In the Shoes of a Parolee: How a Prisoner is Controlled by the Parole System - Research Paper Example

In the Shoes of a Parolee: How a Prisoner is Controlled by the Parole System Introduction A parole can be used as an incentive to control the inmates’ behavior. There is incentive in the process of the parole system. There is such a corresponding advantage or benefit that is acquired during the period for the selection of a parolee who would be granted with a provisional release. Prisoners who are supposed to be subjected in this system, or much more known as parolees ‘behave so much’ in a sense to comply with the regulations of the selection of who would be granted with this conditional release. On that same note, the prisoners become aware of the prohibitions that they should not do just to get entitled to this grant of freedom. Their traits and behaviors are controlled by this system; this for sure is eventually not only for the benefit of the parolee, but for safety and security of the State more importantly. From the very fact that one adheres to the stringent rules of the parole system, the inmates’ behavior becomes controlled by the parole selection. For a fact, there are set terms and conditions of the parole which a prisoner or a then-be parolee would be following. For one, it can be a condition that a parolee should have no disciplinary cases within the correctional facility, like he or she should not be engaged in any conflicts and brawls or fights. Another condition can be that he participates in the peace and development of the society within the imprisonment. He or she might be required to do some work which is, on its face, beneficial among his or her community within the correctional facility. In these conditions, the prisoner’s behavior is thus regulated but though controlled, there are incentives. These incentives will be discussed in the latter part of this piece. The thought of having the chance to have freedom from the confinement is so ideal to them. Thus, a prisoner definitely has to follow the set and imposed conditions on them. To lose such chance of a lifetime would really be a huge waste on each part. The prisoners must make means just not to let that chance slip away; not to let that grant of freedom be taken away from one. The grant of being provisionally released from the confines of the imprisonment and to be returned back to the society, with his compliance to what has been set upon and agreed to by the Parole Board. Parole can be equated to an addictive drug to the prisoners’ minds. It is an escape for them, but a legal one. And so, when they think about it as a thought of acquiring one’s freedom back again, it controls their behavior in such a way that they would comply or behave properly to become a candidate for the parole selection. Although there are restraints when a parolee would come out of the correctional facility, it is the government’s means to secure the welfare of the society. As found in the Yale Law Journal, “Observations on the Administration of Parole” authored by Schwartz & Tushnet (1970), the parole system involves the goal of rehabilitation; to guide and supervise the parolees in a certain period. Parole as a Prisoner Rehabilitation Strategy Conceptualizing parole as simple and as plain view as possible, it can be used as a good strategy of the government to control the prisoners’ behavior. The idea that prisoners would be granted with a conditional release is a tempting thought to them. Envisioning this grant, it is undeniably a chance to have freedom again as they see it. If at least one would try to put his shoes in a prisoner’s, to be moved out of a correctional facility from having served a portion of his or her sentence and to live by with the provisions or agreements by the parole for a definite time depending on his compliance to it, is definitely an option a prisoner would consider. When we hear of behavior being controlled, one cannot help but think and relate these words with the psyche or the mind. This piece will delve into the after-effects of the possibility—if a prisoner has this notion in his head: the ‘tempting’ conditional release in the terms of the parole agreement. Basically, if the authority granting would set out the terms, agreements, guidelines and benefits of this conditional release at the outset, there is a chance that every one of the prisoners would say ‘Yes’ to it. There is no doubt about that. Freedom is what they hope for. Freedom to be out of the enclosure and to be out in the open again. The thought of living once again in the life they used to have is ideal in their minds. To be granted this is a chance to get back to the ‘normalcy’ they used to have (Solomon, Visher & Yahner, 2008). As asked by Schnur (1951), in his article “The Validity of Parole Selection”, the very core question of the grant of parole is :”When shall this prison inmate be returned in society?” Before going right away to how parole becomes an incentive to control inmate behavior, it is a necessity to discuss about what parole is and whether or not, with the power and the discretion of the Parole Board, is an inmate justified to be returned to the society. As mentioned earlier, it is a conditional release of a prisoner who had served his sentence partially and he is granted to be moved out of the correctional facility granting that he or she would abide by the rules set aside in the parole agreement. To be in the shoes of the Parole Board, it is a necessity to identify whether this particular inmate deserves to be given freedom conditionally; asking themselves would this individual become a threat or harm or turn out as an aid or an advantage to the society. The public’s safety, welfare and security is at risk by the Parole Board’s answer to that question. It is in their point of view on whether the span of time that an inmate had stayed in prison, is he or she already fit to be returned back to the society. It is for them to answer this question. The possibility that these prisoners, these then-be parolees turn out as recidivists is an important factor they would consider in their parole selection. And if these parolees would continue their criminal liability, it is a huge mistake on the board to grant him or her that said provisional release. They now become a huge liability to the society (Solomon et al, 2008). The after-effects of parole to the behavior of inmates is worth discussing. The following two passages will deal with a case study about former prisoners from Illinois, Ohio and Texas in the duration of 2002 through 2005 (Solomon et al., 2008). All of the statistical data are attributed to the said case study. In a nutshell, these passages will tell us about the statistical data gathered by the study, in particular the population of the parolees, how many of them violated the parole agreements and the reasons for such violations. In addition to this, as to the latter passage, it would deal about the positive outcomes of the parole system—how the parolees’ lives changed after being granted by such provisional release. The study targeted male inmates who served at least one year in state prisons and returned to the following areas: Chicago, Illinois; Cleveland, Ohio; and Houston, Texas. The prisoners were 36 years old on average, with about more than 1/3 of the inmates under the age of 30 upon release. 3/4 of the 740 prisoners were released to parole supervision. The racial breakdown of prisoners on parole involves more nonwhite parolees like black and other racial descent over white. Respondents ranked the most helpful thing their parole agents did eight months after their release. The results are: only less than a quarter of those on parole said "nothing"; more than ¼ of the population of parolees were given by their parole agents encouragement; less than a quarter said that their agents talked to them and were very understanding of what they are experiencing; a small percentage of the parolees said that they were assisted in their search for jobs; and the smallest percentage is 3% who suggest that the parole agents helped the parolees to search for drug rehabilitation programs and aided them in their living situation in being reverted back to the society. Eight months after the inmates release, a quarter of the population of the parolees violated their condition. In general, however, 9 out of 10 of the parolees reported that they are complying with their conditions—abiding by every rule set by the Parole Board. As regards to the reasons why parolees violated the set conditions, the most common ones, as reported by the agents after the parolees’ post release, are: not associating with their agents; failing to take drug and/or alcohol testing; going to places where drugs are used and dealt with; not wanting to attend drug/alcohol treatment; not wanting to pay any other fees; not agreeing with random drug testing; not maintaining physical contact with parole officer; not notifying their parole officer about where they are (for instance, if there are any changes on their residence); and finally, they do not maintain telephone contact with their parole agents (Solomon et al., 2008). The positive effects of the parole system is worth pointing out. The parolees, for the most part, continued to have positive family relationships when they were released from imprisonment. Also most of the respondent-parolees affirmed having very strong emotional support from their families; that there is a tangible support and relationship quality post release from their loved ones. They also declared how their partnership quality status is positive as well. As to family conflict, a 50-50 status has been reported — suggesting that it is normal to experience family conflict at some point post release. The respondents’ status of their relationship and affinity to their own children, were positive as well like the two other aspects mentioned. The parolees claimed that they gave and spent time to be with their children and had a lot of time bonding with them. With regards to their housing stability, more than half of the parolees that there is a probability of residing a year or more in their current inhabitancy. In contrast, the minority wanted to live in their residence for less than a year. Analyses showed that parole made a major impact on post release family outcomes and had slight impact on housing stability. As to the economic stability of a parolee, it was shown in the study that the parolees still have high chances of being employed after getting interviewed post release. As a matter of fact, some parolees already spent many months working post release, unlike those who were not on parole. After eight months, almost half of the population who were supervised by the parole agents were employed, unlike those who were unsupervised who were likely to remain unemployed (Solomon et al., 2008). Conclusion Hence, from these facts as concluded by the study, one can see the setbacks and positive outcomes from the parole system. The setbacks are all on the side of the prisoners’ violations of the rules agreed upon. As for the positive side, the parolees, after release had positive family relationships, good housing stability and employment. From this study, one can generate insights on how parole can control an inmate’s behavior. Parole is an incentive in such a way that it becomes a prisoner’s goal —from serving a sentence to being set free from the correctional facility though with guide and restrictions from the government— to regain his freedom. From the research of Solomon et al. (2008), the positive side of the system add up to the prisoners’ incentive to receive parole; thus, it follows that their traits and behaviors get controlled by this thought, since they have to adhere to the rules and regulations set by the Parole Board. On the other hand, what are the effects of precluding the early release of prisoners? What will happen if there is a delay in such a system? There are positive and negative sides of the story are worth mentioning. The positive impact are due to the following: (1) there will still be on-going reformation on the part of the prisoners; (2) society would benefit since prisoners will not be released until they met the requirements and conditions of the parole and if they are deemed fit by the Board to be reverted back to the society; (3) there will be due process that is upheld by law since the government cannot release a parolee if he fails to comply with the laws of the land (Parsons-Lewis, 1972). As for the negative consequence of no early release: (1) this “prolongs the agony” of the prisoners who have already served sentence and were not granted parole; (2) there is no re-establishment of family relationships since there is no release of parolees; (3) no chances of a parolee to participate in post-release programs; and (4) there are no chances of finding for suitable accommodation, having a job, and acquiring reincarceration from release (Dhami, Mandel, Loewenstein & Ayton, 2006). In the end, a serious reflection of these positive outcomes and repercussions does suggest that the parole system does exert strong control and influence on prisoners. References Dhami, M., Mandel, D., Loewenstein, G. & Ayton, P. (2006). Prisoners positive illusions of their post-release success. Law and Human Behavior, 30(6), 631-647. Parsons-Lewis, Harold S. (1972). Due process in parole-release. California Law Review, 60(6), 1518-1556. Schunur, A.A. (1951). The validity of parole selection. Chapell Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Schwartz, P. & Tushnet, M. (1970). Observations on the administration of parole. The Yale Law Journal , 79(4), 698-711. Solomon, A., Visher, C., Yahner, J. (2008). Returning home on parole: Former prisoners experiences in Illinois, Ohio, and Texas. Retrieved from: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411744_returning_home.pdf Read More