Post Prison Supervision

Case Study

A question every State should ask is “Does post-prison supervision work?” It is doubtful whether parole ever really operated consistently in the United States either in principle or practice (Bottomley 1990). Less than half (46 percent) of all parolees successfully complete parole without violating a condition of release, absconding, or committing a new crime (Solomon 2006) So when evaluating whether the need to keep parole or abolishing it can be difficult.
There are three different releases from prison. There is discretionary release, mandatory release and unconditional release. Though not all consist of parole, the focus is to see if recidivism rates differ from each other. Discretionary release involves a parole board. The parole board chooses who they believe is fit to return to the community under supervision. Mandatory release occurs when a prisoner has served the original sentence, with good behavior time included. They also will be on parole. Then there is unconditional release, where the prisoner is released from prison after serving their sentence with no conditions on release. If a parolee is able to obey by the terms of their parole then they will be released by the state. If in the time of a parolee’s probationary period they do break a rule, parole will be revoked and will be returned to prison.
When evaluating issues with the Parole system we will examine from the parole board, reentry, and the prisoners and parole officers. One of the long standing criticisms of paroling authorities is that their members are too often selected based on party loyalty and political patronage rather than on professional qualifications and experience (Petersilia 2003). Though there could be some true to this statement, many states like Kentucky and Massachusetts require and individual to have at least five years of experience in many fields such as: psychology, law enforcement, and corrections. Kentucky even requires that no more than six members can...