Criminology

Early release schemes provided in state prisons and correctional institutions, are an important incentives for prisoners or offenders, who have been confined for various offences and sentences. Parole systems influence prisoners to behave and co-operate while serving their sentences, through interventions with the goal of rehabilitation. The aspect of rehabilitation is thus aimed at reducing probable risks that inmates present, when they are eventually released to the public. Parole systems have their pros and cons, moreover with various perceptions attached to the issue of conducting parole, and releasing prisoners to the community.

Parole or early release schemes have received different perceptions from different bodies, activists, government institutions, and the community since its inception. Various arguments argue for and against the systems of parole citing various advantages and disadvantages, attached to the issue of suspended periods of incarceration, where prisoners are given an opportunity to re-integrate back in the society. Moreover, parole gives strict conditions to the prisoner to observe, coupled by various objectives to achieve in order to eventually receive full release, and allowed back into the community as a reformed individual.

Sanctions towards prisoners depend on the level of criminal offence committed by the offender, and consequently influence the punishment level handed to the prisoner attributed to the severity, and may be classified as follows active punishment in a prison sentience, community punishment, and intermediate punishment. Early release schemes consequently foster initiatives that help in limiting the population size in prison institutions, with the major factor of giving inmates who have qualified for parole, the incentive to embrace rehabilitation and be co-operative on the release program. This scheme gives prisoners a chance to be productive in the community, and reforming their behaviors that are acceptable to the society.

The aim of this study is to analyze, the issue of parole in the criminal justice system, and how this initiative can be used as an incentive to control inmate behavior. In addition, the study will evaluate consequences attributed to delayed releases and how it impacts of prisoners, who have qualified for parole and probation.

The Parole System
Parole can be described as an early release scheme or system that allows for prisoners to be released to the community, prior to completing their sentences. This process is granted upon various factors, such as crucial reports from probation officers and prison reports. Parole can also be defined as the discretionary decision made by State Board of Pardons in prisons and Parole Boards, which make the decision to release a particular prisoner or offender from incarceration or confinement, after she or he has already served a percentage of the prison sentence. Individuals, who are under parole, remain under the state control and supervision, with se conditions for which if they are violated, the person can be re-imprisoned.

There is a significant difference between parole and probation which at many times is confused (Howard, 2003). Probation can be described as an act passed through the courts, and not from the State Board of Pardons. Probation can be awarded instead of imprisonment by a court of law, for part or all, of an individuals sentence. Probation cannot be equated to parole. Parole on the other hand, involves the Parole Board which can grant a person parole, after he or she has served a part of the sentence in prison. Whether parole is granted or not, various other factors influence this process of initiating early release schemes towards inmates.

Some of these factors include the seriousness and type of the offences committed by the prisoner, the situation at home for the prisoner, future plans for inmates after consequent release, and their behavior while they were in prison, compounded by other mitigating points. Parole entails both a discretionary and a guideline process that have merit. Discretionary parole gives the offender a chance for early release from incarceration, before his or her sentence expires based on the condition, towards sustained lawful behavior which is a focus to monitoring and supervision at the community level. The parole personnel ensure that the prisoner complies with the conditions and terms of release. Discretionary parole is supported by the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA), to be a vital and fundamental part in the criminal justice system that strives for commitment towards public safety, reintegration of offenders as productive and law abiding citizens, coupled with victim and community restoration (Levitt, 2004 p.437). Parole decisions are affected by several factors which primarily weigh the relevancy of punishment, community restoration, and successful reintegration of the offender.
Discretionary parole decisions enable correctional bodies to enhance public safety by confining dangerous prisoners, while those who have qualified for early release get the necessary assistance and structure, so that they can assimilate back into the community as responsible and law abiding citizens. Parole decision guidelines enables the parole board to carefully research on the offenders case, and make sound, consistent and understandable parole decisions affecting prisoners who are serving non-life sentences.

These guidelines are essentially applied to non-life cases only, while in the case of life sentence emphasis is placed to the consideration of the offenders severity and nature of crime committed(Anderson, 2004). Moreover, numerous rules have been implemented that govern the eligibility of prisoners, to qualify for parole and successfully embark on the program that would ensure their early release. These rules are related to the inmates length of sentence, type of offence and the date of sentencing. While the potential prisoners are being considered for parole, they have the chance to see the reports concerning their progress and behavior, while simultaneously make their own reports or statements convincing the Parole Board, why they should be permitted for early release, their future plans after they have been released and many other aspects.

The offender may be interviewed by the parole board, but it is not usually mandatory. The inmates case is deliberated by the Parole Board like two months earlier, before the persons eligibility date. This has two advantages in that the panel will have to discuss the offenders case, while at the same time the inmate prepares for early release, when they are granted. In addition, the main concern in awarding parole for prisoners is security, and the risk the public faces if the prisoner commits another offence while in parole, or fully granted release by the correction institution. Most of the times, the prison is given parole notification concerning an inmate who is serving more than fifteen years, and the case consequently put through to the Home Secretary, who will then make their final decisions (Levitt, 2004 p.440).

In any case, if the parole request is denied, the inmate can reapply again after 12 months from the time his or her parole was denied. However, if the inmate is serving less than six months to complete his or her sentence, is not granted parole, with the logic that by the time their case is deliberated for parole, the release date would be close anyway. Additionally, offenders are considered for parole after they have served usually one-third of their sentence. Exceptions are only towards offenders with a term of years attributed to the severity of felony committed, are sentenced to life without parole including fourth-felony recidivists. Automatically, eligible inmates are considered for parole, whether appeals or legal actions are taken against the offender by their representatives. Moreover, when inmates are denied parole once, they are not reconsidered routinely for another chance for parole.

Consequently, if the parole board receives new substantive information concerning the case, it may be reviewed at the Boards discretion (Shepherd, 2002 p.522). This situation arises as the offender cannot appeal regarding the parole decision made, and can only reapply again after one year, but a procedure for complaints is enlisted when an offender feels, their case has been unfairly dealt with in some way.

Parole as an Incentive for good inmate behavior
Parole has the fundamental belief that is rooted on the principle that, offenders can gain motivation and further making positive changes for their lives. Inmates are more inclined to cooperate with correctional institutions, when their release or parole is based on the ground of good behavior. Thereby, when prisoners are offered assistance upon their release, will increase the likelihood of them becoming responsible and law abiding citizens coupled by correctional authorities initiatives. This will ultimately result to enhanced public safety, which is usually the major concern for parole boards upon releasing inmates into the society. Prudence is inherent in the criminal justice system at various levels.

This applies to the police who apply discretion when arresting or taking charges against and offender. More so, the court systems utilizes discretion when indicting individuals, granting pre-release trials, the aspect of going to trial, and the recommendation of criminal penalties for an offender. Judges in the same tow line, use their discretion in determining the proper level of punishment upon an offender, given the circumstances of the individuals criminal history and crime committed. In a particular case, an offender might be sentenced to probation while another one sent to serve sentence in prison, for the same crime committed. Parole boards have to closely and carefully consider or examine, each offender who is eligible for parole, their entire records and simultaneously recognizing that correctional authorize have a better opportunity, to manage prisoners who have built incentives to abide by the institutional rules and regulations (Travis, 1995 p.315). The possibility for parole provides offenders with the incentive and motivation to participate into programs, which will enable them to build competency skills in various areas.

It also provides inmates with hope of early release while at the same time being responsible for the tasks or work given to them. The incentive to participate in educational, work and religious programs, and realizing that improved, industrious and responsible behavior will enable them to pass parole easily, consequently will influence the overall behavior of the inmate in the rehabilitation process, reducing the risk concerns by parole boards of re-occurrence of criminal behaviors. Moreover, the parole boards also comprehend that the majority of the offenders, who are incarcerated in prisons, will at one time be released. This board is placed in a unique position, where it can be able to address and listen to the concerns and needs of prisoners and the community. The parole boards provide a framework for control over communication, between victims and offenders and thereby provide assistance to victims, and aid in the process of community restoration with an environment that is free from damage of crime.

Parole boards play a significant role in the criminal justice system, by weighing all relevant factors which are deemed essential to the early release scheme for inmates. In addition, they ensure that offenders who have passed their parole through good behavior and released into the society, are continually managed under community supervision, therefore enhancing pubic safety through the program. Essentially, the parole board applies a reasonable process, during the period at which there is inadequacy of correctional beds, by targeting prisoners with established good behavior and conducts through parole initiatives, and poses minimum risk to community safety, hence scheduling them for early release to alleviate the problem of congestion in correctional facilities (Travis, 1995 p.320).

Core services applied through parole include aspects of release planning, investigations, community supervision, victim advocacy, treatment services and immediate response to violations, in order to enhance and promote good behaviors for prison inmates while simultaneously voicing the concerns for victims, thereby establishing a valuable and natural ally where advocacy groups and victims issues, are heard and heeded. More so, inmates get the opportunity to rehabilitate and conform from criminal instances, with the possibility of parole. Reformed offenders who have proved to be productive and responsible, get the chance to be reintegrated back into the society, and consequently involving themselves with meaningful activities. Support and supervision from both the parole boards and the community at large, can play a tremendous role in completely rehabilitating a convicted person, while ensuring productivity and reform from further criminal activities. 

Pros and Cons of Parole
The primary role of early release schemes or parole programs is to enable low risk prisoners to be integrated back into the society, through good behavior while in prison. Delayed paroles can have various negative consequences in both the correctional institutions and the government. With no possibility of parole or early release schemes, prisoners will not really be motivated to adapt to good behaviors. Moreover, prisoners unrests and fighting have been observed over the past years primarily generating from frustrations of inmates, who feel that they deserve parole and constantly denied the opportunity. Unfair justice systems may consequently demoralize potential inmate candidates who can be enlisted for parole, and later achieving full release and integrates back into the community.

The aim of parole is to give prisoners the incentive to transform and change their attitudes, in the essence of being responsible and law abiding citizens who can be assimilated back into the society, without the fear of criminal re-occurrence or offences (Shepherd, 2002 p.530). Therefore, delayed early release programs not only put pressure upon inmates and correctional institutions, but also the different governments, states or countries with overcrowded prisons. The governments usually end up spending considerable amounts of funds to support the running of prisons, which can be a burden especially on a slow economy. Early release programs through government initiatives, are aimed at saving money, especially in a crippling economic time to ensure that budgets keep afloat.

However, critics towards such government measures, warn that such initiatives are usually destined to fail when they are not accompanied by sufficient supervision and support. Simply releasing prisoners is observed as a myopic move in the initiative of decongesting prisons, and this places the public safety at risk, as contested by critics. Moreover, the issue of parole has received various criticisms concerning the initiative and the procedure of allowing previously convicted offenders back into the society. The major concern for those groups and individuals is the security risk posed by these prisoners, who have acquired release through good conduct while they were serving time in prison.

On whatever stage and ground the prisoners are released early, arguments reflect that the perception of truth in sentencing with prisoner parole somehow means that the offender has escaped his or her just deserts (Shepherd, 2002 p.510). A portion of the inmates released on the scheme of parole, usually re-offend even while on license, in essence which could not have happened if there was no parole or early release of offenders. Moreover, the population size in the prisons ought to be a public concern, because the correctional institutions and authorities incur major expenses while catering for the prisoners. It makes a poor economic sense, in the aspect that keeping more people in prison would get security risks off the community, making the public a safer place. Whatever is contested in favor of truth in sentencing is proving to be an expensive luxury.

Parole and probation are integral part in the criminal justice system that enhances the protection of victims, ensuring good behavior from offenders, and promoting overall community safety. Despite the motive behind the initiative of early release and consequent parole, controversies have arisen concerning early release of offenders from federal penal institutions. However, such controversies are based on the general public ignorance towards the specifics involved in parole. Some of the opinions by members of the public are usually biased in nature, concerning the justice system or criminals. Most of the concerns do not usually reflect the reality of the situation on the ground, regarding the early release system or parole. Adding to these potential misinterpretations from the public, the parole system is in fact rather secretive by nature and the public usually gets wind of the knowledge, through sensational or high profile figures being released.

Apart from various misconceptions by the public, the parole system has its own share of problems in practical application. The decision towards specifying inmates who have qualified for parole or early release, even when it is subjected to intensive examination process, through analysis of inmates reports concerning conducts of behavior, usually presents a large margin to errors. It is not possible to predict on 100 percent accuracy, that when an inmate is scheduled for early release that he or she will not re-offend. Consequently, when the parolee re-offends, leads to the public receiving the information concerning the parole system, further compounding on the negative image the system has.

Conclusion
The parole system has always been at the centre of debate, and will always have both supporters and critics. Early release schemes since their inception had the motive of giving incentive to inmates, to adapt good behaviors and consequently motivate them to indulge in responsible education, work and religious activities while demonstrating productivity and reformed behaviors and character. In this respect, correctional authorities have been able to release low risk offenders, back into the community simultaneously easing expenses of maintaining and running prisons.

Decongestion of prison facilities has been always adopted by various governments in the past years, to save revenue in crippling economic times. However, such moves have usually received criticisms from the public and activists, who view such initiatives to present high risk to the community. The parole system receives its fair share of difficulties mostly in assessing inmates who have qualified for parole, and consequently making the decision hoping that the prisoner will not re-offend. Parole is a common aspect in the criminal justice system, which may vary in specifics of conditions imposed, from one country to another, but the general principle more or less have the same characteristics.

Parole will entail a qualified offender serving his part of the sentence, on community based programs while under supervision from parole officers, with the parolee subject to recall in the event of misconduct or re-offending. Parole in the correctional system has both its strengths and weaknesses, therefore requiring continuous revision and improvement of the system.