1. The History of Parole & Mandatory Release
Chapter 3
The History of Parole & Mandatory Release

2. Parole
The conditional release of a convicted offender from a correctional institution, under the continued custody of the state, to serve the remainder of their sentence in the community under supervision

3. Release Types
Mandatory release: offenders enter the community automatically when their maximum term expires minus credited time off for good behavior.
Mandatory release is decided by legislative statute or good-time laws.
Discretionary release: offenders enter the community when members of a parole board decide they have earned the privilege of release while remaining under supervision

4. The Origins of Parole Manuel Montesinos, a Spaniard, in 1835
Parole is derived from the French parole d’honneur, meaning “word of honor”
Parole originated in Europe with:
Manuel Montesinos, a Spaniard, in 1835
Georg Michael Obermaier, a German, in 1842
Alexander Maconochie, an Englishman, in 1837

5. Marks System
Implemented in 1840 by Alexander Maconochie, superintendant of the English penal colony on Norfolk Island
Duration of sentence determined by prisoner’s industry & good conduct
Prisoners earned daily “marks” based on their conduct & labor
The more “marks” prisoners earned, their privileges increased; poor conduct led to a reduction in “marks”
Good “marks” led to conditional release and eventually freedom to leave the island
Maconochie’s system was very successful, but the public was skeptical. He was dismissed in 1844, ending his experiment

6. The Irish System
Modeled after Norfolk Island by Sir Walter Crofton in 1854, based on:
Strict imprisonment
Indeterminate sentence
Ticket-of-leave
Prisoners released under the Irish System were supervised by police in rural areas and an inspector in Dublin.

7. Development of Parole in the U.S.
Parole was first implemented at the New York Elmira Reformatory in 1876
Federal parole began in 1910
Four concepts justified parole in the U.S.:
Reduction in the length of incarceration as a reward for good conduct
Supervision of the parolee
Imposition of the indeterminate sentence
Reduction in the rising cost of incarceration

8. Medical Model
Based on rehabilitation, it was the primary philosophy dominating corrections from
Assumed criminal behavior rooted in environmental & psychological aspects of offender’s life & could be corrected
Parole & the indeterminate sentence were major parts of this philosophy
Judge sentences offender to an indeterminate sentence
Parole board determines release date based on when the offender is ready to be responsible

9. Just Deserts or Justice Model
Replaced the medical model & indeterminate sentencing in the 1970s because of:
Increasing crime rates
The perceived failure of rehabilitation programs
The perception that parole boards were incapable of making predictive judgments about offenders’ future behavior

10. Just Deserts Model
In contrast to the rehabilitative idea, it changed the focus from the offender to the offense.
Embraced determinate sentencing & the abolition of parole
Took the position that indeterminate sentencing was vague, leading to disparities in sentencing based on race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, & place of conviction.

11. From Discretionary Parole to Mandatory Release
As of 2001, 15 states had abolished parole & another 5 abolished discretionary release for violent offenses.
Because of the trend toward determinate sentencing & abolishing discretionary release, between 24 to 39% of prisoners are released via discretionary release, whereas mandatory release numbers have increased.

12. Arguments for Discretionary Release
Parole boards can impose prisoner participation in treatment programs
Parole guidelines have improved methods of objective & open decisions
Victims can attend parole hearings
Automatic release decisions are made by computer
Abolishing discretionary release does not necessarily increase public safety

13. Characteristics of Paroles
Nearly 820,000 people were on parole in 2007
The Southern region had the highest incarceration rates, yet the lowest parole rates.
The Northeast region had the opposite situation—a higher rate of parole & a lower rate of incarceration per 100,000 residents.
Since 2000, 12% of parolees are women
Parole success rates are lower than for probation; about 44% of all parolees successfully complete parole
About 3 out of 10 parolees are removed from parole for too many rule violations; 1 out of 10 for new crimes

14. Contemporary Functions of Parole
Parole is tasked primarily with protecting the public from released offenders. This goal is accomplished in 3 general objectives:
Enforcing restrictions & controls on parolees in the community
Providing services that help parolees integrate into a noncriminal lifestyle
Increasing the public’s level of confidence in the effectiveness & responsiveness of parole services
Parole as population control:
In some states, parole also functions as the back doorkeeper: a safety valve to relieve overcrowded prisons

15. Saving Medical Costs
Medical parole, or compassionate release, is the conditional release of prisoners with a terminal illness who are not risks to the public’s safety.
Medical parole is not popular with the public & only about 300 people are released nationwide on medical parole.

16. Medical Parole in California
In 2010, California passed a medical parole law that would allow the paroling authority to release prisoners who are permanently medically incapacitated & require 24 hour care but are no longer a threat
If the parolee’s condition should unexpectedly improve, he or she can be sent back to prison
Death row & life without parole inmates are not eligible

17. Release on California Medical Parole
Steven Martinez: 42 years old, serving 157 years for rape & kidnapping
3 years into his prison sentence he was stabbed in the spine, is a quadriplegic, & cannot perform the simplest tasks. He care costs about $625,000/year
Martinez was the first prisoner to be considered for medical parole in California
His application was denied

18. Texas Board of Pardons & Parole Annual Report 2010
MEDICALLY RECOMMENDED INTENSIVE SUPERVISION (MRIS)
Upon review of any eligible offender who qualifies for release to Medically Recommended Intensive Supervision (MRIS), the MRIS panel bases its decisions on the offender’s medical condition and medical evaluation, and whether the offender constitutes a threat to public safety.
Offenders shall comply with the terms and conditions of the MRIS program and abide by a Texas Correctional Office for Offenders with Mental or Medical Impairments (TCOOMMI) approved release plan. Offenders remain under the care of a physician and in a medically suitable placement.
MRIS Data Comparison
YEAR
Screened 1, ,319 1,318 1,443
Presented
Approved