NCJ Number
80626
Date Published
1981
Length
217 pages
Annotation
This comprehensive study of all forms of conditional release from Canadian Federal penitentiaries supports the principle of early release, including release by remission, but states that more specific criteria governing release need to be developed.
Abstract
The study examines the incidence of violence and other violations of conditional release by Federal offenders to determine the seriousness of violent recidivism and whether any action can be taken to predict or prevent such behavior. The study also examines the current concerns and operational problems in conditional release to determine whether any changes to present procedures or operations should be made. Finally, the study examines release based on 'first principles' (what release is trying to accomplish, how effective it is, and if the current objectives are realistic and achievable). Five release programs are investigated: temporary absence, day parole, full parole, selection and supervision, earned remission, and mandatory supervision. The temporary absence (TA) program was found to be very successful; it entailed releasing 50,000 persons annually with fewer than 1 percent declared unlawfully at large. The study recommends that objectives of the day parole program be used only in cases of clear need and not for the less serious or 'risky' offender. Since disparities in selection for full parole were found to be a major concern, an extensive empirical study of full parole decisions is recommended to determine legal, organizational, and individual case factors. In addition, the study found that community supervision has fewer negative effects than imprisonment and represents a cheaper and more humane program. Because the official objectives of release were found to be vague and based on questionable assumptions, the study recommends that workshops held at the ministry level more specifically define release objectives. More research is needed into the actual delivery of specific services. Changes in parole conditions are also suggested. Moreover, the report discusses concerns about the mandatory supervision, particular difficulties experienced by certain groups of offenders (women, 'Natives,' and life-sentence inmates), and lack of coordination between sentencing and releasing authorities. Footnotes and tables are provided. Statistical data, a bibliography of over 50 references, and supplemental material are appended. (Author summary modified)