Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Studying Parole in the “Spotlight”: Lessons from a Large American Jurisdiction

  • Published:
European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In September 2008 the Governor of Pennsylvania, USA, imposed a moratorium on all parole (early conditional) releases from the state prisons, which lasted until March 2009. As a political measure, the moratorium was triggered by a series of violent incidents involving recently released parolees culminating with the killings of several police officers. This paper documents the impact of the moratorium on the parole and correctional processes in the state and discusses its implications for the legitimacy of the two justice agencies affected, the Board of Parole and the Department of Corrections. The paper also describes the research undertaking of the team tasked with conducting the comprehensive review of parole and corrections at the Governor’s request, which circumscribed the lifting of the moratorium on the results of the investigation. In addition to qualitative data, the study employed quantitative methods to investigate through predictive analyses both parole decisions and parolee performance upon release. The challenges of conducting action research in the “spotlight” are also highlighted. The nature of the study and its setting in a large state in the United States should provide a useful illustration of problems and potential approaches to dealing with them that similar crime prevention tasks may face in other jurisdictions around the world relying on conditional release as a means of prison release.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Willie Horton was serving a life sentence for murder in a Massachusetts prison when he was released on a weekend furlough in 1987. During the furlough he committed several violent offenses against a couple, including rape. The case is widely acknowledged to have settled the fate of the 1988 US presidential election, when the Republican nominee George Bush defeated the Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis, who at that time was the Governor of Massachusetts. During the political campaign, Dukakis was portrayed by the opposition as enabling the types of crimes committed by Horton because of his support for the prison furlough program and more generally for his rehabilitation agenda for prisons (see Anderson 1995; Hurwitz and Peffley 2005; Newburn and Jones 2005).

  2. In European jurisdictions where the final decision on granting or denying parole is to be taken by the judiciary (i.e., by the so called courts for the execution of sentences), parole commissions exist to assist the judiciary (e.g., in form of so called release conferences). Those usually consist of more or less experienced prison personnel who deliberate and make proposals to the judicial authorities either upon demand or upon their own move. The inmates, too, have the right to request parole and to ask incidentally for judicial review of negative recommendations provided to the court by the relevant prison authority.

  3. For more details on the PA parole process, see the board’s publication “Understanding Pennsylvania Parole” (PBPP 2013).

  4. The samples were purposefully drawn from the period prior to the imposition of the moratorium, as the analyses based on these samples aimed to uncover and characterize practices as they normally were occurring, rather than including possible reactivity in the aftermath of the moratorium.

  5. The PBPP supervised the parole population at different levels of intensity (minimum, medium, high, enhanced) with 435 field agents in 10 district offices, supplemented by 26 institutional parole agents in facilities across the state.

  6. Releases at the expiration of sentence continued to occur, since the moratorium did not—and could not—target them.

  7. The population of female prisons is not included for space economy. The trends in this population, however, were very similar to those shown by the male population, only on a much smaller scale, as the population in the female institutions represents only about 5 % of the total prison population (i.e., during the entire observation period the female population ranged from 2400 to 2800 inmates).

  8. Unlike other jurisdictions where life sentences can be accompanied by the possibility of parole, in Pennsylvania such sentences are strictly without the possibility of parole.

  9. Unfortunately, because the transfers happened after the focus groups were conducted, the inmates’ perspectives on this aspect could not be captured during the focus group meeting. According to the prison administration, DOC did consider visitation records among their transfer selection criteria, with the aim to disproportionately select individuals with fewer visitations. However, this also meant that those inmates became even less likely to receive visits at their new locations.

  10. LSI-R is a commercially available classification scheme, widely adopted in the United States and elsewhere, particularly in the correctional settings (see Andrews and Bonta 1995).

  11. The percentages for specific subcategories of serious crimes against the person add up to more than the total (9 %) because the subcategories may be overlapping in the sense that a single parolee could be rearrested for more than one type of serious personal offense; however, the total percentage of parolees with rearrests for any such serious crimes against the person equals 9 %.

  12. For example, the parole system in the State of Victoria in Australia has been recently confronted with a crisis similar to that triggering the moratorium in Pennsylvania (a series of murders committed by parolees during 2011 and 2012) and is now undergoing major reform as a consequence (personal communication with a full-time board member of the Adult Parole Board of Victoria, Australia). As part of this process, members of the parole board in Australia have sought to find out how other jurisdictions have dealt with similar problems and as a consequence one member of the board, involved in the reform process, recently contacted members of the research team of this Pennsylvania study in order to gain insights into how to best approach such a crisis. All this underscores the point that issues of crime and justice transcend national boundaries and that jurisdictions around the world may benefit from learning about and exchanging information on similar experiences.

  13. See Berk et al. (2009) for an innovative method (random forest forecasting) used to predict rare events (homicides) in a large population of probationers and parolees.

References

  • Anderson, D. C. (1995). Crime and the Politics of Hysteria: How the Willie Horton Story Changed American Justice. New York: Crown.

  • Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1995). The level of service inventory‐revised. Toronto: Multi‐Health Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, D., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk/or need assessment. Crime and Delinquency, 52(1), 7–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, D., Zinger, I., Hoge, R., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369–404.

  • Askins, B. E., & Young, T. (1994). An action research project to assist incarcerated females to become more effective adult learners. Journal of Correctional Education, 45(1), 12–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker, V. (2011). Decarceration. Criminology & Public Policy, 10(2), 283–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauman, A., Van Voorhis, P., Wright, E., & Salisbury, E. (2014). Assessing the risk and needs of women in jails. American Jails, 27(6), 19–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, M., & Huebner, B. (2011). Reentry and the ties that bind: an examination of social ties, employment and recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 28(2), 382–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berk, R., Sherman, L., Barnes, G., Kurtz, E., & Ahlman, L. (2009). Forecasting murder within a population of probationers and parolees: a high stakes application of statistical learning. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 172(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, R., Kinkade, P., Leone, M. C., & Phillips, S. (1999). Perspectives on parole: board members’ viewpoint. Federal Probation, 63(1), 16–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, N. (2008). Comprehensive framework for paroling authorities in an era of evidence‐based practices. Washington D.C: National Institute of Corrections.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caplan, J. M. (2007). What factors affect parole: a review of empirical literature. Federal Probation, 71(3), 16–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caplan, J. M. (2011). Parole release decisions: impact of victim input on a representative sample of inmates. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 291–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. S., & Burke, P. A. (1990). Evaluation and prediction in expert parole decisions. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 17, 315–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, L., & Mondrick, M. (1976). Racial bias in the decision to grant parole. Law and Society Review, 11, 93–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson, E. A. (2014). Prisoners in 2013. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Department of Justice. Available online at: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p13.pdf.

  • Carson, E. A., & Golinelli, D. (2013). Prisoners in 2012: Trends in Admissions and Releases, 1991–2012. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Department of Justice. Available online at: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p12tar9112.pdf.

  • Caudy, M. S., Durso, J. M., & Taxman, F. S. (2013). How well do dynamic needs predict recidivism? Implications for risk assessment and risk reduction. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(6), 458–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clear, T. (2007). Imprisoning communities: How mass incarceration makes disadvantaged neighborhoods worse. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Clear, T., & Frost, N. (2013). The punishment imperative: The rise and failure of mass incarceration in America. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. (1972). Folk devils and moral panics: The creation of the mods and rockers. London: McGibbon & Kee.

  • Cuellar, D. (2008). Officer killed in North Philadelphia—Suspected shooter was pronounced dead at the scene. ABC Action News (Sep. 24). Available at: http://6abc.com/archive/6408148/.

  • Dupont, I. (2008). Beyond doing no harm: a call for participatory action research with marginalized populations in criminological research. Critical Criminology, 16(3), 197–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, T., & Marshall, P. (2000). Does parole work? A post-release comparison of reconviction rates for paroled and non-paroled prisoners. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 33, 300–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feeley, M., & Simon, J. (1992). The new penology: notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology, 30(4), 449–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garland, D. (2001). Mass imprisonment: Social causes and consequences. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland, D. (2002). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Garland, D. (2008). On the concept of moral panic. Crime, Media, Culture, 4(1), 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gartner, R., Doob, A., & Zimring, F. (2011). The past as prologue? Decarceration in California then and now. Criminology & Public Policy, 10(2), 291–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaze, L. E., & Kaeble, D. (2014). Correctional Populations in the United States, 2013. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Department of Justice. Available online at: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus13.pdf.

  • Goode, E., & Ben-Yehuda, N. (2009). Moral Panics: The Social Construction of Deviance (2nd edn). New York: Wiley-Blackwell.

  • Goldkamp, J. S., Vîlcică, E. R., Harris, M. K., & Weiland, D. (2010). Parole and public safety in Pennsylvania: A report to Governor Edward G. Rendell. Philadelphia: Crime and Justice Research Center, Temple University.

  • Gottfredson, M. R. (1979). Parole board decisionmaking: a study of disparity reduction and the impact of institutional behavior. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 70, 77–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredson, D., & Ballard, K. (1966). Differences in parole decisions associated with decision- makers. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 3, 112–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredson, D., & Wilkins, L. T. (1978). Guidelines for guideline development. In D. Gottfredson et al. (Eds.), Classification for Parole Decision Policy. Washington, DC: National Council of Crime and Delinquency Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredson, D., Cosgrove, C. A., Wilkins, L. T., Wallerstein, J., & Rauh, C. (Eds.). (1978). Classification for Parole Decision Policy. Washington, DC: National Council of Crime and Delinquency Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, L. A., MacKenzie, D. L., & Bankston, W. (1995). A comparison of models of parole outcome. Journal of Crime and Justice, 18, 161–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gratett, R. Petersilia, J., & Lin, J. (2008). Parole Violations and Revocations in California. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Available online at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/224521.pdf.

  • Gunnison, E., & Helfgott, J. (2011). Factors that hinder offender reentry success: A view from community corrections officers. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(2), 287–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunnison, E., & Helfgott, J. (2013). Offender Reentry: Beyond Crime and Punishment. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

  • Hannah-Moffat, K., & Yule, C. (2011). Gaining insight, changing attitudes and managing ‘risk’: parole release decisions for women convicted of violent crimes. Punishment & Society, 13(2), 149–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herberman, E. J., & Bonczar, T. P. (2014). Probation and Parole in the United States, 2013. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Department of Justice. Available online at: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus13.pdf.

  • Hipp, J., Jannetta, J., Shah, R., & Turner, S. (2011). Parolees’ physical closeness to social services: a study of California parolees. Crime & Delinquency, 57(1), 102–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holsinger, A. M., Lurigio, A. J., & Latessa, E. J. (2001). Practitioners’ guide to understanding the basis of assessing offender risk. Federal Probation, 65(1), 46–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huebner, B. M., & Bynum, T. S. (2008). The role of race and ethnicity in parole decisions. Criminology, 46(4), 907–938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, T. A., Wilson, D. J., & Beck, A. J. (2001). Trends in State Parole, 1990–2000 (Special Report). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Department of Justice. Available online at: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/tsp00.pdf.

  • Hurwitz, J., & Peffley, M. (2005). Playing the race card in the post-Willie Horton era: the impact of racialized code words on support for punitive crime policy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69(1), 99–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ireland, C. (2007). Parolee day treatment in California: action research with parolees in an urban setting. Justice Policy Journal, 4(2), 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, C. E., & Welsh, W. N. (2008). The predictive validity of the level of service Inventory—Revised for drug-involved offenders. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 35(7), 819–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kubrin, C., & Stewart, E. (2006). Predicting who reoffends: the neglected role of neighborhood context in recidivism studies. Criminology, 44(1), 165–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langan, P. A., & Levin, D. J. (2002). Special Report: Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Department of Justice. Available online at: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf.

  • Langton, L. (2006). Low self-control and parole failure: an assessment of risk from a theoretical perspective. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 469–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latessa, E. (2011). Why the risk and needs principles are relevant to correctional programs (even to employment programs). Criminology & Public Policy, 10(4), 973–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovett, I. (2014). Court gives California more time to ease prison crowding. New York Times, February 11, 2014, page A12. Available online at: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/us/court-gives-california-more-time-to-ease-prison-crowding.html?emc=eta1&_r=0.

  • Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. M. (2006). The risk principle in action: what have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs? Crime & Delinquency, 52(1), 77–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mallik-Kane, K., & Visher, C. (2008). Health and prisoner reentry: How physical, mental, and substance abuse conditions shape the process of reintegration. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marquez-Lewis, C., Fine, M., Boudin, K., Waters, W. E., DeVeaux, M., Vargas, F., Wilkins, C. M., Martinez, M., Pass, M. G., & White-Harrigan, S. (2013). How much punishment is enough? Designing participatory research on parole policies for persons convicted of violent crimes. Journal of Social Issues, 69(4), 771–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marvell, T., & Moody, C. (1996). Determinate sentencing and abolishing parole: the long-term impacts on prison and crime. Criminology, 34(1), 107–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matejkowski, J., Draine, J., Solomon, P., & Salzer, M. S. (2011). Mental illness, criminal risk factors and parole release decisions. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 29, 528–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCoy, C., & McManimon, P., Jr. (2003). New Jersey’s “No Early Release Act”: Its Impact on Prosecution, Sentencing, Corrections, and Victim Satisfaction. Final report (NCJ 203977). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarry, P. (2010). The continuing fiscal crisis in corrections: Setting a new course. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, K. D., & Smith, B. (2008). The impact of race on parole decision-making. Justice Quarterly, 25(2), 411–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naser, R. L., & Vigne, N. G. (2006). Family support in the prisoner reentry process: expectations and realities. Journal of Offender Rehabiliation, 43, 93–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement (Wickersham Commission). (1931). Report on criminal procedure. Washington DC: Gov. Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newburn, T., & Jones, T. (2005). Symbolic politics and penal populism: the long shadow of Willie Horton. Crime, Media, Culture, 1(1), 72–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odom, V. (2008). Questions about cop killer’s parole. ABC Action News (Sep 25). Available at: http://6abc.com/archive/6414535/.

  • Onofrio, J., Shanahan, R., & DiZerega, M. (2008). Practice into policy: The benefits of action research in correctional settings. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology meeting.

  • Padfield, N. (2007). Who to release: Parole fairness and criminal justice. New York: Willan.

  • Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. (2013[2009]). Understanding Pennsylvania Parole. The Green Sheet, Special Edition, Series 1.

  • Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersilia, J. (2005). Parole. In Encyclopedia of prisons & correctional facilities (pp. 677–683). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

  • Petersilia, J. (2008). California’s correctional paradox of excess and deprivation. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 37). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1993). Probation and parole. Crime and Justice, 17, 281–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PEW Center on the States. (2008). One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008. Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts. Available online at: http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2008/one%20in%20100.pdf.

  • PEW Center on the States. (2011). State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons. Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts. Available online at: http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2011/Pew_State_of_Recidivism.pdf.

  • Roberts, J. V. (2009). Listening to the crime victim: evaluating victim input at sentencing and parole. Crime and Justice, 38(1), 347–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlager, M. D., & Robbins, K. (2008). Does parole work? Revisited: reframing the discussion of the impact of postprison supervision on offender outcome. The Prison Journal, 88(2), 234–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott-Hayward, C. S. (2009). The fiscal crisis in corrections: Rethinking policies and practices. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, A. L., Kachnowski, V., & Bhati, A. (2005). Does parole work? Analyzing the impact of postprison supervision on rearrest outcomes. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

  • Stephan, J. J. (2004). State Prison Expenditures, 2001. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, E., Hassal, P., & Rowlands, D. (2008). Breaking the chain: a prison-based participatory action research project. British Journal of Forensic Practice, 10(3), 13–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talarico, S. M. (1988). The dilemma of parole decision making. In G. F. Cole (Ed.), Criminal justice: Law and politics. Brooks/Cole: Pacific Grove, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taxman, F. S., & Caudy, M. S. (2015). Risk tells us who, but not what or how. Criminology & Public Policy, 14(1), 71–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, A. C. (2008). Releasing prisoners, redeeming communities. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, C. W. (2010). The story of two guns that killed police officers. The Washington Post (Nov. 22). Available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/21/AR2010112103202.html?sid=ST2010112104787.

  • Travis, J., Solomon, A. L., & Waul, M. (2001). From prison to home: The dimensions and consequences of prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turpin-Petrosino, C. (1999). Are limiting enactments effective? An experimental test of decision making in a presumptive parole state. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27(4), 321–332.

  • Useem, B., & Piehl, A. M. (2008). Prison state: The challenge of mass incarceration. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Van Voorhis, P., Wright, E. M., Salisbury, E., & Bauman, A. (2010). Women’s risk factors and their contributions to existing risk/needs assessment: the current status of a gender-responsive supplement. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 37(3), 261–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vishner, C. A., & Travis, J. (2003). Transitions from prison to community: understanding individual pathways. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 89–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Hirsch, A., & Hanrahan, K. J. (1979). The question of parole—retention, reform and abolition? Cambridge: Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walmsley, R. (2014). World Prison Population List (Tenth Edition). International Centre for Prison Studies. London: United Kingdom. Available online at: http://prisonstudies.org/sites/prisonstudies.org/files/resources/downloads/wppl_10.pdf.

  • West-Smith, M., Pogrebin, M. R., & Poole, E. D. (2000). Denial of parole: an inmate perspective. Federal Probation, 64, 3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zgoba, K. M., Haugebrook, S., & Jenkins, K. (2008). The influence of GED obtainment on inmate release outcome. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 375–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, S., Roberts, R., & Callanan, V. (2006). Preventing parolees from returning to prison through community based reintegration. Crime and Delinquency, 52(4), 551–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Criminal Justice, Temple University, Gladfelter Hall, 5th Floor, 1115 Polett Walk, Philadelphia, PA, 19122, USA

    E. Rely Vîlcică

Authors
  1. E. Rely Vîlcică
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Rely Vîlcică.

Additional information

Research presented in this article was funded by a grant from the Government of Pennsylvania, USA, specifically, the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency and the Governor’s Office. The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Government of Pennsylvania, USA. Although the discussion of the study and its circumstances presented herein is the sole responsibility of the author, the author wishes to acknowledge that the research project itself was the product of intensive team work, consisting, in addition to the author, of the now late Professor John Goldkamp, Professor Kay Harris (now Emerita/retired), and Research Associate Doris Weiland, all of Temple University, Department of Criminal Justice. The author also thanks the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions for improving this article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vîlcică, E.R. Studying Parole in the “Spotlight”: Lessons from a Large American Jurisdiction. Eur J Crim Policy Res 22, 61–88 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-015-9284-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-015-9284-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation