Recent Australian reforms to parole following high-profile violations are premised on a purported public desire for greater restrictions on the use of parole. These changes reflect the tendency of legislatures to presume that the public is largely punitive and invoke a ‘forfeiture’ of rights rationale that weakens support for offender rehabilitation. We consider whether restricting parole is based on a sound reading of public views. Drawing on a national study of public opinion on parole in Australia, we use a latent variable approach to look for distinct patterns in attitudes to parole and re-entry. We also examine what factors explain these patterns. The results support the conclusion that appealing to a public belief in offenders’ ability to change may be the most effective way to increase public confidence in parole systems.
ApplegateBCullenFFisherB, et al. (2000) Forgiveness and fundamentalism: Reconsidering the relationship between correctional attitudes and religion. Criminology38: 719–753.
CullenFClarkGCullenJ, et al. (1985) Attribution, salience, and attitudes toward criminal sanctioning. Criminal Justice and Behavior12: 305–331.
8.
CullenFFisherBApplegateB (2000) Public opinion about punishment and corrections. Crime and Justice27: 1–79.
9.
DoddS (2018) The punitive woman? Gender differences in public attitudes toward parole among an Australian sample. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology62(10): 3006–3022.
10.
FitzgeraldRBartelsLFreibergA, et al. (2016) How does the Australian public view parole? Results from a national survey on public attitudes towards parole and re-entry. Criminal Law Journal40: 307–324.
11.
FreibergA (2001) Three strikes and you’re out – it’s not cricket: Colonization and resistance in Australian sentencing. In: TonryMFraseR (eds) Sentencing and Sanctions in Western Nations. New York: Oxford University Press, 29–61.
12.
FreibergACarsonW (2010) The limits to evidence-based policy: Evidence, emotion and criminal justice. Australian Journal of Public Administration69(2): 152–164.
13.
FreibergAFoxR (2014) Fox and Freiberg’s Sentencing: State and Federal Law in Victoria. Pyrmont, NSW: Thomson Reuters.
14.
FreibergABartelsLFitzgeraldR, et al. (2018) Parole, politics and penal policy. QUT Law Journal18: 1–26.
15.
GarlandD (2001) The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
HurwitzJPeffleyM (1997) Public perceptions of race and crime: The role of racial stereotypes. American Journal of Political Science41: 375–402.
18.
IndermaurDRobertsLSpiranovicC, et al. (2012) A matter of judgement: The effect of information and deliberation on public attitudes to punishment. Punishment & Society14(2): 147–165.
LaceyNPickardH (2015) To blame or to forgive? Reconciling punishment and forgiveness in criminal justice. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies3: 665–696.
23.
LanzaSRhoadesB (2013) Latent class analysis: An alternative perspective on subgroup analysis in prevention and treatment. Prevention Science14: 157–168.
24.
LippkeR (2001) Criminal offenders and right forfeiture. Journal of Social Philosophy32: 78–89.
25.
LoaderI (2011) Playing with fire? Democracy and the emotions of crime and punishment. In: KarstedtSLoaderIStrangH (eds) Emotions, Crime and Justice. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 347–362.
26.
MackenzieGSpiranovicCWarnerK, et al. (2012) Sentencing and public confidence: Results from a national Australian survey on public opinions towards sentencing. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology45: 45–65.
27.
MaguireEJohnsonD (2015) The structure of public opinion on crime policy: Evidence from seven Caribbean nations. Punishment & Society17(4): 502–530.
28.
MarunaS (2001) Making Good: How Ex-Convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
29.
MarunaSKingA (2008) Selling the public on probation: Beyond the bib. Probation Journal55: 337–351.
30.
MarunaSKingA (2009) Once a criminal, always a criminal? ‘Redeemability’ and the psychology of the punitive public attitudes. European Journal of Criminal Policy Research15: 7–24.
31.
MasynK (2013) Latent class analysis and finite mixture modeling. In: LittleTD (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Quantitative Methods in Psychology, Vol. 2. New York: Oxford University Press, 551–611.
NylundKAsparouhovTMuthénB (2007) Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling14: 535–569.
34.
O’HearMWheelockD (2015) Imprisonment inertia and public attitudes toward ‘truth in sentencing’. Brigham Young University Law Review2: 257–306.
35.
O’SullivanKHoldernessDHongXY, et al. (2017) Public attitudes in Australia to the reintegration of ex-offenders: Testing a belief in redeemability (BiR) scale. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research23: 409–424.
36.
OuelletteHApplegateBVukM (2016) The public’s stance on prisoner reentry: Policy support and personal acceptance. American Journal of Criminal Justice42(4): 768–789.
37.
PetersiliaP (2003) When Prisoners Come Home. New York: Oxford University Press.
38.
ReichS (2017) An exception to the rule: Belief in redeemability, desistance signals, and the employer’s decision to hire a job applicant with a criminal record. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation56(2): 110–136.
39.
RobertsJVHoughM (2002) Changing Public Views of Punishment: Lessons from Around the Globe. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
40.
SotiriM (2016) An exploration of best practice in community-based reintegration programs for people leaving custody in the US and the UK. Report to the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust of Australia.
41.
SundtJCullenFThieloA, et al. (2015) Public willingness to downsize prisons: Implications from Oregon. Victims & Offenders10: 365–378.
42.
UK Ministry of Justice (2018) Review of the law, policy and procedure relating to parole board decisions. Cm 9611. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
WarnerKDavisJWalterM, et al. (2011) Public judgement on sentencing: Final results from the Tasmanian Jury Sentencing Study. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No. 407. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
45.
WarnerKDavisJSpiranovicC, et al. (2016) Measuring jurors’ views on sentencing: Results from the Second Australian Jury Sentencing Study. Punishment and Society19: 180–202.
46.
WellmanC (2012) The rights forfeiture theory of punishment. Ethics122: 371–393.
47.
WexlerDWinickB (1990) Therapeutic jurisprudence as a new approach to mental health law policy analysis and research. University of Miami Law Review45: 979–1004.
