Why Eliminating Parole Board Is Counter-Productive Essay

Open, View, and/or
Download this Document

Total Length: 796 words ( 3 double-spaced pages)

Total Sources: 1

Page 1 of 3

Mandatory vs. Discretionary Prison Release

By getting rid of parole boards in favor of mandatory sentences -- has this policy tended to reduce crime? For the sixteen states that have abolished parole boards in favor of mandatory sentencing -- has the rate of recidivism declined? Those are two of the questions approached in this paper; this paper notes that when parole boards are eliminated prisoners have no incentive to try and better themselves so they can be released earlier. Thesis: getting rid of parole boards does little if anything to reduce recidivism, and in fact there is evidence that the parole system is more effective in reducing repeat criminality.

Is Discretionary Release a Better System than Mandatory Release?

According to journalist Fox Butterfield (writing in The New York Times), in 1999 several states that had eliminated parole boards "reinstituted" them because their prisons became overcrowded to the point that these states "were forced to release many of them early" (Butterfield, 1999). In other words, under a discretionary system, some prisoners that had shown a change in mindset away from criminality were released before the initial sentencing date set by a court. But once the discretionary system was gone, prisoners were held until their mandatory sentences were up, which created the overcrowding situation.

Stuck Writing Your "Why Eliminating Parole Board Is Counter-Productive" Essay?

View All Our Example Why Eliminating Parole Board Is Counter-Productive Essay

Have A Custom Example Essay Written



Butterfield quotes a leading authority on parole, Joan Petersilia, who is professor of criminology at the University of California at Davis. Petersilia points out that when a dangerous criminal (who hasn't shown any change) is arbitrarily released because his sentence is up, it decreases the ability "to keep very dangerous offenders in prison" (Butterfield, p. 1). Petersilia points to the case of kidnapper Richard Allen Davis, who was rejected 6 times by the parole board in California, but when the state passed a law that ended parole, that system led to the automatic release of Davis when his sentence was up. In a few months Davis murdered a 13-year-old girl, Polly Klass. Petersilia's point is thus made with a specific example of the danger of mandatory releases as opposed to discretionary releases.

At the time that states were eliminating parole boards, politicians were being urged to get tough on crime, and so it was a "politically popular step" to get rid of parole boards, Butterfield explains (p. 1). Some 80% of parolees in California in 1997 reported did not complete their parole responsibilities "successfully," Butterfield continues,….....

Show More ⇣

     Open the full completed essay and source list


OR

     Order a one-of-a-kind custom essay on this topic


sample essay writing service

Cite This Resource:

Latest APA Format (6th edition)

Copy Reference
"Why Eliminating Parole Board Is Counter-Productive" (2014, August 21) Retrieved June 4, 2026, from
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/eliminating-parole-board-counter-productive-191254

Latest MLA Format (8th edition)

Copy Reference
"Why Eliminating Parole Board Is Counter-Productive" 21 August 2014. Web.4 June. 2026. <
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/eliminating-parole-board-counter-productive-191254>

Latest Chicago Format (16th edition)

Copy Reference
"Why Eliminating Parole Board Is Counter-Productive", 21 August 2014, Accessed.4 June. 2026,
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/eliminating-parole-board-counter-productive-191254
   

Open, View, and/or
Download this Document
order custom essay example