Thesis: getting rid of parole boards does little if anything to reduce recidivism, and in fact there is evidence that the parole system is more effective in reducing repeat criminality. Is Discretionary Release a Better System than Mandatory Release? According to journalist Fox Butterfield (writing in The New York Times), in 1999 several states that had eliminated parole boards "reinstituted" them because their prisons became overcrowded to the point that these states "were forced to release many of them early" (Butterfield, 1999)
3). Meanwhile, micro-data research based on corrections-related data from state of Georgia show that typically parole boards assign "…longer terms to those with higher ex-ante recidivism risk" (Kuziemko, 2007)
The board is independent of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, but the two work closely, with the latter carrying out such responsibilities as supervising parolees, determining their release, and housing convicted felons (Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, 2011). A Brief History of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles The Texas legislature, in 1929, did away with the "two-member board of patron advisors, which had existed since 1893, and established a three-person body to advise the governor on clemency matters" (Lucko, 2010)
In deciding whether or not to grant parole to an offender, the board makes use of a case summary provided by the parole commissioners. Some of the information captured in the case summary includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of the offender's; Current offence: the weight of the specific offence that put the offender in prison, together with the amount of time already served (Topek, 2014)
Working for the board therefore implies having to deal with misunderstandings brought about by differences in views, values, and beliefs. The Public's Negativity: with the high levels of recidivism reported annually, the public has lost confidence in the parole board for what it considers failure to enact effective parole release and eligibility conditions (Worsham, 2014)
For example, as there are approximately 60% of minor offenders who are having early releases from prisons after initial appearance before parole board, this should not be a cause of alarm. This is because the eligibility to releasing depends on the minimum sentence jail term less the good time and jail term of the victim (Clear, Cole, & Reisig, 2008, p
As statistics indicate that for example in Illinois, it costs an average of 23, 394 dollars to maintain a single prisoner annually, which translates to about 1.43 billion dollars total corrections budget as there is a 33% additional population in the prison, reducing numbers in prisons is the key to reducing costs (Corley, 2009)
According to the assistant corrections director of Illinois, Mr. Benos, the prospects are that the State will be able to save up to 5 million dollars by releasing some convicts early as confining prisoners behind bars might seem protecting the public from hardcore criminals but it translates to them paying significantly for prisoners maintenance (Iannacci, & Morris, 1999, p
¶ … Prison Inmates Should Be Paroled Early to Help Control the State's Budget Problems This paper argues that inmates at State prisons should be having premature releases from prisons so that the States can manage their budget problems. As the paper illustrates, despite criticisms on parole that it introduces unreformed culprits back in the society and that the program is unorganized, parole is a major contributor in reducing prison populations, which directly translates to reduced State expenditures (Licari, 2009)
In addition, the parole calls for state to provide staff with appropriate equipment and mandate that enables faster procedures that does not necessarily require return to court that can lead to imprisonment hence releasing population pressure in jails. Moreover, parole ensures that low risk criminals/offenders ends up serving, in majority States, between 100 and 120% of their possible minimum jail sentence and this makes sure that all individuals put on parole must at least spent some time under supervision in the society to reform (Norelli, 2010)
53). In addition, parole can fail in that it overturns its intended purpose of reducing costs to increasing costs where prisoners are not released rendering the who argument meaningless (Raphael, 2009, p
All the implementation of parole releases has either direct or indirect economic effect to the States as well as the prisoner and society as a whole. Reformed individuals are able to earn their income thus independent of the government (Sons, n
Because it could be difficult to think of situations of governance that can avoid political influence, politics have greatly affected how parole boards function. For example, this has led to 16 States abolishing parole completely while others reduced the eligible number of releases annually increasing population in prisons as prisoners continues trickling in jails (Travis, 2005, p
6 billion dollars annually. When the programs fully take off, the officials estimate approximately to save about 500 million dollars annually (Watkins, 2010)
"The Fourth Amendment makes probable cause the key term in the arrest process. The police need probable cause to make an arrest, whether they are asking a judge to issue an arrest warrant or justifying an arrest after it has been made" (Berman, 2012)
For example, an increased risk of spread of disease would lead to sick officers, which can contribute to understaffing issues, making it more difficult for officers to properly contain fights. Inmate-on-officer assaults may pose the greatest risk: in fiscal year 2010, there were 1,700 assaults by prisoners on staff in federal prisons (Davidson, 2012)
The problem is more dramatic in California, where "between 60,000 and 70,000 California parolees return to custody annually for violations. They may have failed a drug test, gone missing, or even committed a new crime for which they were not prosecuted" (Farrell, 2009)
However, the severity of these parole violations may vary dramatically. For example, in North Carolina, "56% of new admissions to state prisons in 2009 were because of probation violations and 73% of those were because of technical violations like missing curfew or failing a drug screening" (Hunt, 2009)
On the other hand, if he does not relax conditions and the prisons stay as overcrowded as they currently are, then the state may lose control over the parole standards, which could result in an even greater risk to public safety. This occurred in 2009, when a federal court ordered California to reduce its prison population by one-third (Moore, 2009)
It is also noted that the objectives of creating an integrating effect for convicts and society is essentially lacking due to ineffective systems followed throughout the organization. The parole officers are overloaded with the work and as a result adequate care cannot be extended to each individual (Gayman, & Bradley, 2012)