The research reported here suggests that parole boards may enchance the accuracy of their predictive judgements on the basis of post-sentencing information. The denial of such an ability may not only be inconsistent with the evidence, but may also obviate the need to surface the critical policy debates of propriety and effectiveness noted above. In addition, this research implies the need for continued investigation in this area. Most obvious is the need to investigate the generalizability of these results. Such research might also profit from O'Leary and Glaser's study and investigate the differential relationship of misconduct reports according to inmate Future research might also attempt to further discriminate between various behaviors that result in disciplinary infractions. It might attend more specifically to the types of behavior being predicted (e.g., violent or non-violent) and the probability of occurrence associated with each type. No doubt this will require very large samples but such studies are necessary so long as empirical issues are used as justifications for public policy recommendations in criminal justice. characteristics. FOOTNOTES For analytical purposes the parole process can be partitioned into the discretionary release phase and the supervision phase. The first involves the decision as to how much time should be served before release from prison. The second involves aftercare services, supervision, and revocation. This article deals explicitly only with the release function of parole. For general commentary on supervision, see A. von Hirsch and K. Hanrahan, The Question of Parole, (1979). The data used in this study were collected as part of a parole decisionmaking project directed by Don M. Gottfredson and Leslie T. Wilkins in collaboration with the United States Board of Parole. Their permission to use the data is greatly appreciated. The coding procedures and definitions of terms are reported in D. Gottfredson and S. Singer, Parole Decision-Making Coding Manual, Supplemental Report Two, NCCD Research Center, National Council on Crime and Delinquency, Davis, California, 1973. The proportion of cases drawn by year are as follows: For 1970, 50 percent of the cases between January and June and 20 percent of the cases between July and December were randomly selected resulting in 2,497 cases; for 1972, 30 percent of the cases between January and June were randomly selected resulting in 1,011 cases. sample was drawn prior to the adoption by the Parole Board of the guideline system (see D. Gottfredson, P. Hoffman, M. Sigler and L. Wilkins, "Making Paroling Policy Explicit" 21 Crime and Delinquency 1 (1975)). 3106 cases were excluded because of lack of follow-up information. 4 The Reliability estimates for the data used may be found in J. Beck, S. Singer, W. Brown, and G. Pasela, The Reliability of Information in the Parole Decision-Making Study, 1973, Davis, Calif.: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. See, Guideline Application Manual, U. S. Parole Commission Research Unit, Report Sixteen, November 1977. Limitations in the current data set have required that minor variations from the official U. S. Parole Commission coding procedures be made for some variables. The prior convictions variable included an "other" category that may contain a small number of non-countable offenses. Furthermore, if the offender had a conviction-free record for 20 consecutive years it was not possible to eliminate convictions prior to this period. For the variable that includes previous parole performance it was only known if parole had been revoked. It was not known if a sentence to incarceration for a new offense was imposed and parole was not revoked. For commitment offense involving an auto theft or check forgery this could only be ascertained if the inmate was convicted of these offenses. For the verified employment variable if the inmate was a student or unemployable for 75% of the previous two years the inmate was given a score of one. "In order to explore this hypothesis the sample was divided into two groups on the basis of time-served: those serving less than 18 months and those serving 18 months or more. The relationship between the summary measure 6 (continued) of disciplinary infractions and release performance was examined for each group controlling for the Salient Factor Score. The categories of the Salient Factor Score used as controls were poor (0 thru 3), fair (4 and 5), and good/very good (6 thru 11). The analysis revealed that with one exception the relationship between prison misconduct and release performance was statistically significant (p < .02) and consistently in the direction reported in the text. The exception was the group of inmates serving less than 18 months and having a "fair" Salient Factor Score. These results suggest that the relationship between prison misconduct and release performance may hold even when the effects of Salient Factor Score and length of imprisonment are taken into account. REFERENCES Citizen's Inquiry on Parole and Criminal Justice, Inc. Report on New York Parole: A Summary. Criminal Law Bulletin 11:273-303. 1975 Dawson, R. Sentencing: The Decision as to Type, Length and Conditions of 1969 Sentence. Boston: Little, Brown. Journal Gottfredson, D., Gottfredson, M., and Garofalo, J. Time Served in Prison 1973 Gottfredson, D., Neithercutt, M. G., Nuffield, J., and O'Leary, V. Four Thousand Lifetimes: A Study of Time Served and Parole Outcomes. Davis, Calif.: Research Center, National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Gottfredson, D. 1970 Assessment of Prediction Methods. In N. Johnston, L. Savitz, and M. Wolfgang, eds., The Sociology of Punishment and Corrections, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Gottfredson, D. and Ballard, K. The Validity of Two Parole Prediction Scales: An 8 Year Follow Up Study. Vacaville, Calif.: National 1965 Gottfredson, M. 1979 Gottfredson, M. 1979 Hoffman, P. and 1978 Parole Institute. Parole Board Decision-Making: A Study of Disparity Reduction and the Impact of Institutional Behavior. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 70:77-88. Parole Guidelines and the Reduction of Sentencing Disparity: Stover, M. Reform in the Determination of Prison Terms: Hoffman, P., Stone-Meierhoefer, B. and Beck, J. Salient Factor Score and Hoffman, P. and Beck, J. 1976 Cohort. Human Behavior 2:47 Salient Factor Score Validation A 1972 Release Parole Decision-making: A Salient Factor Score. Hoffman, P. and Beck. J. 1974 Jaman, D. 1970 Behavior During the First Year in Prison as Related to Parole Lipton, D., Martinson, R. and Wilks, J. 1975 Treatment. New York: The Effectiveness of Correctional 90-231 0 - 82 -- 27 I have previously expressed general objections to the Criminal Code Revision Act of 1980, H.R.6915. After study of the House and Senate versions of this bill, I continue to hold the opinion that the passage of omnibus criminal-code legislation would result in the deprivation of some fundamental rights that we now take for granted. The major adverse impact of these bills appears to lie in such pivotal areas as imrisonment, national security, federal jurisdiction, law-enforcement powers, criminal procedure, the rights of unions, and all forms of freedom of expression. H.R.6915 is not now as pernicious as its Senate counterpart, S.1722. The Senate bill is rather frightening, exhibiting a callous disregard for the rights of individuals. The danger in continuing toward passage of H.R.6915 lies in the high probability that both bills will evolve into a form that is somewhat worse than that of the present Senate version. Therefore H.R.6915 deserves the most careful consideration, not only on its own merits, but also because of its role as a vehicle for aggravating amendments. It would be a great relief to see either or both bills defeated. With this letter I enclose my detailed comments on H.R.6915 and S.1722. If there is any way in which you or the Judiciary Committee can make constructive use of my remarks, please feel free to do so. Yours truly, олочение све Дитведен APR 2 9 1980 Log |
