This article is written as part of a special issue of the European Journal of Probation, which seeks not simply to describe and to critique ‘parole’ as it has evolved over time, but to focus on the justifications and the actors involved in parole decision-making and supervision. This article explores the changing face of ‘parole’ in England and Wales. The Parole Board today has little in common with the Parole Board of 1967. The characteristics of the prisoners who appear before panels of the Board have also changed. ‘Parole’ is now a very different process, no longer ‘early conditional release’, but what might better be described as ‘delayed conditional release’. This requires a fundamental re-analysis of its purpose and the justifications for its use.
BeckmannMM (2016) Walk the line: Assessing prison conduct for parole in the Netherlands. In: ArmstrongRDurnescuI (eds) Parole and Beyond: International experiences of Life after Prison. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
2.
BiltonABottomleyAK (2012) About parole. Prison Service Journal200: 15–17.
3.
BottomleyAK (1972) Reports of the Parole Board 1968–70. British Journal of Criminology12: 89–91.
4.
BottomleyAK (1973) Parole Decisions in a long-term closed prison. British Journal of Criminology13: 26–40.
5.
BottomleyAK (1984) Dilemmas of parole in a penal crisis. Howard Journal23: 24–46.
6.
BottomleyAK (1990) Parole in Transition: A comparative study of origins, developments and prospects for the 1990s. In: TonryMMorrisN (eds) Crime and Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 12, pp. 319–374.
7.
BottomsAE (1980) An introduction to ‘the coming crisis. In: BottomsAEPrestonRH (eds) The Coming Penal Crisis. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
8.
BradfordSCowellP (2012) The decision-making process at parole reviews (indeterminate imprisonment for public protection sentences). Research Summary1/12. London: Ministry of Justice.
9.
CantonR (2007) Probation and the tragedy of punishment. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice46(3): 236–254.
10.
CantonR (2017) Why Punish? An Introduction to the Philosophy of Punishment. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
11.
CollinsH (2007) A consideration of discretion, offender attributes and the process of recall. In: PadfieldN (ed.) Who to Release? Parole, Fairness and Criminal Justice. Cullompton: Willan Publishing, pp. 159–172.
12.
CracknellM (2018) Post-release reforms for short prison sentences: Re-legitimising and widening the net of punishment. Probation Journal65: 302–315.
13.
DanzigerSLevavJAvnaim-PessoL (2011). Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences108(17): 6889–6892.
14.
GuineyT (2018a) Getting out: Early Release in England and Wales, 1960-1995. Oxford: Clarendon Studies in Criminology.
15.
GuineyT (2018b) An idea whose time had come? The creation of a modern system of parole in England and Wales, 1960–1968. Prison Service Journal237: 14–17.
16.
HartWHealyD (2018) ‘An inside job’: An autobiographical account of desistance. European Journal of Probation: 1–17.
17.
HeddermanC (1988) Short sentence prisoners: The characteristics of those judged suitable and unsuitable for parole by Local Review Committees. Research Bulletin25: 14–17.
18.
Herzog-EvansMPadfieldN (2015) The JAP: Lessons for England and Wales?. London: Criminal Justice Alliance.
19.
Home Office (1989) The Parole System in England and Wales: Report of the Review Committee. Cm 532. London: HMSO.
20.
HoodRShuteS (1995) Paroling with New Criteria: Evaluating the Impact and Effects of Changes in the Parole System: Phase Two. Oxford: Centre for Criminological Research.
21.
HoodRShuteS, with the assistance of Wilcox A (2000) The Parole System at Work: A Study of Risk Based Decision-Making. Home Office Research Study No. 202. London: Home Office.
22.
HoodRShuteS (2000) Parole Decision-Making: Weighing the Risk to the Public. Home Office Research Findings No. 114. London: Home Office.
23.
HoodRShuteSFeilzerM, et al. (2002) Sex offenders emerging from long-term imprisonment: a study of their long-term reconviction rates and of parole board members’ judgements of their risk. British Journal of Criminology42: 371–394.
24.
KingR (2018) Decisions, decisions, decisions: Reflections on 50 years of parole. Prison Service Journal237: 18–21.
25.
LammyD (2017) The Lammy Review: An Independent Review into the Treatment of, and Outcomes for, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Individuals in the Criminal Justice System. London: Lammy Review.
26.
LackenbyJ (2018) To Parole or not to parole? How do Parole Board members make decisions about parole?Prison Service Journal237: 32–35.
27.
McCabeS (1985) The powers and purposes of the Parole Board. Criminal Law Review: 489–499.
28.
MartinS (2018) Does preparing for parole help prepare for life?Prison Service Journal237: 46–49.
29.
MorganN (1983) The shaping of parole in England and Wales [1983]. Criminal Law Review: 137–151.
30.
MorrisPBeverlyFVennardJ (1975) On Licence: A Study of Parole. London: Wiley.
31.
NuttallC (1973) Parole selection. British Journal of Criminology13(1): 41–45.
32.
NuttallC., et al. (1977) Parole in England and Wales. Home Office Research Study No 38. London: HMSO.
33.
PadfieldN (2002) Beyond the Tariff: Human Rights and the Release of Life Sentence Prisoners. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
34.
PadfieldN (2013) Understanding Recall 2011. Cambridge: Faculty of Law Research paper No. 2/2013.
35.
PadfieldN (2016) The magnitude of the offender rehabilitation and ‘through the gate’ resettlement revolution. Criminal Law Review: 99–115.
36.
PadfieldN (2017a) Parole Board oral hearings 2016 – exploring the barriers to release: avoiding or managing risks? Report of a pilot study. Cambridge: Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 62/2017.
37.
PadfieldN (2017b) Parole Board Oral Hearings 2016-2017 – Exploring the barriers to release: Stage two of an exploratory study. Cambridge: Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 63/2017.
38.
PadfieldN (2018) The future of the Parole Board post-Warboys?Independent Monitor (June): 7–9
39.
PadfieldN (2019) The game of crime and punishment. In: BlagdenDde RondM (eds) Games: Conflict, Competition, and Cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 25–40.
40.
PadfieldNLieblingA, with ArnoldH (2000) An Exploration of Decision-making at Discretionary Lifer Panels. Home Office Research Study No. 213. London: Home Office.
41.
PadfieldNDünkelFvan Zyl SmitD (eds) (2010) Release from Prison – European Policy and Practice. Cullompton: Willan.
42.
PowerS (2018) To release or not to release? A study of Parole Board decision-making at paper hearings for recalled determinate sentence prisoners. Prison Service Journal237: 26–31.
43.
RobertsJ (2018) The Parole Board and the Warboys case. Criminal Law Review: 808–828.
44.
ShuteS (2003) The development of parole and the role of research in its reform. In: ZednerLAshworthA (eds) The Criminological Foundation of Penal Policy: Essays in Honour of Roger Hood. Oxford: Clarendon Studies in Criminology.
45.
ShuteS (2004) Does parole work? The empirical evidence from England and Wales. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law: 315–331.
46.
StoneN (1988) Parole: revamp or revoke. Probation Journal35: 10–14
47.
ThomasDA (ed.) Parole: Its Implications for the Criminal Justice and Penal Systems. Cambridge: Institute of Criminology.
48.
ThorntonA (2007) Current practice and future changes: A judicial member’s perspective. In: PadfieldN (ed.) Who to Release? Parole, Fairness and Criminal Justice. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
49.
WasikMPeaseK (1986) The parole veto and the party politics. Criminal Law Review: 379–382.
