The Factors Affecting The Effectiveness Of Parole
The rhetorical and the reality are very different in nature, its views about the effectiveness of parole are vastly different. The effectiveness of parole can be widely questioned; however, it all comes down to the reality. Some individuals like to see the rhetorical view, a more optimistic approach, to state that parole does work effectively. However, the reality is an approach that does in fact state the unfortunate truth. This paper explains the reason of this reality and how each of the factors given contributes how little effective parole is. Concepts such as recidivism, overcrowding, supervision along with the treatment services given are factors that contribute to the real answer many individuals question. This paper also states the most important factor that is the base of the concept of parole. The primary reason onto why parole was created is one of the main reasons why the effectiveness of parole is questionable.
Parole is something that has existed over thousands of years but informal; it was not defined by the law until the 1900s. Now, it is defined as “a promise made with or confirmed by a pledge of one's honor; especially: the promise of a prisoner of war to fulfill stated conditions in consideration of his release”. Today, parole has many advantages and disadvantages; the most important thing to really consider is the function of it. Does parole work on ensuring that the person will not commit harm after serving time? It might have its advantages and benefits to it, however the reality is that it is not completely effective. Factors such as the history of parole, overcrowding, the availability of treatment, recidivism, and its effects after an ex-prisoner is released from parole will create a different perspective on how the community treats the parolees who are willing to change and those who are not.
History of Parole
The history of parole draws back to the eighteenth century in England. At the time, criminals were not the only prisoners that were in gaols (the present meaning of jails). The poor, children, and the debtors were also locked up in prison since at the time, Queen Elizabeth I saw the kingdom filthy with people in the streets with no place to go. Eventually, Queen Elizabeth I sent these people to Norfolk Island, about 3, 400 miles west of Australia. The conditions of the penal settlement in Norfolk before the mid nineteenth century were horrible. Most of the staff that oversaw these inmates were treating them cruelly and influenced them to believe that they were inferior; they were vulnerable from the staff and the other inmates. On March 1840, England sent Alexander Maconochie, a formal naval officer was to Norfolk Island as a superintendent of the penal settlement. While he was there, Maconochie observed and noticed the inmates were not separated at all. He then learned that the only reason on why people were there was because they owed money, lived on the streets, and others were detained because they were not aware that they had broken the law. Although it did not make sense at first, Maconochie later learned that people who broke the law did not know how to read, leading them to the penal settlement. Maconochie created the mark system, a system in which the inmates can earn “marks” or points for good behavior and would be released earlier than their sentence. He encouraged the inmates to learn how to read and write along with other programs for the inmates to “reintegrate back into society”. By the time some inmates were released, they were known as the Maconochie Gentlemen. When the monarch at the time saw the once “savages” became civilized, they were surprised and did not agree to the idea. This led to the removal of Maconochie, after being in Norfolk Island for only four years.
Maconochie became the “Father of Parole”, creating a system that was effective and became a model that was later used in Ireland, the United States, and many other countries. Unfortunately, in the present, the parole system has become less effective; the realization that most past offenders have not discarded the habit of reoffending taints a system that was once effective. Overcrowding and Recidivism Parole was primarily intended to relieve the overcrowding in prisons. At least ninety percent are in some form of community supervision. Given the fact that overcrowding is still a major problem today, it brings question on the effectiveness of parole. The parole system and the overcrowding of prisons are connected, the relationship between the two was meant to have a correlation, specifically a negative or an inverse correlation. If the parole system is effective, the ex-prisoners that are were just released from parole; the likelihood of them reoffending would be reduced. The reality however, is that even though there are several people who are on parole and released, there is a greater possibility most of them will reoffend after they are released, or they committed a violation of the parole. Melinda D. Schlager and Kelly Robbins (2008) claim that “although parole board members may have been willing to take a chance by granting parole to the max-out sample subgroup at some point in the past, the board members were not willing to chance it again, either because of the nature of the instant offense or because of past participation on parole”. They conducted an experiment about the effectiveness of parole and they realized that the concept of recidivism is clearly present; a concept that brings a negative answer to the purpose of this paper.
The basic goal of having people in parole today is to encourage criminals to integrate back into society. Although it is like probation, where the probation officers are constantly up to date with the probationers, parole officers do not enforce the same thing. For parolees, they usually must check in around once or twice a month and usually the parolee gets to decide whether they want to go back to prison for violating their condition of release. Recidivism is considered as a negative turnout for those offenders who were potentially free from parole; its rates have increased tremendously. It goes back to the willingness of the offender; if they are willing to change, then the likelihood of committing a crime again will be low.
Supervision: More Than What Meets the Eye
Parole is not just a parole officer supervising a parolee. They also serve as a place where treatment services are available for parolees. For those parolees whom have a substance abuse problem, they can acquire the treatment services to help themselves. If they are willing to cure themselves and reintegrate into society, then the service is at their disposition. Amy L. Solomon (2005) supports this claim by stating, “Parole supervision can also act as a social service mechanism by using rules and incentives to engage ex-prisoners in positive activities, such as work and drug treatment, and to place ex-prisoners in programs that may help reentry transitions”. Parole is something that has a diverse meaning, but mainly, parole officers are attempting to help the individuals to reduce the likelihood of the ex-prisoners to recidivate. In the United States, many states have in a way abolished the use of parole, seeing it as ineffective and replaced it with split sentence. Their reasoning is quite simple: the institution where the parolees were previously detained, offer and encourage the parolees to attend these rehabilitative programs with the possibility of release as a means of serving good time. If that process was effective, the possibilities for an offender to reoffend are quite low. However, seeing as these programs promote early release, they often ponder about the idea if the inmates see this as an opportunity to attain an early release. To prevent this event from happening, some states have abolished the idea of parole. Parole is a concept that individuals see in two ways: some see it as a rhetoric, others see it as a reality.
Rehabilitative services that are provided by parole are services that at times, parolees are forced to attend so they can be “cured” of the mental illness or the substance abuse they are suffering from; a belief system that draws us back to the similar system the United States had before in Pennsylvania with solitary confinement. Once the inmate is “cured” they are reintegrated back into society. The concept of rhetoric and reality begins to appear after the inmates’ treatment. In a rhetorical view, individuals believe that after the treatment programs offered at the institution are effective and parolees do not commit any violation after their time is served. However, in a reality view, individuals tend to believe that parole is not as effective. Individuals tend to believe that for some inmates that go voluntarily and are willing to change will benefit from these services. Those inmates who are forced to enter the treatment programs will attend however will not change and will continue to reoffend. As of now, out of the two contrasting concepts, one has become the most present and it has been the reality concept. Judges or the parole board that authorize the granting of parole usually grant them to nonviolent offenders. These offenders may be considered nonviolent by the charges that were given but that does not necessarily mean that they are nonviolent or the possibility that they will not reoffend.
Parolees: What Happens Next?
After parolees are released, everyone’s storyline is similar. Some individuals encounter the possibility of transitioning into society smoothly because of all the basic factors that an individual in this society needs to survive. Unfortunately for others, they do not own the same luck as some; they tend to relapse and end up homeless or even finding themselves reoffending because they could not reach to that point where society sees that point as a normal goal. Those reoffenders evidently go back to the system and the process begins all over again. It is a loop, a loop in which the parole board has tried to break but cannot achieve. Aside from that, the fact that the re offenders are not the only ones transitioning into parole can be overwhelming. As mentioned before, although there might be treatment services available to the parolees, it is not a fact that all parolees who go to the rehabilitative services will not reoffend ever. It might not be the fact that they would want to reoffend but just knowing that it is a whole new world and a different society, their mentality may not be strong enough to withstand all the information that parole officers usually give them.
Surely, they have had a taste of the world outside the four walls they were once in however it does not mean that the individuals can do activities and life itself on their own right after being supervised. The main goal of parole would be to integrate ex-prisoners back into society. At the same time, parole officers also have a duty to protect and serve the community; the same thing as an average police officer. This might become hand in hand however, there are some instances in which the ex-prisoner is not willing to change, leading them to the concept of recidivism or it might just be the fact that they are not ready to meet the society standards; it leaves them with limited choices, one of the having the ability to reoffend and come back into the system.
Another factor that increments the possibility of reoffending would be employment. Parole officers usually insist the ex-offenders to seek employment. Because employment is difficult to obtain as a law-abiding citizen, parolees have it more difficult than anything. Most employment applications usually ask the applicant if they have ever been convicted of a felony; if parolees confirm that question, the possibilities of them attaining that position is slim to none. If the parolees were to purposely lie just to get the position, the employer might do a background check on the individual and might not hire the individual; it is a catch. In some of these individuals’ eyes, along with some rational minds, they find it easier to reoffend and go back into the system than to meet society's’ standards.
Conclusion
Parole is a concept in which brings hope to individuals who have the desire to attain a second opportunity to be able to learn from their mistakes and move on, hoping that the society might react compassionate and humble. Unfortunately, this is a rhetorical mind. The reality is that the parole system is not completely effective; if it were to be effective, terms and concepts like recidivism would not exist. Along with that, overcrowding is still a problem today with most of our prisons; the main goal is still not accomplished.
Regarding treatment purposes, parolees are highly encouraged to participate in these services in hopes to “cure” themselves and decrease the possibility in reoffending. Although some of these treatments might become effective for some, not all these offenders have the willingness of entering these programs, some may enter just to serve good time and they will still reoffend.
Willingness is mainly the key for the concept of parole; some may have it and others will not. At the end of the day, things like overcrowding and recidivism will still exist in the correctional system; the answer to the question that individuals have about the effectiveness of parole will remain the same, the reality of the answer is a quite unfortunate one.
