Parole Board Decision Making: A Study of Disparity Reduction and the Implact of Institutional Behavior

Few aspects of criminal justice are currently undergoing more critical appraisal than the incarceration process.' Nearly every survey of the field undertaken in the last five years recommends major reform of current methods for determining which convicted persons to imprison and what length of confinement should be imposed. Most recommendations for reform recognize the interdependence of the parole and sentencing decisions. Consequently, proposals for reform typically affect both decisons. Nonetheless, much of the concern surrounding the incarceration process centers on the concept of parole and its contemporary correlate, the indeterminate term. Although there is a growing consensus about the necessity of either abolition or substantial modification of the parole function, there is no consistency in the basis for believing that such reform is required. In fact, proponents of change cannot agree on even the most fundamental effects of the parole process. We are told, for example, that on the one hand, parole leads to decreases in terms of confinement2 and, on the other, to increases in time served." A lack of rigorous research in the area encourages such antithetical claims.