Abstract
Little is known about inmates’ decisions regarding seeking release on parole, even though many choose to waive their parole hearings. Using semistructured, in-depth interviews with 25 adult male parole-eligible inmates who had waived a parole hearing, we seek to better understand the reasons inmates forgo the possibility of parole. We frame the study in rational choice theory, which suggests that inmates balance the perceived costs and benefits of remaining in prison versus returning to the community in reaching their decisions. A large majority of inmates attributed the decision to waive their hearings, in part, to concerns about the hearing process (e.g., parole denial likely, fear of negative experience), and most also listed various reasons that made remaining in prison a better outcome compared with release on parole (e.g., prison easier than parole, fear of revocation). The findings suggest that inmates’ parole waiver decisions involve multiple factors that merit further examination.
Introduction
Discretionary parole refers to the process through which prison inmates can be released into the community before the full completion of their sentences. First emerging in Europe in the mid-19th century, discretionary parole release has become a major feature of correctional systems throughout much of the world. Countries using some variant of the system include, but are not limited to, France, Ireland, Slovenia, Canada, New Zealand, Belgium, England, Wales, and South Africa (Ambroz & Stubbs, 2011; New Zealand Parole Board, 2012; Parole Board of Canada, 2008; Tournier, 2006). It is regarded by many as the most effective and constructive sentencing measure for planning the inmate’s eventual return to the community (Motiuk & Cousineau, 2006; Tournier, 2006). For example, in 2003, the Council of Europe adopted a conditional parole release system with mixed discretionary release components, citing such benefits as increased offender motivation to participate in programming, enhanced preparation prior to release, and decreased likelihood of reoffense upon return to the community (Tournier, 2006). The release of offenders is typically predicated on their willingness to abide by certain conditions (e.g., maintain employment, attend counseling, and refrain from criminal conduct), which are monitored by a parole officer or other government authority.
Discretionary parole has been a fixture of the U.S. correctional system for over a century, and it remains an important mechanism through which prison inmates reenter the community. In 2009, for example, nearly 150,000 offenders reentered the community via discretionary release (Glaze & Bonczar, 2010). In the same year, more than half the states relied either exclusively or nearly exclusively on discretionary parole decisions to release felony offenders into the community. 1
In states that utilize discretionary parole, release decisions are made by a parole board, which is comprised of citizens who are most commonly appointed to serve by the governor of their respective state (Paparozzi & Caplan, 2009). Before making release decisions, parole boards are provided with an array of information about an inmate, including information related to his or her criminal history, institutional behavior, and rehabilitative efforts. This information is often compiled by the inmate’s institutional caseworker or parole officer, who is charged with monitoring the inmate’s behavior and progress during incarceration, as well as assisting the inmate in preparing for release. It is also common in many jurisdictions for the caseworker to accompany inmates to their parole hearings and make recommendations about their suitability for release. At the same time, parole board structure and processes vary significantly among states. In certain states, for example, parole board members are full-time paid employees, whereas in other states, board members are volunteers who serve in a part-time capacity (Paparozzi & Caplan, 2009). In addition, while many states rely on parole boards to make release decisions for all inmates, other states utilize hybrid methods in which only the release of certain offenders, such as those charge with nonviolent crimes, are left to the discretion of the board (Travis & Lawrence, 2002).
Although parole remains a key component of the American criminal justice system, it is often criticized as a highly discretionary process (Bonham, Janeksela, & Bardo, 1986; Caplan, 2007; Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1988). Parole board members, while often aided by assessment tools and risk prediction instruments, generally enjoy wide latitude in deciding which inmates are worthy of early release. The discretionary nature of the process has led to questions about parole decision making, such as the ability of parole boards to predict accurately which inmates present a substantial risk to public safety and the influence of extralegal factors (e.g., race, age, and gender) on release decisions. These concerns have provided the impetus for a substantial body of research (e.g., Caplan, 2007; Huebner & Bynum, 2006; Matejkowski, Caplan, & Cullen, 2010; Morgan & Smith, 2008; West-Smith, Pogrebin, & Poole, 2000).
Parole boards are not the only entities that possess discretion in the parole process. Inmates also may exert control over parole outcomes. For example, prisoners’ choices and behaviors may substantially influence the likelihood of early release. Willingness to comply with prison rules and to enroll in treatment programs are strongly correlated with parole board release decisions (Caplan, 2007). In many jurisdictions with discretionary parole, inmates may more directly influence parole outcomes by deciding whether to attend or waive their parole board hearings. A waiver occurs when an inmate voluntarily chooses to forego his or her parole hearing. Those who forego their hearing must wait until the next scheduled hearing date to be considered for parole release, or they may choose to serve the remainder of their sentence in prison.
No national-level data on parole waiver rates in the United States exist, but statistics collected in two states suggest that the number of inmates who waive parole hearings is substantial. One recent study found that as many as 40% of inmates in New Jersey chose to waive their parole hearings (Ostermann, 2010). Similarly, data from Wyoming indicate that approximately 32% of inmates waived parole hearings in 2009 (Wyoming Board of Parole [WBOP], 2010). Statistics further reveal that parole waivers are not exclusively an American phenomenon. For example, a study in Canada revealed that between 2007 and 2008, 45% of federal inmates waived parole consideration (Beauchamp, Cabana, Emeno, & Bottos, 2009). These findings suggest that parole waivers are a far-reaching problem that merit further attention.
In spite of the substantial number of parole-eligible inmates who invoke their discretionary power to remove themselves from parole consideration, the role of the inmate in the parole process has been largely ignored in the literature on parole release and prisoner reentry. Instead, researchers have primarily focused on the role of the parole board in granting parole (Caplan 2007; Morgan & Smith, 2005; Petersilia 2004; Skovron, Scott, & Cullen, 1988). The limited previous research on parole waivers by inmates focuses almost exclusively on the characteristics of inmates (e.g., criminal histories) who waive and who attend their hearings (e.g., Ostermann, 2010). Only one previous study could be identified that focused on the reasons why inmates waive consideration for parole. A qualitative study by Beauchamp et al. (2009) explored the reasons why federal inmates in Canada waived parole consideration. The findings revealed that the most common reasons inmates gave for their decision to waive parole consideration were related to perceived deficiencies in correctional programming, which was cited by 42% of the sample. Of those who cited concerns about correctional programming, the majority (61%) were either in the process of completing their programming or had been placed on a waiting list to receive the treatment. Interestingly, among those who had concerns about program participation, internal motives (e.g., desire to make permanent behavioral changes) were reported more frequently than external motives (e.g., programs are required for early release) as reasons for waiving the parole hearing. Other common reasons for waiving parole consideration included perceived lack of support from institutional personnel (e.g., negative recommendations from parole officers) and a history of behavioral issues, which made their prospects for release unlikely.
The purpose of this study is to expand our understanding of parole waivers by examining the motives and disincentives behind why inmates who are eligible for parole release choose to waive parole consideration. More specifically, relying on rational choice theory to frame this study, we use a qualitative research design to better understand inmates’ decision-making process when waiving their parole hearings. There are at least two key reasons why this issue is important and deserving of attention.
First, exploring the motives and disincentives of inmates who waive parole consideration provides an opportunity to gain valuable insight into the stressors and strains the incarcerated population faces as they consider life after release. The issue of prisoner reentry has received considerable attention from both academics and policy makers in recent years. Much of this attention has focused on the need to develop programs to assist offenders in the often-difficult transition from prison to the community (Baer et al., 2006; Petersilia, 2004; Seiter & Kadela, 2003). The capacity to design and implement effective reentry programs is enhanced through a more thorough understanding of the challenges and strains of the reentry process (Garland, Wodahl, & Mayfield, 2010). Thus, this study adds to a growing body of research that increases our awareness of the obstacles parole-eligible inmates face as they contemplate their transition into the community.
Second, improving our understanding of why parole-eligible inmates waive parole consideration provides a baseline of information from which strategies can be devised to increase participation in the parole application process. The desire to increase participation in the parole application process was the primary reason for the commission of this study by the WBOP. Some may question whether actively increasing participation in the parole process is always a desirable goal, especially for inmates who appear to stand little chance of being released. Although this is certainly a valid concern, there are reasons why jurisdictions might find it advantageous to undertake efforts to increase inmate participation in the parole process. For example, participation in the parole process, at least for some inmates, may prove to be a transformational experience, motivating them to alter their course. It is common practice for parole boards to provide inmates who have been denied release with feedback on ways in which they can increase their likelihood of release in the future, such as involving themselves in treatment programs to address criminogenic needs or avoiding behavioral problems in the institution (Cohen, 1999). In addition, parole boards in some locales, recognizing the parole hearing as an opportunity to encourage positive change, are experimenting with motivational interviewing techniques as a way to enhance the effectiveness of the parole hearing. There is some evidence to suggest that participation in the parole process can foster positive inmate change. Proctor and Pease (2000), for example, found that inmates in Nebraska who received negative parole outcomes had lower rates of misconduct following their denial, a finding that was most pronounced for high-risk offenders. Therefore, it appears that for some inmates the parole process, even when they are denied release, can have a rehabilitative effect.
Another argument for increasing participation in the parole application process stems from the understanding that inmates who waive consideration limit the capacity of the parole system to achieve its intended goals. Parole is thought to provide a number of benefits to the offender and the community during the reentry process (Baer et al., 2006; Petersilia, 2001; Solomon et al., 2008; Travis, 2000); however, the ability of the parole system to achieve these goals is severely curtailed when inmates forego their parole hearings and guarantee their removal from release consideration. Although it might be true that some or even many of the inmates who waive parole consideration are high-risk offenders who would be denied released by the parole board, it could also be argued that a potentially sizable group of these waivers would likely be successful in securing parole if they chose to engage themselves in the parole process. Furthermore, it should also be recognized that the vast majority of incarcerated offenders, including high-risk inmates, will not spend the rest of their lives in prison and will eventually be released into the community (Petersilia, 2001). Providing these inmates with a period of supervision as opposed to cutting them loose with no structure or guidance is often viewed as the most effective approach to enhance public safety and improve offender outcomes (Beauchamp et al., 2009). This opportunity is lost, however, when these inmates remove themselves from parole consideration. Thus, by enhancing our understanding of the reasons inmates waive parole consideration, we can begin to consider ways to modify existing policies and procedures in the hopes of increasing participation.
Theoretical Framework
Rational choice theory has been used by economists, political scientists, sociologists, and criminologists to explain the ways in which individuals make decisions (e.g., McCarthy, 2002; Rule, 1997). It is founded on two basic premises about human action and decision making. First, human action is purposeful, meaning that it is undertaken with intent to achieve some desired end (Rule, 1997). Second, purposeful human action is the result of a calculated process in which individuals weigh the anticipated benefits of their actions in relationship to the costs they may bear in the pursuit of the desired outcomes (Becker, 1968). Applying the tenets of rational choice theory to the issue of parole waivers, we maintain that the decision to waive the parole is an instrumental action undertaken after calculated deliberation. At the same time, we follow the rational choice tradition in criminology by emphasizing that humans are not “super-rational” beings (Nagin, 2007). Their decision making may be crude or faulty, and it is open to powerful nonrational influences, such as emotions, that may alter judgment. Here, we use the approach as a heuristic for categorizing the factors parole-eligible inmates identified as affecting their decisions, irrespective of whether they may have chosen well or poorly.
Whereas on the surface it may seem irrational for someone to remain in prison when there is a possibility of release, there are plausible reasons inmates would choose to do so. The rational choice perspective suggests two possible explanations for inmates choosing to abstain from the parole hearing. They may perceive either the process or the outcome as too costly or risky relative to the alternative of remaining in prison.
Process Waivers
Rational choice theory recognizes that desired outcomes are rarely certain. As such, individuals must assess the costs of pursuing outcomes against the perceived certainty of achieving them (McCarthy, 2002). People may be willing to invest a great deal of time and resources to achieve an outcome viewed as being highly certain; however, they may be less willing to devote the same level of effort to achieving an outcome in doubt. Applying this rationale to parole waivers, individuals who forego their parole hearings may not do so because they lack the desire to be released, rather, because they view the costs of participating in the hearing process as being too great in relationship to their perceived likelihood of being granted release.
The costs associated with participating in the parole process can be substantial. Inmates who wish to be considered for parole must exert considerable effort to establish a parole plan prior to their release hearing. Some offenders may be unwilling to invest the time and energy to prepare for the hearing, especially considering that parole outcomes are unpredictable. Although no national-level statistics exist on the proportion of eligible inmates who are granted parole, data from individual states confirm that the outcomes of parole hearings are uncertain. In Texas, for example, nearly 70% of inmates considered for parole in fiscal year 2010 were denied release (Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, 2010). Similarly, less than half of the inmates interviewed by the WBOP in 2010 were granted release (WBOP, 2010). These statistics highlight the fact that parole outcomes are not certain.
The rational choice model suggests that to subjectively reduce the degree of uncertainty of a particular outcome, individuals evaluate the information available to them (McCarthy, 2002). When considering whether to attend their parole hearing, inmates may glean data about the process from a variety of sources. Caseworkers and other institutional staff likely play a large role in providing information to inmates regarding their prospects for release on parole. Additional data regarding the parole process, whether accurate or not, may come from other inmates. Because of the potential for contradictory advice from these sources, ultimately the information that most influences the decision to waive will depend on the individual offender’s subjective perception of the context and validity of the sources.
Clearly the certainty of parole outcomes is not constant across all offenders. Research on parole board decision making reveals that release decisions are influenced by a variety of factors such as offense type, criminal history, institutional behavior, victim input, and demographic characteristics (Caplan, 2007; Conley & Zimmerman, 1982; Morgan & Smith, 2005; West-Smith et al, 2000). Although the degree to which inmates are cognizant of these patterns remains a matter of conjecture, it seems likely that inmates are to some extent aware of the factors parole boards consider when reaching release decisions. It is expected that inmates who perceive themselves as having a low probability of release will be less willing to commit themselves to the parole process.
Outcome Waivers
Those who waive their parole hearings may view the balance of costs and benefits for remaining in prison more positively than for returning to the community under parole supervision. For inmates faced with the decision of whether to pursue release on parole, one factor that may enter into their cost-benefit analysis is the likelihood of successfully completing community supervision. This is a reasonable consideration as a large portion of parolees do not succeed and are subsequently returned to incarceration (Glaze & Bonczar, 2010). Furthermore, in some states, inmates who fail in community supervision run the risk of extending their term of incarceration through loss of street time and goodtime credits earned before their release on parole. 2 Inmates who are concerned about their chances of successfully completing community supervision may conclude that remaining in prison is the better of two evils.
Obstacles to reentry are another factor that may account for outcome waivers. Inmates face a variety of challenges after release from prison, such as securing housing, finding employment, and accessing health care services (Baer et al., 2006; Garland et al., 2010; Petersilia, 2001). In addition, an inmate’s capacity to overcome these obstacles is often limited by weakened family and community ties resulting from their time in prison (Bales & Mears, 2008; Petersilia, 2004; Visher & Travis, 2003). Inmates who perceive these obstacles as daunting and/or who lack meaningful social ties may decide to waive the parole process to postpone dealing with their return to the community.
Apart from concerns about reentering the community, imprisonment may not be as disadvantageous as often assumed. It is generally believed that community-based sanctions such as parole are preferable to incarceration because of the harsh nature of the prison environment. A growing body of research suggests, however, that a sizable portion of the offender population does not perceive imprisonment as being more punitive than community-based sanctions (May, Wood, Moody, & Minor, 2005; Petersilia & Deschenes, 1994; Spelman, 1995; Wood & Grasmick, 1999). For example, Wood and Grasmick’s (1999) study of inmates in the Oklahoma prison system revealed that a sizable portion of offenders preferred spending time in prison to community-based alternative sanctions such as community service, day fines, and traditional probation. Given these findings, it is reasonable to presume that some inmates would choose to waive their parole hearing because they see prison as the better option in comparison to supervision in the community.
Although some outcome waivers may result from the perception that parole is more punitive than prison, others may result from the view that living in prison is more desirable than living in the community. As first articulated by Clemmer (1940), inmates experience a social transformation during the period of incarceration whereby they become accustomed to the values, norms, folkways, and mores of the prison community. This transformation, often referred to as prisonization, varies among individuals based on the degree to which they internalize the values and norms that permeate prison life (Schwartz, 1973). It may be that inmates who become more ingrained in the inmate culture and experience higher levels of prisonization will have fewer incentives to return to the community before the expiration of their sentences.
Research Problem
The purpose of this study is to explore the reasons inmates decide to waive the parole hearing and, therefore, the possibility of release in the immediate future. To obtain information about the factors weighing into these decisions, we conducted semistructured, in-depth interviews with male prisoners in Wyoming who had chosen to waive a parole hearing. The interviews were designed to capture concerns regarding the parole process and outcomes.
Wyoming uses an indeterminate sentencing structure in which inmates become eligible for parole release after completing their minimum sentence. Decisions about whether inmates are suitable for release into the community are left to the discretion of the WBOP. The WBOP is a lay board, meaning that board members are not full-time employees. Rather, the board is composed of members with varying backgrounds from communities throughout the state, who are appointed by the governor and meet regularly to conduct board business.
Parole-eligible inmates have the right to meet with the WBOP on an annual basis to be considered for release into the community. Inmates, in conjunction with their institutional case managers, compile a parole plan that details their plans for release, including housing, employment, and treatment preparations, before meeting with the board. Inmate interviews are required as part of the parole decision-making process. Panels consisting of three WBOP members travel to correctional facilities to meet in-person with all parole-eligible inmates who have not waived their hearings. During the interview, board members question the inmates about a variety of factors, including their criminal history, institutional behavior, treatment and programming completed during incarceration, and postrelease plans. Board members may also consider information from other sources, such as case manager recommendations and input from victims.
After completing the inmate interview and reviewing all available information, the board makes a decision about whether the offender will be released into the community or remain incarcerated. Unlike most parole granting authorities who utilize decision-making instruments or parole guidelines to structure release decisions (Caplan & Kinnevy, 2010), the WBOP utilizes a subjective process to decide which inmates will be granted release. Some considerations include the inmate’s perceived risk to the community, needs, participation in appropriate programming, and likelihood of adjusting well upon returning to the community (see WBOP, 2008, for further details of the parole process).
Method
We conducted the in-depth, semistructured interviews with inmates housed at Wyoming’s maximum-, medium-, and minimum-security correctional facilities for men. The interviews were completed between June and August of 2010. In addition, we obtained background information from the case files of each participant.
Sampling Procedures
We aimed to complete interviews with roughly 25 inmates, depending on the variety of responses and the presence of repeating themes in responses. Inmates chosen to participate in the study were males eligible for parole but who had waived their hearings between 2008 and 2010, and who were housed at one of the three state prisons at the time of the interviews. Those who had been discharged or transferred to other facilities were not included in the sampling frame. The pool of eligible participants consisted of 98 individuals. The eligible participants were stratified according to the facility (maximum, medium, or minimum security) within which they were housed. We selected random samples within each facility with the goal of obtaining consent from roughly equal numbers of participants at each institution.
Letters inviting the selected inmates to participate were sent to the caseworkers at the institutions, who relayed the contact letters and consent forms to the chosen inmates. The letter explained the purpose and nature of the study, and informed the inmates that they would be compensated US$5 for their participation in the study. In addition, the letter noted potential risks of participation (which were minimal) and informed the inmates that participation was completely voluntary and that there would be no consequences for refusal to participate in the study. Inmates who chose to participate signed the consent form and returned it to their caseworker.
We selected additional samples when a sufficient number of respondents at a location were not obtained in the first round of sampling. In some instances, individuals who initially agreed to participate had medical reasons for being unable to participate at the time of the study. In addition, some inmates were unable to participate due to disciplinary infractions. Of the inmates invited to participate, 22 refused, 35 agreed, and 25 individuals were interviewed.
Thirteen of the interviewees were housed at the medium-security facility. Among those housed at the maximum-security facility, only nine inmates were interviewed as the warden prohibited interviews with inmates in the highest custody wing for safety reasons. Just nine inmates at the minimum-security facility agreed to participate. Interviews with those inmates were scheduled last, and only three were conducted. Recurring themes in responses had been identified prior to the interviews with the minimum-security inmates. We terminated the study after three interviews as no new themes emerged that had not appeared in the earlier interviews, and time constraints precluded the possibility of interviewing all inmates who had agreed to participate.
Sample Characteristics
Table 1 presents descriptive data for the sample of participants and the population of eligible participants. With respect to age and remaining months on sentence, the sample and population were fairly similar. The sample differed somewhat from the population in terms of race/ethnicity and offense type, however. Whereas the population of eligible inmates was 75% White, they comprised 60% of the sample. In addition, Native Americans comprised 10% of the population, but the sample was 24% Native American. Hispanic and other race/ethnicities were proportionately represented. The sample included violent, sex, and property offenders. Whereas the population consisted of 29% sex offenders, 44% of the sample was sex offenders. No drug offenders (categorized as other) agreed to participate in the study. Although not constituting a true probability sample, the sample provides a reasonable cross-section of the eligible participants.
Descriptive Characteristics.
Interview Procedures
Before beginning each interview, the interviewer again reviewed the purpose of the study, risks of participation, and rights of the participant with the respondents. They were given the opportunity to decline participation and were told that they could cease participation at any time without penalty. In addition, inmates were asked for consent to audio record the interview. All participants agreed to have the interviews recorded. The interviews took place in secluded multipurpose rooms within each institution. The interviews took approximately 90 min to complete. 3
Respondents were asked a series of open-ended questions regarding the reasons they chose not to attend their scheduled parole hearing, and follow-up questions were asked to flesh out responses. Three categories of questions were included: reasons for waiving the parole hearing, perceptions of community-based sanctions and prison, and various background questions. Background questions concerned relationships with family and significant others, employment/financial circumstances, and housing situations. 4
Findings
The recordings and notes from the interviews were analyzed to ascertain the recurring reasons inmates gave for waiving their parole hearings. Frequently occurring responses were organized into meaningful themes, which provide the framework of the analysis. Each theme represents a different line of reasoning that the inmates used to arrive at their decisions to waive the parole hearing and remain in prison. In general, inmates stated that they waived their hearing for the following reasons: (a) they were advised to do so, (b) they did not want to go to the hearing, (c) they did not want to finish the remainder of their sentence on parole, or (d) they did not want to return to the community early. The first and second reasons comprise process waivers, whereas the third and fourth constitute outcome waivers. Nearly all inmates provided some combination of the above responses.
We summarize their responses in Table 2. Note that the four major categories were not mutually exclusive and multiple responses were reported. In addition, inmates responses in each category were nuanced, and those distinctions are elaborated below. We organized the themes present in the interviews so as to clearly discriminate among them, but there was unavoidable overlap. When similarities occurred, we placed the responses in the category that best reflected the inmates’ concerns.
Reasons for Declining Consideration for Early Release to Parole (n = 25).
Multiple responses were recorded for this category and categories are not mutually exclusive.
Advised to Waive
Ten out of the 25 (40%) inmates stated that they were advised to waive their parole hearings at least one time. Most of them (28% of total sample) felt pressured by caseworkers or prison staff to waive. As one put it, “I felt pressured to waive because my caseworker kept telling me to sign the waiver.” Others expressed a similar sentiment, noting that “the caseworker said it would be a waste of time and that I might get flattened [loss of good-time] so I should take another lap.” One inmate stated that his caseworker thought it best for him to waive his hearing as he only had a short time remaining on his sentence. Two inmates claimed their caseworker told them that they were ineligible to apply for parole. (We investigated further and found evidence to suggest that they had been advised incorrectly.)
Only two inmates (8%) stated that they received advice from other inmates to waive their hearing. One inmate advised to waive by other inmates explained that We get and give a lot of advice to waive unless you have a big number [sentence] because they can flatten you and make you do the full number. It also depends if they think you can do parole. If you can’t finish it, there’s no point in it.
The other respondent who received advice from other inmates to waive was told that parole is more difficult in Wyoming than anywhere else. As he put it, “I heard you have to verify that you have a place to live; they say it’s easier to waive so they can’t search you. In California, you can parole to a bush if you want to.”
Finally, a couple of inmates (8%) reported that they had supporters on the outside that encouraged them to waive. One stated that “I have a friend on the out that I talked to about it and we agreed that jammin’[completing the full sentence in prison with no parole supervision] was the right choice for me.” One participant acknowledged that his wife influenced his decision to waive by stating that “she doesn’t want me to get taken away from her again, so we both decided it’s best if I just finish up in here.” Although advice from others played a part in some inmates’ decisions to waive, generally it was not the sole reason given for waiving. Other factors seemed to have more influence on their decisions.
Did Not Want to Attend Hearing
A large majority of the respondents (88%) stated that they waived because they did not wish to go through the parole process. Reasons for waiving the parole hearing generally fell into one of two categories. Respondents believed that they would be denied by the board, or they feared having a bad experience at the hearing.
Likely denial
A majority of the respondents (68%) thought that parole denial was likely in their cases. Although there was some variation in terms of reasons respondents believed the parole board would not grant them parole, the most common one involved lack of required program participation. Of those who mentioned lack of programming as a factor in their decision to waive, many expressed concerns about the inadequacy of the administration of the programs in the institutions. As one put it, “The Parole Board wants to see programs but the programs are not consistently offered—it’s a catch 22.” Another inmate with similar sentiments stated that the inconsistency of programming “makes it difficult to get through the system when you can’t complete treatment because they keep moving you or changing the programs being offered.”
One individual expressed somewhat different concerns about the requirement for program participation saying,
It’s hard to go to programming when you get harassed and belittled [by the other inmates]. If you want to go and better yourself, there’s no point—and if the Parole Board wants to see progress from programming, it ain’t gonna happen.
Regardless of the degree to which respondents felt that programming-related reasons influenced the decision to waive, most if not all of the respondents acknowledged that it is difficult to get paroled without participating in treatment programs. As one put it, “If you go ask the board for parole but don’t have groups on your record, they’re gonna tell you to take another lap and do the programs before you come back to ask for parole again.”
Other common reasons for not wanting to attend the parole hearing included lack of caseworker support, lack of a parole plan, and disciplinary infractions. The parole board typically requires the inmate’s caseworker to be present at the parole hearing to answer a variety of questions pertaining to the inmate’s behavior and offer a recommendation regarding release to parole. Some inmates feared that caseworkers would not adequately represent their needs and interests at the hearing. As one respondent asked rhetorically,
How can a caseworker support you at your hearing when they have not been assigned to you in the past, and they have not even read your file before the hearing? If the parole board bases their decision on what they say about what kind of person you are, and they [referring to the caseworker] don’t even know anything about you, how are you going to get parole?
Some did not want to go before the board because they believed their parole plans, an important condition of release, were inadequate. One inmate who felt he would be denied by the board said, “I don’t think they’d consider me for parole because of the difficulty for me to find a job and housing—they like to see that you have a parole plan.”
Another inmate pointed to a previous hearing, when his disciplinary record was an issue, for not wanting to go through another hearing:
I went to the last parole board and they just dogged on me because I had one write-up. Well, the ladies at the parole board, the community, and the parole board itself they stand up and say “well what you have been doing? What did you do to get this write-up. If you were paroled today, what kind of ticket are you going to get tomorrow for not driving the speed limit? We can’t just let you go,” . . . so they take some of that stuff in a bad way, and it’s not really. You know, maybe you need to take another lap.
That inmate also indicated that he did not understand why he had been denied parole before, as he had followed all of his caseworker’s recommendations in terms of programming and remaining write-up free. Although he was eligible to try for parole again after serving more time, he felt he would still be denied and there was no point in attending the hearing.
Fear of negative experience
A related concern among inmates who did not feel inclined to see the board (52%) was fear of a bad experience at their hearing. In some cases, inmates explained they had negative experiences at past hearings. Recalling such an occurrence, one inmate said,
The prior actions of the Board are the reason I waived. Some of the members are brazen. They degrade you. I feel I deserve to be paroled—I’ve done everything I should do but they don’t care. They have made up their mind because a certain member has a grudge against me and shouldn’t be allowed to vote. The Parole Board refuses to consider my good behavior for the past decades so I don’t want to talk to them anymore.
Another inmate, describing his reluctance to see the board again indicated:
I don’t have a beef with the Parole Board, but when I went in there, I felt like I was on trial again—it was actually worse than that. It took me a long time to get to where I am, to be more positive and look toward a better life in the future—and the programs helped somewhat to lift me up. But at my hearing they knocked me down again. I only need to be around positive people, so for me, going to the parole hearing again would be a step back in the progress I’ve made for myself.
Others feared attending as a result of hearing accounts from other inmates. One explained that his primary reason for waiving was that he requested a specific caseworker not be present at his hearing, as he had been told by other inmates that the particular caseworker would “give the parole board negative input which would hurt [his] chances for parole.” Subsequently, the inmate was told that this caseworker would be attending his hearing in the place of his own despite his request. Thus, the respondent concluded, “I just didn’t see the point of attending, after they ignored my request.” Many individuals who had not attended a hearing in the past suggested that most inmates consider the Parole Board to be highly unpredictable. As one inmate stated,
The Parole Board is highly unpredictable from our perspective. It depends who’s on it and what mood they are in, from what I hear. They parole people who shouldn’t be paroled, like sex offenders, but then they don’t parole the guy who has an entire folder of programming certs. The Board has its mind made up before they even go in there. Even the caseworkers can’t understand how the Board thinks.
Do Not Want to Go on Parole
Almost all participants (92%) stated that they waived their hearing at least partly because they did not want to go on parole. Those who expressed reluctance to be released on parole made it clear that “maxing out” is the lesser of two evils, but various reasons weighed into their decisions.
Prison is easier than parole
Most participants (76%) acknowledged that they evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of maxing out their sentence versus being released on parole and concluded that parole was the more unpleasant option. This seemed especially true of individuals who had a short time left on their sentence. One person stated that “no one wants parole when they have a short time left. I’ve done 7 years—what’s a few more months? I could do that in my sleep.” On a related note, several inmates described serving time as easier than parole because they were comfortable with the prison environment. As one participant explained,
It’s easy to do time when you’re older because you’ve experienced it before. The young bucks want out on parole the second they get in because of the shock of it. But when you’ve been in before, you’ve had time to mature and this place doesn’t seem as unpredictable as parole. You realize it’s just easier to get it over with.
Several inmates thought the ease of incarceration outweighed the restrictions and inconveniences of community supervision. As one put it, “It’s plain and simple. I want to be able to have a beer without strings. I want to be able to be out there free. I don’t want the parole restrictions.” To be certain, many of the inmates clarified that while it is easier to do the time than to go on parole, they do not wish to remain in prison for a long time. For example, one inmate stated that “it’s easier to do the time. I can do the time, but I wouldn’t want to be in here for life.” Likewise, another respondent said, “it doesn’t really matter if you think prison is easy or hard. Anyone would rather be out there, but no one wants to jump through the hoops on probation.”
Fear of revocation
Some inmates (36%) feared they would not be able to successfully complete their terms of parole. When asked what influenced his decision to waive, one inmate replied,
Parole is unrealistic because even people who are not on parole mess up every day . . . Parole is like having a second dad. They can search you whenever they want and tell you where you can and can’t be. One little mistake could send you back away because your life is in someone else’s hands. Your parole officer controls your destiny.
A few inmates’ statements exemplified more than one theme, highlighting both fear of revocation and aversion to the lack of freedom that comes with being on parole, which several inmates mentioned. One inmate said,
I don’t trust myself not to violate. I do things on the spur of the moment. I like to move around. And you can’t do that when you have to register. If you’re not on parole you still have to register, but it’s harder to get in trouble for not registering. Plus, it’s very restricting. Even things that are legal you can’t do and it’s definitely hard trying to get around UA’s [urinalysis].
Similarly, another individual stated that he did not want to go on parole because,
they hang your freedom over your head. Yet, they can search your house and your car, and make you pay for your own UA [urinalysis]. They watch you like a hawk and steal your money. If you screw up, they’ll send you back. That’s not freedom, if you ask me.
Other inmates who fear parole revocation seemed to think that the uncertainty of life outside would make it difficult for them to successfully complete parole. One inmate clarified his reason for believing that prison is easier than parole by explaining,
I don’t know what I will do when I get out. In here, I know what to expect. I know where the lines are. I know the rules of the institution and I know the other inmate’s rules. Out there the lines are less certain. I feel comfortable in here.
On a related point, several inmates explained that the relative ease or discomfort of being on parole is dependent on the parole officer to whom the offender is assigned. Some inmates seemed to think that the entire experience of parole was not dependent on their own actions but on the personal disposition of the parole officer. They thought that parole officers “are out to get you,” which in their opinion undermined their self-confidence to succeed and predestined them to failure.
A few inmates talked of struggles with substance use/abuse, which would likely be the cause of revocation. As one put it, “I’m from a small town. Parole would be a problem for me because all my friends drink. You’re constantly surrounded by drugs and alcohol. I’d have to leave the state to get away from it.” Interestingly, a few inmates explained that they feared putting their family through the emotional trauma of having them taken away again by probation revocation. One dad, for example, shared,
I love my boys too much to put them through that again. I want to be able to get out and see my boys and to be able to promise them that I won’t be leaving them again, and I can’t do that if I am on parole.
Hesitance to Return to the Community
Twenty-one (84%) of the participants stated that they did not wish to return to the community prior to discharging their sentence. Their reasons for not wanting to return to varied from concerns over being too ingrained in the prison subculture to lacking family and community support.
Institutionalized
A few respondents (28%) indicated that their eventual return to the community produced a sense of anxiety due to the fact that they had become comfortable in the prison setting; they felt institutionalized. One said,
I waived mostly because I think I’m institutionalized. I’m comfortable in here. I don’t have to pay rent or medical, or anything else—food, you name it . . . Once you’ve been in so many times, you learn to adapt to it, which is probably not good, but that’s just how it is. Freedom’s not even a big deal anymore. It’s so routine in here, freedom becomes something different, and I don’t actually miss it. I feel like whenever they open the door and let me out is when I will get out. I don’t even ask questions about when I will be getting out because it just plain doesn’t matter.
As another inmate put it,
Why would it bother anyone to be in here? At the end of the month you don’t have to worry about if you will still have a place to stay or food to eat. Being in here is predictable—out there, everything constantly changes because you could have a place to stay one day, and the next you’re back out there with nothing.
Similarly, others emphasized that prison social life is easier than that outside the walls. As one put it, “It doesn’t bother me to do time. I’ve gotten numb in here and I think there is something wrong with me. I think it’s because I haven’t been able to interact with people outside.” Another stated that he was
scared of the outside world. Many of us believe that our friends and support are right here with us, so to leave is a real scary thing. Even if you write each other when you leave, it doesn’t last long usually.
One inmate explained that change on the outside was simply driving his fear of returning to the community. He pointed out that “in here, everything stays the same. Out there, the world has changed so much, and I’m scared.”
Resource barriers to reentry
Most of the inmates (76%) indicated that various obstacles to reentry influenced their decisions to waive. Some inmates explained that reintegration would be a struggle for them in part due to employment and financial difficulties they would inevitably face upon returning to the community. One man stated,
I waived mostly because my job situation when I get out is scary. If I wait to get out until after I get retirement, it won’t be so bad. If not, I’m not sure how I will be able to support myself.
Most acknowledged that the ex-con label would make it harder to find a job, especially in the midst of a tough economy. One man who talked about the problem of finding work as an ex-convict stated, “I question whether it’s even worth it to find work. You have to lie so you can get a job, but then you get fired if they find out you were that you were lying. It’s a catch-22.”
As another put it,
At my age, it will be tough to find a job. Plus, I did small engine repair before I got in, and they don’t really need that anymore because this is the throw-away generation. Now, add to that the fact that I have a felony on my record and have to compete with people who are good, upstanding citizens in the job market, and, well, it’s just gonna be tough. In here, I’ve got three hots and a cot, as they say.
Many inmates who expressed concerns about finding a job in the community stated that they had little to no work experience. One inmate pointed out that he would not know how to get a job because he had spent the better part of his life in some kind of institution:
I honestly don’t know who would want to hire me. I’ve never had a job outside of prison. Being in and out and in and out, all I’ve been able to do is work while I’m in. Plus, I know what is expected of me to do the work inside, and I don’t know the expectations at work out there—I’ve just never done it, so I don’t know what it’s like.
Some also expressed financial concerns about returning to the community, indicating they had little or no money in savings and even if they were able to find a job, it would likely not pay enough to cover their financial obligations. Many respondents said that in addition to having to pay for basic necessities like rent, food, and transportation, restitution alone was going to be financially burdensome.
Some thought that difficulty finding and maintaining housing would likely make successful reintegration challenging. Although there were a few respondents who had definite housing arrangements for their eventual return to the community, the majority of respondents did not. For some, the uncertainty of finding housing upon release was related to severed ties with friends and family who would no longer provide them housing, even if only temporarily upon release. In a few cases, respondents said they were homeless prior to going to prison. One man stated, “I have nowhere to go if I leave here. I was homeless before, but it’s hard to go back to that after you’ve been in a place where you’re guaranteed meals and shelter and everything is planned out for you.” In these cases, the inmates were reluctant to leave prison because they would likely have to go back to the streets. When asked about the primary reason for waiving, one inmate replied,
I mostly waived because I know that finding a job and a place to live when I get out is going to be hard. I just need more time to figure all that out, so parole isn’t really an option for me.
Similarly, another inmate stated,
I thought all week about what I should tell you about why I waived, and honestly, there were a lot of reasons. For one thing, I have nothing out there—no home, no family. It would just be me, and I have nowhere to go.
The nature of their offense further exacerbated the problem of finding housing for some inmates. Several who indicated that finding housing would be a struggle were sex offenders. One man explained,
I can’t go back to where I was living before I came to prison because that’s where I caught my charges. It would be great if I could live in a halfway house to give me a transition, but even they won’t let me stay there because I’m a S.O. [sex offender]. At this point, I have nowhere to go. I’m still working on that.
Another inmate offered that “sex offender policies make it harder to find a place to live. Plus, even if you find a place, you have to keep moving if you don’t trust yourself not to violate [commit another sex offense].” It should be noted that although some individuals explained that they waived because they needed more time to finalize housing arrangements upon release, many acknowledged that regardless of whether they went on parole or maxed-out their sentences, they would have to eventually face the struggle of finding a stable residence.
Stigma and psychosocial adjustment
Most inmates (72%) were concerned about stigma and psychosocial adjustment issues that they would face upon release. Many individuals said they feared how they would be treated by others upon returning to the community. One told a story about the last time he was out of prison that illustrates the struggles that ex-convicts may face in the community:
Going back when you’re not acclimated to being in the community is like going to a foreign country . . . I went out for groceries one time and I had a backpack on and a clerk who worked there asked me to leave my backpack at the door and I took offense to it, thinking she must know I just got out of prison. I went back a couple of days later and talked to her and she said she did it to protect the store because there are people to steal from them on a regular basis. She said it wasn’t personal and that it wasn’t because of the color of my skin. She didn’t know I had just got out of prison. But in my mind, I felt like I had a sign on my forehead that announced to the world that I had just gotten out. I took it the wrong way. I had to relearn how to interact with other people on the outside. How do I deal with these situations?
Similarly, one inmate was reluctant to return to the community because “the only people who embrace you out there are other criminals.” Another indicated that even though prison had changed his life for the better through programming, “the only thing people out there see is that you are a convicted felon. They can’t see the improvements you’ve made, because they don’t care.” One man pointed out that the stigma from his own family deterred him from asking for parole. He stated,
I’ll have to live with my family again when I get out. They’re ashamed of me as it is. They don’t need a p.o. [parole officer] showing up at their house to check on me and having the neighbors ask all kinds of questions. They don’t need to pay the price for my mistakes.
Some inmates pointed out that the nature of their crimes would make it difficult to reenter society. One man, for example, stated,
People will probably act like I’m a crazy person if they find out what I did. I stabbed a guy—that’s why I’m in here. But the thing is, it’s not that big of a deal. The guy had it coming.
Others who feared that people on the outside would react to the nature of their crime were typically sex offenders. As one put it,
Basically, if you’re an s.o. [sex offender], everyone thinks you’re the scum of the earth, the lowest of the low—out there and in here. The difference is that in here, you know what to do to protect yourself. Out there, no one wants to protect you if they know what you’ve done.
Similarly, one man stated that he feared for his safety upon returning to the community because of his status as a sex offender. He said,
If you run into someone you haven’t seen in a while, they’ll start to ask questions and want to know why you went to prison. Things start to get worse, and it gets hard to stay safe, let alone to make a living.
Finally, some inmates expressed that they were reluctant to return to the community early because they feared potential encounters with certain people. A few expressed concern over encounters with law enforcement upon returning to their rural communities. As one put it, “You can’t hide your past in a small town. The cops know when you’re back out. It’s going to be hard to go back out there and have everyone judging me.” Some preferred not to return to the community early because they were anxious about encountering their victims or relatives of their victims.
Lack of pulls to the community
About half of the inmates (48%) reported that lack of family ties and other pulls to the community were important factors in their decision to waive. One individual expressed that if he had a family to take care of upon release, he would not have waived his hearing. He said,
I’ve wasted the last 6 years of my life. I always think about how I could be married and have children right now instead of being in this place. When I get out, what decent woman is going to want to spend their life with me, let alone have children with me? That makes it real hard.
Similarly, one individual believed that anyone who has children should use that as an incentive to try to get parole. He said, “if I had kids, I would want to get out to help support them.” Another stated simply, “I’m just not in a hurry to get out. I don’t have a family that I need to get out to take care of—All I have to worry about is myself.”
Some respondents said they lacked a support system on the outside, which they felt they needed order to stay out of prison. As one put it,
It’s hard to do the right thing on the outside when you have nobody to encourage you. Most of my friends and family are either locked up or dead. Who is going to keep me motivated once I go back home? It’s hard to say what will happen.
Discussion
Utilizing a rational choice framework, we predicted that inmates’ decisions to waive their parole board hearings resulted from subjective calculations of perceived costs and benefits of parole versus release to the community. We anticipated some inmates would choose to waive their parole hearing and therefore release on parole primarily because they viewed the costs of participating in the hearing as being too great in relationship to their perceived likelihood of being granted release. These are process waivers. We also expected that some inmates would choose to forego the parole process largely because they saw the incentives for remaining in prison as being greater than returning to the community under parole supervision. These are outcome waivers. In terms of rational choice, inmates weigh the perceived costs and benefits associated with the process and outcome of parole release in the decision to waive their parole hearings.
Our analysis demonstrates that the decision to waive the parole hearing typically involves considerations of process and outcome factors, which, at least in part, reinforce the rational manner of the parole waiver decision-making process. It must be acknowledged, however, that the seemingly rational decision-making behavior of the respondents may have been amplified by the retrospective nature of the research design (Nagin, 2007). Stated differently, when asked to reflect on their motives and disincentives for waiving parole consideration, the inmates may have appeared more rational and calculating than was actually the case at the time the decision was made. In some instances, their responses may have been influenced by a self-serving bias to put decisions in a positive light. For example, those who expected to fail in their bid for release because of their lack of attention to parole requirements (e.g., programming) may have offered ancillary reasons (e.g., prison is easier than parole) to justify their waiver decisions.
Nonetheless, the interviews suggested that many inmates had sincere concerns about multiple aspects of release, which were not simply rationalizations of their decision to waive. The interviews do not support the possibility that inmate waivers can be neatly grouped into mutually exclusive categories of outcome and process waivers. Offenders, for example, who reported being influenced to waive their hearing due to the high likelihood of denial by the parole board also indicated a genuine hesitancy to return to the community due to factors such as lacking an appropriate residence or concerns about the stigma they would face upon their return. Therefore, it appears that the parole waiver decision often involves a nuanced mental process that cannot be reduced to a single factor such as expecting parole denial.
It is also interesting to note the relative insignificance attributed to information garnered from outside sources by most of the respondents. As discussed earlier, rational choice theory suggests that individuals will seek out information to reduce the degree of uncertainty of a particular outcome; however, this does not seem to reflect the reality of the decision-making process reported by most of the respondents. Less than half (40%) of them indicated that their decision to waive was influenced by the information or advice they received from external sources such as other inmates or institutional caseworkers. The reasons for this are not immediately clear. It may be a by-product of the prison environment and culture that stresses the importance of “doing your own time” and not seeking help from external sources. It may be a reflection of underlying psychological conditions, such as antisocial personality disorder, that are known to be overrepresented in inmate populations (Andrews & Bonta, 2006). Regardless of the reason, it raises questions about the degree to which many inmates engaged in a truly rational decision-making process.
While these limitations suggest the need for the development of a more comprehensive theoretical model in future research, the rational choice approach nonetheless provides a useful heuristic for categorizing the parole-eligible inmates’ retrospective reports of the factors that influenced their decision making and inferring policy implications from their reasoning. As noted, most of the respondents indicated they waived their hearings in part because they believed they would be denied parole by the board were they to attend. Many believed that the parole board would not grant them parole due to lack of program participation, a record of disciplinary infractions, or the lack of an acceptable parole plan. It may well be the case that inmates who do not address treatment needs in prison or who are unable to follow prison rules are ill suited for release on parole. However, it could also be argued that these “high-risk” inmates are precisely the ones who should be targeted for postprison supervision for at least two reasons. First, from the standpoint of community safety, it seems crucial that such inmates are subjected to parole supervision rather than reentering the community with no oversight. Second, the exclusion of these offenders from the parole process potentially violates the well-established risk principle of correctional interventions, which asserts that correctional supervision and intervention should be targeted at high-risk offenders (Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990; Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Holsinger, 2006). Given the importance of having high-risk offenders receive supervision upon release, it is imperative to develop strategies to encourage these offenders to engage themselves in the parole process.
One potential strategy to increase parole participation may be to improve the quality of interactions between inmates and parole board personnel during the hearing process. About half the inmates reported that they were reluctant to attend their hearings for fear of a negative experience during the hearing. Inmates expressed concerns about facing pseudotrials for their crimes and disrespectful treatment by members of the parole. Evidence of negative experiences at parole board hearings was largely vicarious and anecdotal, but it does not matter whether such incidents actually transpired. If inmates believe these occurrences to be real, that may influence their decision to waive the parole hearing. This is consistent with a growing body of research in the area of procedural fairness, which reveals that criminal justice outcomes are influenced by the degree to which individuals perceive that they are being treated with dignity and respect by actors in the system (Rottman, 2007). Thus, it is important that prison officials remain mindful of the importance that inmates place on the interactions that occur during parole hearings and take steps to limit any negative effects of the process.
Inmates also reported that they waived their hearings because of the perception that remaining in prison was a better option than release on parole. The two most common reasons inmates cited for electing to waive their parole hearing were the perception that spending time in prison is easier than parole supervision and that resource barriers to reentry exist. The finding regarding the belief that prison is easier than parole is consistent with prior research in the area of punishment severity (May et al., 2005; Petersilia & Deschenes, 1994), which suggests a need to reexamine sentencing policies to address the apparent disjunction between existing societal retributive standards and offender perceptions of punishment severity. Moreover, concerns about finding a job and a stable place to live weighed heavily on the minds of inmates as they contemplated their release to the community. Most respondents indicated that resource barriers to reentry played a role in their decision to waive their parole hearing. These concerns are more pronounced for certain types of offenders, primarily sex offenders, because of existing policies and community stigma, which they believe will further limit their opportunities upon release. These finding highlight the gravity of the situation faced by many inmates and the need to continue investing in reentry resources.
A related finding concerns inmates’ reluctance to return to the community because of stigma and psychosocial adjustment problems. Most inmates indicated their decision to forego their parole hearing was driven, at least in part, by concerns over how they would be viewed and treated by the community, as well as their ability to interact with others outside the prison environment. Those who saw themselves as being highly ingrained into the inmate subculture were especially worried about these issues. This finding is consistent with recent research that found psychosocial adjustment to be a substantial barrier for offenders upon their return to the community (Garland et al., 2010). Given the salience of this issue, there is clearly a need to develop programs that assist inmates in preparing for the challenges of stigma and psychosocial adjustment they will likely face upon their return to the community. Programs that incorporate cognitive and behavioral approaches may help offenders at high risk of adjustment issues. Furthermore, these programs may be most appropriate for high-risk offenders who have a variety of criminogenic needs.
Conclusion
This study expands our understanding of parole waivers by providing an empirical examination of the reasons underlying inmates’ decisions to waive participation in the parole process. Findings from the inmate interviews reveal that the decision to waive parole hearings is based on myriad factors relating to the process and the outcome. Although the study provides valuable insights, further investigation of the nature of parole waivers is essential. Certainly, studies using larger samples and quantitative techniques to codify the effects of various process and outcome variables on inmates’ waiver decisions are needed. An important contribution of this study is identifying that some factors, such as family issues, may weigh either for or against the decision to waive. More nuanced variables than simple indicators of marital status and presence of children will be necessary to capture these dynamics in quantitative studies.
Another critical need is research on offenders in other states, as well as other countries, with discretionary release. For example, the state in which this study was conducted lacks racial and ethnic diversity. Findings about parole waivers in Wyoming may not appear to readily generalize across other jurisdictions because of its parole system and rural context; however, most inmates are eventually released to the community and may have similar concerns. Irrespective of whether they are a Black or Latino returning to a large city or a White returning to a rural community, they will have concerns about jobs, housing, social stigma, and so on. In the broader context, our findings identify the kinds of worries that inmates are likely to have about their eventual release into the community. Still, it is essential that future studies include more heterogeneous populations of inmates to explore the possibility that motives and disincentives for waiving parole vary across social groups. Female inmates may also have different reasons than their male counterparts to waive parole, and future research should also make it a priority to examine parole waivers from the female inmate’s perspective. In addition, inmates released in other countries may confront different issues than those prevalent in the United States, indicating the need for cross-national comparisons.
Although much more research is needed, the results of the inmate interviews reported here suggest that inmates appear to engage in a cost/benefit calculation in which they subjectively weigh the perceived positives and negatives of participating in the parole process. The findings do not support the possibility that inmate waivers can be neatly grouped into mutually exclusive categories of outcome and process waivers or that a single factor informs waiver decisions. Inmates seem to be influenced concurrently by process-related and outcome-related factors. Clearly, parole waiver decisions involve a nuanced process that warrants further examination.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We thank the Wyoming Department of Corrections and the Wyoming Board of Parole for permitting and facilitating collection of data for this study.
Authors’ Note
The authors are fully responsible for all analyses and interpretations presented herein.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.