MullineuxJ.2000. Assessment and decision-making: Probation officers' construing of factors relevant to risk. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 5: 165–185.
13.
GrantB.A.GillisC.A.1999. Day parole outcome, criminal history, and other predictors of successful sentence completion, Ottawa, , Canada: Correctional Service of Canada. (R-83)
14.
GroveW.M.ZaldD.H.LebowB.S.SnitzB.E.NelsonC.2000. Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12: 19–30.
15.
Hannah-MoffatK.Re-entry and the female offender: Research trends. Paper presented at National Parole Board Training Session. Ottawa, Canada. January.
16.
HareR.D.2003. The Hare Psychopathy Checklist – Revised manual, , 2nd ed., Toronto, , Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
17.
HawkinsK.1983. Assessing evil: Decision behaviour and parole board justice. British Journal of Criminology, 23: 101–127.
18.
HiltonN.Z.SimmonsJ.L.2001. The influence of actuarial risk assessment in clinical judgments and tribunal decisions about mentally disordered offenders in maximum security. Law and Human Behavior, 25: 393–408.
19.
JacksonM.1989. Locking up natives in Canada. University of British Columbia Law Review, 23: 215–300.
20.
KleinA.R.1996. “Re-abuse in a population of court-restrained male batterers: Why restraining orders don't work”. In Do arrests and restraining orders work?, Edited by: BuzawaE.S.BuzawaC.G.192–213. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
LanganP.A.LevinD.J.2002. Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994, Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
22.
LloydC.D.2005. The influences of prior experience and severity of offense in release decision making, Ottawa, , Canada: Carleton University. Unpublished honours thesis
23.
Manguno-MireG.M.ThomsonJ.W.Jr.Bertman-PateL.J.BurnettD.R.ThompsonH.W.2007. Are release recommendations for NGRI acquittees informed by relevant data?. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25: 43–55.
24.
McCarthyB.R.LangworthyR.H.1987. Older offenders on probation and parole. Journal of Offender Counseling, Services, and Rehabilitation, 1: 7–25.
25.
NafekhM.MotiukL.L.2002. The Statistical Information on Recidivism – Revised 1 (SIR-R1) scale: A psychometric evaluation(R-127). Ottawa, Canada
Turpin-PetrosinoC.1999. Are limiting enactments effective? An experimental test of decision making in a presumptive parole state. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27: 321–332.
39.
VerbruggeP.NunesK.JohnsonS.TaylorK.2002. Predictors of revocation of conditional release among substance abusing women offenders, Ottawa, , Canada: Correctional Service of Canada. (R-133)
40.
VigilanteK.C.FlynnM.M.AffleckP.C.StunkleJ.C.MerrimanN.A.FlaniganT.P.1999. Reduction in recidivism of incarcerated women through primary care, peer counseling, and discharge planning. Journal of Women's Health, 8: 409–415.
41.
WelshA.OgloffJ.R. P.2000. Full parole and the aboriginal experience: Accounting for the racial discrepancies in release rates. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42: 469–491.
