About the Report The Report, Part II: Review of the Re-Entry Process:

chapters and policy statements:
About the Report of the Re-Entry Council

Policy Statement 17, Research Highlight 3

Opportunities for victims, family members and the community to influence the release decision (and subsequently conditions of supervision) have declined with the decreased use of discretionary release.

The abolition of discretionary parole in many jurisdictions has resulted in the elimination of an important public safety mechanism. Previously, parole hearings were opportunities to assess risk and identify needs associated with criminal behavior. At least theoretically, they were also forums where victims, families, and other community members could voice their concerns. [1]   With the decline of discretionary release, many jurisdictions no longer seek the counsel of prisoners' families or provide victims the opportunity to participate in release-related decisions. While almost all states have enacted legislation about victim input into the parole process, only 15 states notify victims that a parole hearing has been scheduled. In some other states, the victim must request notification. Six states do not permit victims to appear at parole hearings at all. [2]   While the involvement of families, communities, and victims in release decisions is not prevalent in corrections, such inclusion is a hallmark of restorative justice initiatives, which recognize that many people, individually and collectively, may be harmed by criminal behavior. [3]   Furthermore, inclusion in the process provides these stakeholders with an early opportunity to promote successful re-entry outcomes for the offender. This is particularly important as informal social controls exerted by family, peers, and community have been shown in some studies to have a more direct effect on offender behavior than formal controls such as supervision or law enforcement. [4]  

  1. Joan Petersilia, When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003). Note that even when parole boards were more common, victim voice was an issue. For example, the 1982 Final Report by the President's Task Force on Victims of Crime urged parole boards to notify victims of parole hearings. back
  2. Joan Petersilia, When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003). back
  3. Dina R. Rose, Todd R. Clear, and Judith A. Ryder, "Addressing the Unintended Consequences of Incarceration through Community-Oriented Services at the Neighborhood Level,"Corrections Management Quarterly 5, no. 3 (2001): 62-71; Dina R. Rose, Todd R. Clear, and Judith A. Ryder , "Incarceration and the Community: The Problem of Removing and Returning Offenders," Crime and Delinquency 47, no.3 (2001): 335-351; Jeremy Travis and Sarah Lawrence, "The State of Parole in America," in Jeremy Travis and Sarah Lawrence (eds.), Beyond the Prison Gates (Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2001). back
  4. Faye Taxman, Supervision: Exploring the Dimensions of Effectiveness (College Park, MD: University of Maryland, 2002). back
staff