PAROLE HEARING - DECISION OR JUSTIFICATION (FROM CRIMINOLOGY REVIEW YEARBOOK, VOLUME 1, 1979, BY SHELDON L MESSINGER AND EGON BITTNER - SEE NCJ-60767)

• NCJ Number: 60772
• Author(s): R M GARBER; C MASLACH
• Date Published: 1979
• Length: 20 pages
• Corporate Author: Sage Publications, Inc
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: REPRINTED FROM LAW AND BEHAVIOR, V 1, N 3 (1977)

Annotation

THE VALIDITY OF THE CALIFORNIA PAROLE DECISIONMAKING PROCESS IS ASSESSED THROUGH AN ANALYSIS OF A RANDOM SAMPLE OF 100 TAPE-RECORDED PAROLE HEARINGS..

Abstract

THE SUBJECTS STUDIED WERE OFFICERS AND PRISONERS PRESENT AT 100 PAROLE HEARINGS OF THE CALIFORNIA ADULT AUTHORITY DURING THE MONTHS OF SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER IN 1974. THE SAMPLE OF HEARINGS WAS RANDOMLY SELECTED FROM OVER 300 TAPE-RECORDED HEARINGS. THREE INDEPENDENT CONTENT ANALYSES WERE DEVELOPED FOR SCORING THE TAPES: THE FIRST CODED THE VARIETY AND FREQUENCY OF TOPICS DISCUSSED BY THE HEARING OFFICERS, AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY WERE RAISED (ADULT AUTHORITY CONTENT ANALYSIS); THE SECOND CODED THE VARIETY AND FREQUENCY OF THE COMMENTS MADE BY THE INMATES AND THE RESPONSES OF THE HEARING OFFICERS TO THESE COMMENTS (PRISONERS' RESPONSE CONTENT ANALYSIS); AND THE THIRD CODED CERTAIN TOPIC PATTERNS AND A SERIES OF LEGAL QUESTIONS PERTAINING SPECIFICALLY TO THE OBJECTIVES OF THE LAWSUIT ITSELF (LEGAL ANALYSIS). THE RESLUTS OF THE DATA ANALYSES PRESENTED AN OVERALL PICTURE OF THE PAROLE HEARING AS A RELATIVELY SHORT, DIAGNOSTIC INTERVIEW SESSION HEAVILY EMPHASIZING PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT. THE HEARING OFFICERS GENERALLY ASKED QUESTIONS OF THE INMATES AND ACKNOWLEDGED THEIR ANSWERS IN A NONCOMMITTAL WAY. THE INMATES TYPICALLY MADE MINIMAL RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS AND ADDED LITTLE TO PRESENT THEIR OWN CASES. SOME OF THE EVIDENCE FROM THE ANALYSES SUGGESTS THAT THE DECISIONS FOLLOWING PAROLE HEARINGS WERE MADE PRIOR TO THE HEARING OR WITHIN THE FIRST FEW MINUTES OF THE HEARING. ALTHOUGH THE HEARING OFFICERS HAD NO DEMONSTRATED SKILLS IN MAKING PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS, SUCH EVALUATIONS WERE FOUND TO UNDERLIE THEIR DECISIONS TO GRANT OR DENY PAROLE. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THEY COULD MAKE VALID PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS AND PREDICTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS, AND THIS DIAGNOSTIC INVALIDITY IS A MAJOR SOURCE OF ARBITRARINESS IN PAROLE DECISIONMAKING. THERE IS AN APPARENT LACK OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE GOALS OF THE PAROLE SYSTEM (TREATMENT, REHABILITATION, AND RELEASE) AND THE ABILITIES OF THE DECISIONMAKERS TO IDENTIFY THEIR DEGREE OF ACHIEVEMENT OF THESE GOALS IN INDIVIDUAL INMATES. REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (RCB)