Abstract
A juvenile lifer’s parole can be revoked and justified for technical or new crime violations of supervision conditions. We analyze narratives contained in revocation decisions issued to juvenile lifer candidates by one state parole board. Our qualitative content analysis reveals that most parole revocations stem from technical violations rather than any new criminal activity. In addition, decision statements qualify aspects of a juvenile lifer candidate’s case in opposite ways, where identified themes are presented as accomplishments to grant parole, but as claims made by the candidate to deny rerelease. In categorizing candidates as deserving or undeserving of parole, suitability for rerelease is represented in the parole board’s interpretation of risk in terms of a candidate’s moral responsibility. By doing so, parole revocation review decisions avoid acknowledging the obstacles in juvenile lifer reentry.
Introduction
A substantial segment of America’s incarcerated population comprises individuals returning to prison for violating their conditions of parole (Henry, 2021; Lin et al., 2010). Breach of parole can be in the form of a technical violation or the allegation of a crime. Technical violations are those in which an administrative condition is not met such as failing to report to the parole officer, not maintaining employment, and/or testing positive for using alcohol or other illicit substances. Regardless of type of violation, the ultimate discretion to revoke parole rests with the parole board (Reitz & Rhine, 2020).
Among those returning to prison for violating parole conditions are juvenile lifers. Nearly 3,000 individuals who were sentenced to life as teenagers are now eligible for discretionary release due to U.S. Supreme Court decisions banning life without parole (“LWOP”) for nonhomicide offenses and automatic LWOP for homicide offenses (Associated Press, 2017). An even larger segment of the juvenile lifer population is serving parole-eligible life sentences and has regularly appeared before parole boards (Nellis, 2017). Recent media reports highlight the challenges in the transition to community supervision after decades of incarceration (New Hampshire Public Radio [NHPR], 2021), and specifically for juvenile lifers (Futuro Media, 2021).
Juvenile lifer candidates are unique in that their route to the criminal legal system is based almost exclusively on the nature of their sentencing offense. They spend decades incarcerated before they are released on parole and will likely be supervised for the remainder of their lives. Reentry is significantly different for juvenile lifers because they are incarcerated in adult environments at a much younger age (Altschuler & Brash, 2004). After having spent a major part of their developmental stages institutionalized, they are expected to cope with the challenges of a community that looks different than what it was before their entry into the prison system. Yet, there is not much we know about the nature of their parole violations and how parole boards justify decisions to grant or deny rerelease for those on lifetime supervision.
Parole decisions are “symbolically significant” because they depict the parole board’s justification for “condoning or condemning criminal behavior” (Hawkins, 1983, p. 102). The decision to rerelease a candidate who has been reincarcerated following revocation represents a parole board’s willingness to give a second or third chance. Our goal is to unpack how a parole candidate’s record is presented as either deserving or undeserving of release in written decision statements. To do so, we closely examine revocation decision statements issued by one state parole board 1 between 2007 and 2020 for juvenile lifer candidates who received parole-eligible life terms or LWOP sentences to illustrate the symbolic in discretionary decision-making.
Symbolizing Discretionary Release
There are currently 34 states with indeterminate sentencing schemes that allow for discretionary release as determined by a separate parole board (Reitz & Rhine, 2020). Written decisions, or decision statements, produced following hearings are “symbolic judgements” where “in granting parole,” the parole board makes a “statement of forgiveness” (Hawkins, 1986, p. 1211). When parole is denied, the candidate is presented as “a badly-behaved prisoner not deserving of parole” (Hawkins, 1986, p. 1211). Put simply, the symbolic in parole decision-making is reflected in how the parole board engages in “condoning or condemning” prison conduct (Hawkins, 1983, p. 102). In addition, the seriousness of the sentencing offense can also be a factor in deciding release as noted in prior research on individuals sentenced as adults (Conley & Zimmerman, 1982; Huebner & Bynum, 2006, 2008). Release can also be justified based on the parole board’s view of a candidate’s rehabilitative efforts (Connor, 2016), disciplinary infractions (Hawkins, 1983), victim or prosecutorial objections (Caplan, 2007), and proposed reentry plans (Hannah-Moffat & Yule, 2011). Parole board members can also assess retributive time based on a candidate’s moral character in terms of their remorse and reparative actions (Dagan, 2021).
For individuals on parole, character may be further evaluated in terms of whether they can convincingly demonstrate moral rehabilitation while under intensive supervision conditions (Werth, 2016). The new penology of risk management that emerged in the late 1980s focuses overwhelmingly on identifying unruly candidates instead of understanding ways to reduce reoffending (Feeley & Simon, 1992; Simon, 1993). In addition, the interpretation of reoffending risk may be through a candidate’s primary status as a violent offender, as opposed to other factors such as reentry planning, familial support, or rehabilitation efforts (Lin et al., 2010). Thus, parole revocation decisions are viewed as managerial assessments, where decision-making can still be centered around making moral judgments (Steen et al., 2013).
However, a parole board’s wide discretion in determining rerelease has invited criticism because they are not required to disclose the intricacies of their decision-making (Ball, 2011). Forty-four states rely on gubernatorial appointments as the primary method of parole board composition, but nearly half require no work experience nor educational or training requirements prior to parole board member appointments (Paparozzi & Caplan, 2009). Regardless of political affiliation, parole board decision-making is not open for public scrutiny, but, by virtue of their political status, parole board members are constrained in their discretionary authority. As noted by one former New York state parole board member, “it is always safer to deny than to parole; it takes no courage and is the safest route to job security . . . One doesn’t want to find oneself in the headlines” (Treen, 2014 in Schwartzapfel, 2017). Highly publicized incidents of individuals on parole committing a crime have allowed officials to place the blame exclusively on the parole system (Meyer, 2001).
Still, parole boards are at the center of the “web of punitive regulation” in parole supervision (Reitz & Rhine, 2020, p. 290). This web of punitive regulation allows for parole boards to make the choice to classify a violation as requiring reincarceration. As noted by Lin and colleagues (2010), parole boards can utilize their discretionary power to reincarcerate those who are perceived as dangerous by virtue of their original sentencing offense, even if the reason for the candidate’s revocation might not be a serious one. Individuals on parole are perceived as inherently and irreversibly dangerous (Werth, 2019). As such, parole boards are likely to deny rerelease to those who commit any crime while under community supervision based on their assessments of dangerousness (Henry, 2021).
Yet, accepting responsibility for one’s actions while on parole is expected to mitigate reoffending risk (Reitz & Rhine, 2020; Werth, 2013, 2016, 2017). For instance, Werth (2017) found that even when field personnel were attuned to structural factors that affected compliance with parole conditions, the focus remained on “individual responsibility, morality and choice” (p. 823). As noted by Turnbull and Hannah-Moffat (2009), parole boards operate on a “technique of discipline and self-governance within an integrated exercise of penal power that is simultaneously responsibilizing and de-responsibilizing” (p. 537). The point being that those on parole supervision are caught in a balancing act where they are expected to be responsible as “independent, self-regulating individuals who are willing to change” and at the same time submit to supervision to make those expected changes (Turnbull & Hannah-Moffat, 2009, p. 537; see also Werth, 2016). To that end, parole boards have wide discretion to interpret a candidate’s personal choices in a way that can minimize structural inequalities in terms of access to housing, employment, and medical care. These structural inequalities are of increased concern when it comes to juvenile lifers who are highly criminalized (Feld, 2017), beginning with arrest and culminating in a life sentence that requires lifetime-intensive supervision.
Discretionary Release of Juvenile Lifers
Jurisprudential recognition of adolescence as a sentence mitigating factor has put the spotlight on juvenile lifers. In Roper v. Simmons (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court pointed to developmental research on how adolescents should be viewed as less culpable than adults when banning the death penalty for those aged 17 and younger. Later, LWOP sentences were found to be unconstitutional when imposed on juveniles convicted of nonhomicide crimes (Graham v. Florida, 2010). The Graham Court did not preclude life sentences; instead, it directed states to provide a meaningful opportunity for release and identified state parole boards as an appropriate avenue (Bierschbach, 2012). Two years later, the Supreme Court prohibited mandatory LWOP terms for juveniles (Miller v. Alabama, 2012) and later enabled early release through resentencing or parole for those already serving LWOP (Montgomery v. Louisiana, 2016).
Twenty-five states and the District of Columbia have since banned sentencing juveniles to LWOP, whereas six states report that they have no juvenile lifers serving an LWOP sentence (Schwartzapfel, 2021). 2 According to one report, Pennsylvania has resentenced 88% of their juvenile LWOP population compared with 52% in Michigan and about 15% to 22% in Louisiana (Daftary-Kapur & Zottoli, 2020). In other states, like the one examined in this study, the juvenile LWOP segment is eligible for parole once they have served a minimum term like their counterparts who received parole-eligible life sentences.
Recent empirical research related to juvenile lifer discretionary release reveals an emphasis on the assessment of individual needs. Bell (2019) found that demonstrating rehabilitation efforts by participating in programming, engaging in substance use treatment, and avoiding disciplinary misconduct while incarcerated increases a candidate’s chance of release. The salience of factors associated with a candidate’s rehabilitation communicates to the parole board the desire and ability to reform to the point that release can be justified (Bell, 2019). Caldwell (2016) noted a negative correlation between parole granting and the frequency and timing of disciplinary infractions. In addition, juvenile lifer parole candidates who were younger at the time of their offense were more likely to be released due to their perceived mitigated culpability.
While securing release is the first hurdle, the next major obstacle for juvenile lifers is adapting to life outside of prison. Reentry challenges are exacerbated for juvenile lifers because they are on community supervision for life. Lifetime supervision implies extended opportunities for revocation that can ignore the structural inequalities in community reintegration (Klingele, 2013; Werth, 2017). Prior research has found that for individuals sentenced as juveniles, the period right after release is the most crucial as it marks the first time in which there is less structure and lower levels of supervision (Chung et al., 2007). A smoother transition into society after a period of incarceration is possible through engagement in community-based services (Chung et al., 2007; Steinberg et al., 2004). Utilizing a sample of adolescents adjudicated in juvenile court, Panuccio and colleagues (2012) corroborate prior empirical findings that educational and vocational efforts, as well as engagement with prosocial individuals facilitate community reintegration and reduce the risk of recidivism (MacKenzie, 2006; Wilson et al., 2000). Zero tolerance approaches that emphasize intensive surveillance without access to appropriate developmentally based services can hinder successful reentry (Altschuler & Brash, 2004).
Prior studies on juvenile lifer populations are restricted in that they only analyze factors associated with initial release decisions (see Bell, 2019; Caldwell, 2016). The primary gap we address is how the parole board justifies revocation for juvenile lifers who were given a chance at parole and then reincarcerated for violating community supervision conditions. Although there exists prior work on the dynamics of parole board revocation hearings for juvenile candidates serving nonlife terms (see Cavender & Knepper, 1992), we extend the literature on parole decision-making by employing inductive qualitative techniques to analyze decision statements for a population that faces either incarceration or parole supervision for life. Specifically, we recognize the written decision statements produced following parole board hearings as the public face of a parole board’s decision-making practices. Therefore, we examine how the parole board presents candidates as deserving or undeserving of rerelease in written decision statements.
Study Setting
This state’s parole board (hereafter the “Board”) comprised seven members, all of whom are appointed by the Governor for a term of 5 years. Members of the Board are primarily from criminal justice backgrounds, including a former victim’s advocate, a department of corrections official, a former general counsel for the parole board, and a former parole officer. The Board is required to have at least one member with a background in forensic psychology.
The Board conducts a revocation review hearing following reincarceration due to a technical and/or new crime violation. 3 Prior to the hearing, the Board reviews a candidate’s casefile that includes information related to the sentencing offense such as arrest reports and trial documents, as well as institutional infractions, and rehabilitative program participation throughout their incarceration. The Board also conducts its own investigation of the alleged parole violations apart from what is submitted by the candidate’s parole officer.
The revocation review hearing is conducted at the Board’s central office. The hearing begins with the juvenile lifer candidate presenting their reasons for why they should be rereleased. If represented, a juvenile lifer candidate’s attorney can also make a statement. Next, Board members take turns questioning the candidate about technical and/or new crime violations, their prison adjustment in terms of infractions and programming pre- as well as postparole, and the circumstances of their sentencing offense. Family or friends can offer their support, which is then followed by statements of opposition from the District Attorney’s Office where the initial offense took place, from the victim’s family or advocate, and from any other member of the public who wishes to oppose rerelease. At the end of the hearing, the juvenile lifer or their attorney can make a closing statement.
A two-thirds majority vote is required for a grant of parole and a written decision is produced. During the study period (2007–2020), the Board had four different Chairpersons organizing the voting and writing of the decisions. The number of voting members fluctuated due to turnover and recusals, with the lowest number of voting members at four, including the Chairperson. If released, juvenile lifer candidates are on supervised parole for the remainder of their life. If denied parole, the Board’s decision statement stipulates that the candidate must wait anywhere between 1 and 5 years for another hearing.
In 2014, the Board revised its guidelines for all lifers, requiring members to consider the parole candidate’s age at the time of offense. It also specifically asked members to reflect on age-related reasons for the crime, stating that members should consider “factors of immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences.” The Board’s statute and guidelines continue to emphasize that the severity of the crime should be considered in deciding release even in the case of revocation review hearings.
Method
Data
We obtained 44 written decisions issued between 2007 and 2020 for 21 juvenile lifer candidates who were reincarcerated following revocation of parole. 4 On average, a juvenile lifer was about 16 years old at the time of their offense and was convicted of one life offense. Most candidates received parole-eligible life sentences following convictions of second-degree homicide; two were convicted of rape and one was convicted of manslaughter. One candidate was previously sentenced to life without parole (LWOP) for first-degree homicide, but became eligible after the state’s appellate court ruled that the Miller (2012) decision would apply retroactively.
Of the 21 candidates (only one female), three are Hispanic, nine are Black, six are White, and there were three whose racial information is not available. On average, candidates were around 37 years old when they were first released on parole and spent 3.5 years in the community before revocation. Almost half of the candidates were reincarcerated for technical violations such as not maintaining employment, not reporting to their parole officer, failing a sobriety test, or not complying with curfew conditions. Only three candidates were incarcerated for allegedly committing a crime while on parole but did not violate any other supervision conditions. Nearly 38% of juvenile lifer candidates had both technical violations and allegations of nonviolent criminal charges to revoke their parole status.
Table 1 shows that a juvenile lifer candidate was, on average, older in decisions granting rerelease. Grant decisions noted that a greater number of supporters were present at the revocation review hearing, whereas denial decisions showed that more individuals were present to object to a candidate’s rerelease. A higher proportion of hearings resulting in a grant of parole had candidates with legal representation. 5 In more than 50% of the hearings, there was no prosecutor present to object to the candidate’s rerelease. A greater proportion of denial decisions stemmed from only new crime violations.
Selected Descriptive Statistics for Revocation Review Decisions
Decision statements ranged from three pages to seven pages in length. Each statement has a specific format beginning with a summary paragraph noting whether parole was granted or denied. The next part provides an overview of the sentencing offense, including any appeals or postconviction proceedings. Then, a detailed section covers the candidate’s parole violations. The next section describes what was related by the candidate in the parole revocation review hearing. The Board may narrate the candidate’s proposed plan in terms of possible employment, housing, and community support. The final section of the statement summarizes the reasons for granting or denying rerelease, drawing on points made in any of the previous sections.
Analytical Process
Decision statements were uploaded to a qualitative data analysis software (NVivo Pro 12). Before coding, decision statements were read several times to create a codebook to capture quantitative variables (see Table 1). Decision statements were divided equally between the authors to conduct line-by-line coding. We applied open coding techniques that involve labeling chunks of text (ranging from a phrase to multiple sentences) with a term that captures the essence of that coded segment (Rivas, 2012). Following independent open coding, original codes that emerged were assembled into a hierarchical coding structure (Creswell, 2013; Miles et al., 2014). The intercoder reliability for the full coding structure (Cohen’s k = 0.69) was calculated in NVivo and is considered substantial (O’Connor & Joffe, 2020).
The hierarchical coding structure generated 11 primary codes. Within the segments of these primary codes, subcodes were created to represent different aspects. For example, repeated discussions of the candidate’s incarceration experience across almost all decision statements were grouped together, following which the coded segments were reviewed to create specific subcodes (e.g., “participation in programming”; “disciplinary infraction”).
There is some debate on what constitutes a satisfactory threshold in identifying themes from coding structures, but generally a code can be treated as a theme if it emerges in more than 50% of the sample (Campbell et al., 2013). Nine of 11 primary codes met the generally acceptable threshold. Of the nine, three codes (type of parole violation, time on parole, and whether an attorney was present) did not reveal themes related to the Board’s justifications, but were useful for descriptive statistics (see Table 1). A fourth code, “parole board recommendations” emerged only in denial decision statements as detailed in the findings section.
The five remaining primary codes were treated as content themes to highlight how candidates are presented. Although findings are related in terms of whether candidates were represented as deserving or undeserving of rerelease, decision statements did not always fall neatly into these two categories. For instance, while discussions of remorse emerged in grant and denial decisions, another theme in the denial decision (e.g., lack of participation in substance use programming) is presented as the main reason to deny. Similarly, clarifying reasons for the violations appeared to humanize one candidate but explanations were presented as not being enough to grant rerelease in another case. Still, the five content themes generally emerged in opposing ways across grant and denial decisions.
Results
Remorse and Responsibility
Prior research has found that parole boards ascribe considerable agency to those who are released, placing responsibility to change on the candidates (Turnbull & Hannah-Moffat, 2009). A greater proportion of grant decisions highlighted a candidate’s testimony of accepting responsibility by clarifying the context of the parole violations. For example, Tim was convicted of second-degree murder after he and an accomplice killed a theater manager while stealing equipment. He served about 32 years of his life sentence before he was released on parole. He was reincarcerated 3 years later for a positive test for cocaine use, failing to report to his parole officer, and inability to secure employment. The Board granted parole after his second revocation review hearing in 2016 where he was asked to discuss his parole violations: [Tim] described a downward spiral of events, after an initial period of positive adjustment. The loss of his marriage, the death of a younger sister, his inability to maintain employment, and the pressure of caring for elderly relatives overwhelmed him and left him unable to cope. Suffering from anxiety and depression, [Tim] turned away from both his support system and his parole officer, relapsing into heroin and cocaine use. [Tim] then engaged in credit card theft to fund his substance abuse habits.
Tim’s testimony at the hearing seems to have convinced the Board that his parole violations were due to his inability to cope with stressful situations. The grant decision represents the Board’s conclusion that Tim deserves another shot because he has reconciled why he did not do well previously. By describing Tim’s challenges with maintaining a support network, the decision statement humanizes the difficulties of reentry.
Still, providing context may not be enough as parole boards might view these factors as excuses or claims made to escape responsibility for violating supervision conditions. Robin was 17 years old when she was convicted of a murder of an acquaintance along with an older codefendant. She was released after serving nearly 25 years of her life sentence. While on parole, she was suspected to have been involved in a drug transaction, failed to notify her parole officer about her arrest, and associated with a person with a criminal record. At her second revocation review hearing in 2017, Robin attempted to explain her violations. However, the Board did not buy her account that she was not paying enough attention to realize that she was in the midst of a drug transaction, citing that “Robin manipulated parole staff as she maintained a long-term relationship with a known felon. In addition, she aided her partner in obtaining drugs and was aware of illegal behavior that supported the addiction.” Using “aided” and “aware” suggests that to the Board, Robin knowingly and willfully chose to violate parole conditions. The Board noted a history of conflicting testimony in previous parole hearings and at the time of her trial, which seemingly affected their impression of whether Robin had made sincere efforts toward compliance with supervision conditions. By relating her as someone who “chose” to violate parole, Robin is presented as undeserving of another chance at community supervision. In other words, there is an emphasis on individual accountability (see also Turnbull & Hannah-Moffat, 2009), especially in denial decisions. Justifications link the past to the future where a juvenile lifer candidate is viewed as making a moral choice to violate parole and therefore undeserving of another chance of release—irrespective of the type of violation.
Denial decisions also cited the candidate’s refusal to accept the circumstances of their parole violations. Gerry was reincarcerated following multiple criminal charges in relation to an armed robbery of a taxicab company where approximately US$21,000 was stolen. The prosecutor ultimately dismissed the charges. In the decision, the Board detailed the exchange with Gerry about the circumstances of the crime, noting, [Gerry] claimed that he was “in the wrong place at the wrong time,” denied that he had participated in the armed robbery, and stated that the bag and firearm recovered from the taxi he had been in were not his. He believes it was a “coincidence” that the DNA of an individual with whom he had been incarcerated was recovered in the taxi with him.
Gerry’s lack of acceptance of the recorded facts is presented to emphasize that he is perhaps unable to take responsibility for his actions. The inability to acknowledge one’s role in the parole violation appears more problematic when that violation is a new violent crime—even if the criminal charges are ultimately dropped. If Gerry continues to fail to accept his role in the parole violation, it is possible that he is never going to be rereleased. However, relying on how candidates narrate their reasons for their violations neglects an important developmental fact. Not all juvenile lifers are equally skilled in their capacities to enact all that is required to convince parole board members that they are not at risk to reoffend.
Parole boards also expect a show of remorse during the hearing (Medwed, 2008; Paratore, 2016). When a candidate is perceived as one who lacks remorse, then it becomes a justification to deny rerelease. Following the deadly stabbing of an acquaintance he had met the night before, 16-year-old Chris was convicted of second-degree murder and burning of a house while the victim was inside. He was released on parole after nearly 20 years but reincarcerated 2 years later for reported alcohol and substance use. In the decision denying rerelease following his first revocation review hearing in 2012, the Board noted that Chris’s “. . .demeanor at the hearing, as well as some of the answers that he provided, suggest that he may not yet have gained clear insight into his motive for murdering [the victim].” For the Board, Chris was not forthcoming about the motivations for the crime. Although revocation review hearings are primarily about identifying reasons for the lack of success on parole, candidates are expected to relate the exact reasons for their original, commitment offense. The Board drew on Chris’s responses related to the questioning about the sentencing offense to infer that he is not deserving of another chance at parole.
Incarceration Experience
Decision statements justified grant or denial based on incarceration experiences both pre- and postrevocation of parole. Rerelease is supported if candidates showed ongoing participation in programming and treatment efforts postrevocation. If candidates explained what they would do differently on parole based on their current rehabilitative efforts, then those statements were drawn on to justify rerelease. Antonio was 14 years old when he shot and killed his victim following a heated exchange in a diner. He was paroled after serving 16 years and returned to prison 2 years later for allegedly participating in a drug transaction with his brother. The prosecutor dropped the drug charges, but Antonio was denied rerelease twice since his return to prison. Following his third revocation review hearing in 2019, the Board granted parole, noting that “In forming this opinion, the Board has taken into consideration [Antonio]’s institutional behavior, as well as his participation in available work, educational, and treatment programs during the period of his incarceration.” Discussions of the extent of program participation throughout his pre- and postrevocation incarceration reflect Antonio’s “rehabilitated self”—one that replaces his identity as a violent offender. Citing a range of programs suggests that a candidate is well prepared to comply with the demands of community supervision. Put simply, the credibility of rehabilitative efforts could be related in terms of all that a candidate has done throughout their period of incarceration.
If candidates had not participated in any or only some programming that tackled the problems that led to their revocation, then those statements were referenced to support denial of rerelease. Sal received a life sentence for a homicide stemming from an armed robbery. He has been incarcerated for more than 33 years and paroled twice, serving about 4 years of community supervision. Following his third revocation review hearing in 2015, the Board denied parole. The decision noted that Sal had successfully completed five different programs, but not one that the Board perceives to be crucial, stating that “Although he has completed programming to address substance abuse and violence reduction, [Sal]’s continued accumulation of troubling disciplinary reports coupled with his lack of participation in AA/NA meetings is problematic.” From the Board’s perspective, Sal’s rehabilitative efforts are not meaningful because of repeated prison misconduct as well as his nonparticipation in a specific program that would help him maintain his sobriety. His parole was first revoked in 1990 due to his alleged involvement in the use and sale of heroin. To be released again, it appears that Sal must convincingly show the Board that he no longer has a substance use issue and that would require his regular participation in AA/NA meetings.
Disciplinary reports were usually referenced in the form of tickets that a candidate received during their incarceration. In over a third of denial decisions, the type of infraction was described in detail, like in Karl’s case. Karl received a life sentence for a shooting death. After serving about 16 years, he was released on parole. He was reincarcerated for not securing employment, failing to attend mandatory mental health treatment, associating with a person with a criminal record, and not adhering to curfew at his residential facility. The Board discussed his disciplinary record prior to his first release on parole: He received five disciplinary reports after the decision and before his release. He fought with another inmate in April 2008. The parole vote allowed [Karl] to transfer to pre-release in September 2008. He was returned to higher custody in November 2008 after he received a disciplinary report for receiving a visit from a barred visitor at his work site; he was found in the men’s bathroom with a woman who had been “repeatedly barred” from visiting [Karl]. The disciplinary record shows little improvement in [Karl]’s behavior over time.
In detailing disciplinary history, the Board presents Karl as someone who may not be able to cope with adjusting to intensive community supervision. The description of the disciplinary infraction that occurred years before the hearing is perhaps a way to suggest that unless Karl stops getting into trouble while incarcerated (even if it is not violent in nature), he is not going to be rereleased. Describing the quality of disciplinary infractions, even prior to a candidate’s revoked status, signals a lack of readiness for community supervision. Discussions of a candidate’s prison history reflect Shah’s (2017) point that moral assessments of rehabilitative efforts have been reframed by parole boards as a tool of risk management.
Parole Hearing Performance
While decisions did not explicitly typecast a candidate’s performance at the hearing, certain phrases demonstrated whether a candidate had performed well according to the Board. For example, the credibility of a candidate’s reentry plan as presented during the hearing is one way to justify rerelease. David was 17 years old when he shot and killed a victim with whom he had an altercation. He was released from prison after serving 22 years. He was reincarcerated 2 years later for “irresponsible conduct” and “association with persons with criminal records.” Following his second hearing in 2017, the Board detailed his rerelease plan: If released, [David] plans to get an apartment with his wife (they have been married 14 years) and go back to work. [David] has been gainfully employed at a movie theater and a store (where he re-stocked shelves) and told the Board that both employers would welcome him back, if re-paroled. He stated that he has strong family support with his wife, mother, stepfather, and brothers, all of whom would help him stay on the right track (and who would be positive role models for him in the community). If released, he plans to continue with his pharmacological and counseling treatment to address his mental health needs.
By detailing David’s testimony about his rerelease plan, the Board is able to reflect on his preparation for community supervision. The decision describes David as having convincingly testified that he has secured all relevant markers for successful reentry such as possible employment, a supportive network and access to mental health treatment (see Ortiz & Jackey, 2019).
A greater proportion of denial decisions noted that a candidate’s testimony at the hearing was “not believable.” Ed’s decision statement is one example. Ed was on parole for nearly 3 years when he tested positive for cocaine on a drug test administered by his parole officer. The decision noted that Ed admitted to cocaine use a week prior to the test. The Board referenced Ed’s conflicting testimony about his substance use in the denial decision: Based on [Ed]’s performance at the hearing, reasonable inferences, and common sense, Board members concluded that [Ed]’s far-fetched and self-serving story is almost certainly misleading or fabricated, and that it is most likely that [Ed] was using cocaine recreationally on more than one occasion.
The Board makes the inference that Ed is lying because cocaine does not last in a person’s system for a week. The decision noted that members made attempts to help Ed clarify the discrepancy in dates, but he insisted that he used cocaine a single time. The Board was convinced that it may have been the day before and not a week prior as claimed by Ed. This back and forth did not appease Board members who expect the candidate to be categorical as to when, how, and why they violated their parole conditions.
Still, clarifying the circumstances of the parole violation during the hearing may not be reason enough to justify rerelease. Greg had served nearly 33 years of his LWOP sentence before becoming eligible for parole and then released. He was reincarcerated for consuming alcohol and attending a protest at a prison. Regarding his alcohol use, Greg explains how an injury led to depression and he used alcohol to cope. In summarizing the decision to deny, the Board stated that “He struggles with admitting the extent of his missteps and minimizes his own culpability and has made repeated excuses for his behavior.” Greg’s explanations for his parole violations appear insufficient and the Board perceived them as excuses. There is perhaps an expectation that the Board wishes to hear the candidate acknowledge the facts as reported in the casefile and/or per their investigation. The phrase “minimizing culpability” suggests that Greg did not take full responsibility for his alcohol use, although he claims that it was a coping mechanism. The decision also cites that he was intoxicated when he committed his sentencing offense of first-degree murder, hinting that his ongoing alcohol dependency heightens his reoffending risk and, therefore, rerelease can be justifiably denied.
Candidate Needs for Reentry
Decisions emphasized aspects of a candidate’s reentry as being crucial to support rerelease. One example is a structured parole plan. John was released after serving 30 years of his life sentence. He was on parole for nearly 8 years before his status was revoked due to marijuana and alcohol use. In justifying rerelease, the Board noted that John presented a detailed plan: A Board Member asked him about how he would handle social situations and relapse in the future. John replied with the insight he has now gained about the precipitants to his use, and the skills he has acquired with regards to relapse prevention. In addition, he said that the tools he will employ if he is released will include fully re-engaging in AA and seeking advice from other group members. He also plans on meeting with a therapist on a more regular basis, finding a quality sponsor, and establishing and maintaining an open and honest dialogue with his parole officer to “catch it before it happens.” He believes that this treatment plan will make him less susceptible to relapse.
In providing the Board with a precise plan of action to address his substance use issues, John presumably convinced the Board of his preparedness for community supervision. Specificity in the plan to address reentry obstacles seems to be crucial for the Board to justify rerelease.
While community support in the form of family, friends, therapists, social workers, and legal representatives was highlighted in both grant and denial decisions, mere mention of maintaining social bonds with family and friends was not enough. Tom was 17 years old when he was involved in a group robbery that resulted in a homicide. He has served more than 35 years in prison despite having two opportunities for parole. He was reincarcerated due to his failure to participate in mental health counseling and testing positive for cocaine. Following his third revocation review hearing in 2015, the Board once again denied parole, but noted that [Tom] also expressed a desire to become involved in the lives of his daughter and grandchildren. He further expressed his confidence to the Board that he would not have any difficulty becoming reacquainted with his family, should he be released.
Despite Tom’s desire to become more involved with family, the Board was not convinced that the hope of reconciliation is enough to show evidence of a community ready and willing to support his reentry. Without supporters at the hearing to corroborate a candidate’s expectation of reconnecting, justification of rerelease appears to be a remote possibility.
In addition, we found that in denial decisions, the Board made general or specific recommendations based on a candidate’s reentry needs. General recommendations simply stated that a candidate would benefit from additional programming. For example, in providing recommendations to James, the Board stated, “[James] is encouraged to engage in all available treatment with a different perspective and level of self-reflection in hopes that he will gain the necessary insight and commitment to true rehabilitation.” General recommendations offer little to no information regarding which changes the Board hoped to see prior to granting parole. About half of the recommendations in denial decisions were broad and highlighted the Board’s dissatisfaction with what was presented during the hearing without offering detailed avenues for individual improvement.
Other recommendations were specific in that they were tailored to the candidate. For example, in the decision denying parole to Chris, the Board noted that [Chris] has a firm understanding that he must maintain a positive relationship with his parole officer, cannot consume any alcohol or illicit substances, needs to continue participating in mental health counseling, must maintain employment, and establish a comprehensive support structure.
In providing specific recommendations to candidates, the Board highlights areas in which they should actively work on prior to their next parole hearing. The detailing of recommendations based on the candidate’s needs reflects the Board’s interest in ensuring that a candidate has rehabilitated to the point that their eventual rerelease can be justified. Specificity may be further related to the candidate’s presentation of needs in the casefile and during the hearing.
Recognizing Lesser Culpability
The most common reference to mitigated criminal culpability in grant and denial decisions was an acknowledgment of the candidate’s age at the time of offense. Warren was intoxicated with friends when they decided to steal a handbag from an elderly woman. During the scuffle to snatch the handbag, the victim fell to the ground, hit her head on the pavement, and died 10 days later from the head injury. Warren has been paroled 3 times and his revocations stem from substance use issues. At his latest revocation review hearing in 2013, the Board noted that Warren was asked to discuss how his age may have contributed to the offense. In summarizing the decision to grant parole, the Board noted Warren’s adolescence: Warren was 17 years old when he killed [victim]. He did not intend to kill the victim and did not use a weapon. He struggled with her but did not beat her. His violence caused her death, and he was properly convicted of second-degree murder. Because his actions did not display the level of anger, intentional violence, and disregard for human life more commonly seen with second degree murder, [Warren] is well-situated to earn parole, and live productively in the community if he committed to rehabilitation and sobriety.
Warren’s age at the time of offense is mentioned more than once in the decision to repeat the point of his adolescent status at the time of offense. By categorically stating that Warren’s role in the crime was not nefarious in nature and in part due to his age, he is presented as someone who should be viewed as less culpable and therefore deserving of rerelease.
Both grant and denial decision statements recognize the overlap of mitigating factors, such as the combination of prior victimization and substance use. At his third revocation review hearing in 2015, Board members discussed factors leading up to Tom’s sentencing offense: [Tom] reported to the Board that he was sexually molested by a priest during this time. He then left the program and reported the abuse to his grandmother. Although the abuse stopped, it was at this point in his life that [Tom] began to engage in substance abuse, particularly alcohol and drugs.
In highlighting substance use as a reason to mitigate culpability, the decision reflected on how it might have affected Tom’s current struggles with maintaining sobriety. Indeed, juvenile lifer candidates are part of a segment of incarcerated individuals who grapple with substance use. The latest report on substance use shows that 58% of state-incarcerated individuals meet the criteria for drug dependence (Bronson et al., 2017). Although Tom is presented as less culpable due to his victimization and subsequent drug use to cope with the trauma, these factors are not salient enough to justify rerelease. In other words, contextualizing Tom’s adolescence does not wholly mitigate culpability to the point of rerelease if there are other reasons to deny, such as not participating in specific rehabilitative programs.
Discussion
In the state examined, most juvenile lifer candidates’ parole was revoked due to technical violations or by a combination of technical violations with nonviolent crimes. Only one candidate was reincarcerated for a violent crime, but ultimately not prosecuted due to lack of evidence. The incidence of reoffending in terms of the quality of violations is similar to other states where the recidivism rate for released juvenile lifers is low (Daftary-Kapur & Zottoli, 2020). The decision to grant or deny rerelease is significant because it either lengthens ultimate time served in prison or subjects an individual to lifetime intensive supervision (Reitz & Rhine, 2020). Revocation review decision statements therefore represent the public face of the parole board’s interpretation as to whether a second, third, or even fourth chance of release is fair to the candidate and to the public. In other words, revocation review decisions symbolize the parole board’s view of who is deserving or undeserving of rerelease.
We find that juvenile lifer candidates are presented as deserving of rerelease in the context of accomplishments. Meaning, a juvenile lifer candidate is characterized as worthy of a second or third chance of community supervision if they had completed tasks or met certain expectations of the parole board. Specifically, decisions justify rerelease by citing a candidate’s expressed remorse, their acceptance of responsibility for parole violations, participation in rehabilitative programming that informed their reentry needs, and lesser culpability due to their adolescent status at the time of offense.
In contrast, an undeserving candidate is presented as someone who has only made claims of improvement. A juvenile lifer candidate’s rerelease is denied by citing how their rehabilitative efforts, expressed remorse, parole plans, and community support are not credible or unsatisfactory. The point being that simply claiming or intending to comply with the parole board’s expectations is not enough to support rerelease. In addition, a candidate’s reoffending risk could be tightly coupled with the context of their initial sentencing offense. Although the decisions do not specifically cite the facts of the life offense as a reason to deny, there is still discussion of the crime and an expectation for candidates to show remorse.
There is no reference to risk assessment scores in the decisions, although they may have been a part of the candidate’s record. Instead, much of the characterizations of reoffending risk rely on whether there is a meaningful reflection on reasons for the parole violations and their efforts at reform. However, a narrative that presents a candidate as truly rehabilitated is difficult to produce because parole board members can diverge from the candidate in terms of interpreting their efforts (Aviram, 2020). Some parole board members view certain programming to be more salient such as services that specifically address parole violations while others are more satisfied with general program involvement (Connor, 2016). Parole boards can also fail to recognize that candidates are unable to choose the services they actually need (Aviram, 2020). Access to programming is inconsistent, particularly for juvenile lifers (Bell, 2019; Levick & Schwartz, 2013). Treatment and services could have been limited by virtue of the life sentence (Graham, 2010) or due to budget cuts (Cohen, 2014). Some juvenile lifer candidates may not have pursued programming because they were unable to cope with prison environments (Drinan, 2017).
Yet, revocation decisions did not always nor fully recognize the structural inequalities in juvenile lifer reentry. Individuals incarcerated as juveniles are more likely to return to the communities that contributed to their crimes (Mears & Travis, 2004). Decades of incarceration can hinder appropriate educational qualifications or relevant work experience for well-paying jobs (Austin & Irwin, 2001). Decisions did not meaningfully reflect on the fact that parole supervision severely restricts the range of employment opportunities. The inability to find a good job and pay supervision expenses coupled with housing discrimination are known obstacles to successful community reintegration (Ortiz & Jackey, 2019), although in several states, they are technical violations that lead to parole revocation (Reitz & Rhine, 2020). As noted, lifetime supervision for individuals convicted of serious crimes means extended opportunities for revoking parole (Klingele, 2013). For instance, candidates sentenced for sex offenses (which include juvenile lifers) are more likely to experience higher supervision over technical violations than any other group on parole (Grattet & Lin, 2016).
In the state examined too, a greater proportion of denial decisions followed revocation review hearings (even in the case of technical violations), which suggests that parole boards find it safer to deny rerelease for candidates previously convicted of violent offenses (Lin et al., 2010; Meyer, 2001; Treen, 2014). The cautious approach to revocation decision-making may have been influenced by an incident during this study period, where an individual on parole (who had received a life sentence) fatally shot a police officer and was killed. Intense media attention and public opposition led to multiple Board resignations and the firing of the assigned parole officer. It is not beyond the realm of possibility to speculate that since this incident, Board members were more skeptical of lifer candidates appearing before them asking for rerelease. There is often intense media scrutiny in the case of individuals returning to the community after decades of incarceration, and more so in the case of juvenile lifers who received life sentences for highly publicized offenses.
Our analyses are limited in that we look at a sample of parole revocation decisions for one segment of the incarcerated population in a single state. Due to the variation in parole practices, there is a need to unpack discretionary release in more than one state. We have race information about the candidates, but we cannot make conclusions about racialized narratives without access to casefiles and parole board hearings. There is little variation in terms of gender identity in our sample, but there can be gender differences in the types of factors that matter in parole decision-making (see Hannah-Moffat & Yule, 2011). The qualitative analyses of decision statements reveal how parole boards justify their decision-making, but other factors that might have affected decisions are not publicly disclosed nor is there a requirement to do so. For instance, less explicit reasons for parole revocation decision-making ranging from candidate attributes to parole hearing variables like victim impact statements and prosecutorial objections may not be reflected in written decision statements. Having access to parole board members or their private deliberations would enhance the ability to draw conclusions regarding salient factors in rerelease decision-making.
Conclusion
A segment of America’s incarcerated population comprises individuals returning to prison for violating parole conditions (Reitz & Rhine, 2020; Steen et al, 2013), including juvenile lifers. Reasons for violating parole conditions reflect a juvenile lifer’s struggles in the context of their developmental status and contextual factors like the lack of a supportive network. Yet, we find that parole revocation review decisions tend to focus on moral concerns of culpability and responsibility that fail to recognize the structural inequities of juvenile life sentences. Assessments of a juvenile lifer’s record in written decision statements are linked to their reoffending risk, but these assessments are highly subjective and depend on how well the candidate can talk a good game (Martel, 2010). To that end, assistance of legal counsel could benefit in enabling an effective presentation at the hearing and securing reentry services (see Kokkalera, 2021). The Supreme Court in Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) has recognized the need for limited due process protections, including the right to an attorney in all parole revocation hearings, although access may vary across states.
Given that lifetime supervision implies extended opportunities for parole revocations, parole boards should recognize the precariousness of community supervision for any individual returning from prison. That precariousness is often in the form of structural inequities in accessing reentry services, treatment, and support networks, which may be heightened for certain incarcerated populations like juvenile lifers. If there is lack of access to reentry services, then individuals might be more prone to violating parole conditions and therefore at greater risk of reincarceration. Future research will look into the differences in reentry experiences and outcomes for juvenile lifers compared with those who were sentenced as young or older adults.
Importantly, the examination of rerelease decisions contextualizes the extent to which parole boards are willing to give individuals another shot at community supervision. While the expectation is that risk assessment tools would play heavily into supporting or rejecting rerelease, we find extensive variability in how candidates are presented as deserving or undeserving of parole. In reflecting on the publicly stated reasons for supporting or rejecting rerelease, we hope that this study’s findings spark an important conversation about the role of parole boards in recognizing the precariousness of lifetime community supervision.
Footnotes
Authors’ Note:
The authors are grateful to Robert Werth for his comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. This manuscript was also part of a virtual workshop on contemporary parole research in April 2021 with several scholars and we appreciate their suggestions for improvement. We also want to thank Phillip Alvin Jones, who was incarcerated at 19 years old and is currently serving his 31st year in prison. Phillip read early and revised drafts of the manuscript to provide detailed feedback based on his own experience of appearing before the parole board. We are very grateful to have his encouragement and support in submitting this work for publication. We also want to thank Kristina Block and Jacob Kaplan for their feedback on this manuscript. There is no funding source nor conflict of interest to disclose.
