The complex of factors that influence parole decisions is not well understood. Prior research examined release decisions only in relation to inmate characteristics, while ignoring the collective decision process of parole boards. This case study found that decisions were a product of the interplay among the chairman and two coalitions within the board.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Avery, R. B.Qualitative dependent variable program CRAWTRAN. Carnegie-Mellon University Graduate School of Industrial Administration, 1980. (Mimeo)
2.
Ballard, K. B.Differences in parole decisions associated with decision makers . Journal of Research on Crime and Delinquency, 1966, 3, 112-119.
3.
Ballard, K. B.Classification for parole decision policy. Washington, DC: National Institute of Law and Enforcement and Criminal Justice, 1978.
4.
Chesnut, C.Primer for obtaining pardons and paroles in Oklahoma . Oklahoma Bar Journal Quarterly, 1971, 42, 74-77.
5.
Chesnut, C.Pardon and parole practice guidelines . Advocate (Oklahoma Trial Lawyers Association), 1975, 8, 45-48.
6.
Chesnut, C. Letter to members of the Oklahoma Trial Lawyers Association, dated November 5, 1975. Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board Files, 1977.
7.
Cole, G. , & Logan, M.Parole: The consumer's perspective. Criminal Justice Review, 1977, 2, 71-80.
8.
Cole, G. , & Talarico, S.Second thoughts on parole. American Bar Association Journal, 1977, 63, 972-976.
9.
Comstock, J.Administrative law and the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board. Unpublished manuscript, University of Tulsa, 1974.
10.
Fairbanks, R. A.Parole: A function of the judiciary . Oklahoma Law Review, 1974, 27, 634-659.
11.
Fogel, D. ... We are the living proof...: The justice model for corrections. Cincinnati: W. H. Anderson, 1975.
12.
Frank, B. (Ed.). Contemporary corrections: A concept in search of content. Reston, VA: Reston Publishing, 1973.
13.
Gottfredson, D. M. , & Ballard, K. B.Differences in parole decisions associated with decision makers. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 1966, 3, 112-119.
14.
Gottfredson, D. M. , Wilkins, L. T., & Hoffman, P. B.Guidelines for parole and sentencing. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
15.
Gottfredson, D. M. , Wilkins, L. T., Hoffman, P. B., & Singer, S. M.The utilization of experience in parole decision-making: Summary report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, 1974.
16.
Hindelang, M. J. , Gottfredson, M. R., & Flanagan, T. J.Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics: 1980. Albany, NY: Criminal Justice Research Center, 1980.
17.
Hoffman, P. B.Parole policy . Journal of Research on Crime and Delinquency, 1972, 9, 112-133.
18.
Hood, R. , & Sparks, R.Key issues in criminology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.
19.
Martinson, R.What works? Questions and answers about prison reform . Public Interest, 1974, 24(Spring), 22-54.
20.
Morris, N.The future of imprisonment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974.
21.
Moseley, W. H.Parole: How it is working . Journal of Criminal Justice, 1977, 5(3), 185-203.
22.
National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards . Corrections. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1972.
23.
National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service . Parole in the United States: 1976 and 1977. Washington, DC: Author, 1978.
24.
Nerlove, M. , & Press, S. J.Univariate and multivariate log-linear and logistic models. Prepared for the Economic Development Administration and the National Institute of Health, R-1306-EDA/NIH, 1973.
25.
Newman, D. J.Legal model for parole: Future development. In B. Frank (Ed.), Contemporary corrections: A concept in search of content. Reston, VA: Reston Publishing, 1973.
26.
Ohlin, L. E. , & Duncan, O. D.The efficiency of prediction in criminology. American Journal of Sociology, 1949, 54(5), 441-452.
27.
Oklahoma Department of Corrections . Memorandum presented to Parole Board and approved at its May 1976 meeting, Oklahoma City, 1976.
28.
Oklahoma Statutes Annotated, Chapter 7; Title 57.
29.
O'Leary, V.Parole administration. In D. Glaser (Ed.), Handbook of criminology. Skokie, IL: Rand McNally.
30.
O'Leary, V. , & Hanrahan, K.Law and practice in parole proceedings: A national survey. Criminal Law Bulletin, 1977, 13(3), 181-211.
31.
Rogers, J. , & Hayner, N. S.Optimism and accuracy in perceptions of selected parole prediction items. Social Forces, 1968, 46, 388-400.
32.
Sacks, H. R.Promises, performance, and principles: An empirical study of parole decision making in Connecticut . Connecticut Law Review, 1977, 9(3), 347-423.
33.
Scott, J. P.The use of discretion in determining the severity of punishment for incarcerated offenders . Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1974, 65, 214-224.
34.
Travis, L. F., III , & O'Leary, V.Changes in sentencing and parole decision making: 1976-78. Hackensack, NJ: National Institute of Corrections and National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1979.
35.
Wilkins, L. T. , & Gottfredson, D. M.Information selection and use in parole decisionmaking: Supplemental report V. Hackensack, NJ: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1973.
36.
Zimmerman, S. E. , & Tracy, R. L.Models of sentencing behavior. Paper presented at the Criminal Sentencing Panel of CORS-TIMS-ORSA, Joint National Meeting, May 1981.
