Abstract
Parole on probation: Parole Decision-Making, Public Opinion and Public Confidence, by Robin Fitzgerald, Arie Freiberg, Shannon Dodd, and Lorana Bartels, provides a comparative analysis of the complex relationship between the institution of parole and the public, exploring how members of parole boards perceive the public and to what extent their decisions are influenced by public opinion. The relevance of this topic is clear in modern times characterized by public distrust in penal institutions and the appearance of new forms of penal populism, including parole populism (Moffa et al. 2019). To address these questions, the authors analyze 80 in-depth interviews with parole board members and related staff from parole authorities in different jurisdictions (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Scotland). The comparative nature of this study makes it essential for academics and practitioners interested in new ways to address the public’s misinformation about parole and in increasing public trust in the institution. The book is divided into five chapters, is part of a larger study about public attitudes towards parole, and relies on previous work by the authors (Bartels et al., 2018; Fitzgerald et al., 2016; 2020; 2022; Freiberg et al., 2018).
The first chapter introduces the topic, starting with a synthesis of the history of parole in the mentioned jurisdictions, as well as summarizing recent literature on public opinion and parole; it also describes the methodology used. The authors point out that the institution has changed a lot in recent years, partly because parole has ceased to be opaque and to go unnoticed by the public. The exposure of parole to public scrutiny has led its purpose to shift from reintegration to the protection of society, and to be affected by new forms of populism, putting pressure on parole board members. This makes it crucial to ask to what extent public opinion should matter, or if it should matter at all, to parole authorities.
The second chapter describes how parole boards operate in the jurisdictions studied, including the processes through which they reach their decisions and the composition of the boards themselves. Testimony from the boards is also included about legal and extra-legal factors that can impact their decisions, such as the applicants’ criminal records and behavior during the enforcement of the sentence, the viability of their release plans, the influence of the current risk assessment paradigm, or the influence of their own emotions and workload. Results presented in this chapter show great disparity across jurisdictions in the structure and protocols that regulate the parole decision-making process, but also point at some common concerns and ideas shared by parole agents, generating relevant debates about parole practice. Just to name one, it seems relevant to discuss the potential use of technology to facilitate virtual meetings with parolees, something that has recently been implemented in courts and prison context (Van De Steene and Knight, 2017).
Chapters 3 and 4 summarize the main results of the study based on the interviews conducted. The authors show that parole board members and parole professionals perceive public opinion as strongly influenced by emotions which, coupled with a lack of understanding about the goals of parole, make them easily blamed by the public for their distrust in the criminal justice system. This is amplified by the media, which exposes mainly negative cases involving recidivism. However, most interviewees claim not to be affected by public opinion in their decisions, although some are aware of it. For this reason, parole agents emphasize the need to “control the story” using social media and other platforms to explain their decisions to the public, especially in cases involving high-risk offenders. This chapter raises relevant questions, such as the difficulty of defining public opinion (is it homogeneous?), or the extent to which probation officers are affected by public opinion when they are aware of it. From another side, the fourth chapter departs from Loader’s (2011) work models on building public confidence to describe the strategies that the studied parole boards use to build public confidence. Distinct measures are adopted, including the delivery of information through websites and social media, the publication of the board’s resolutions, or deliberative community events.
The final chapter serves as the conclusion of the book by providing some observations about the difficulties that parole boards must face for engaging with the public in modern times, as well as some thoughts about future challenges and implications for parole practice.
It seems clear that one of the most relevant findings of the study is that it shows the delicate balance between the need for greater transparency with the public and the risk involved by leaving the isolationism of parole boards, exposing their decision-making to external influences. But, as much as public opinion is driven by emotions and ignorance regarding parole, its agents recognize the importance of building public confidence as a method to educate people about its operation while promoting transparency. As the study has shown, parole board members worry about the increasing distrust from the public; the provision of more information regarding their decisions—with the hope that this will decrease distrust—poses some dilemmas regarding its efficacy as a strategy and about its potential negative effects for parolees’ privacy. The authors state how some of the experiences and cases described in the book can be useful to address both the concerns of the public and the interests of parolees and victims, advocating for the openness of the institution of parole by including members of the community on its boards. In particular, the use of deliberative community events seems promising as a means to involve the public in parole practice, giving citizens first-hand information about the aims of parole. These measures also relate to restorative justice practices, helping to reduce some of the negative effects of criminal justice, in this case, the stigmatization from the public towards parolees, thus reducing barriers to re-entry.
Of course, this project cannot solve all the questions around this complex matter, and it would be desirable for future research to address some of its limitations. First, interviews show that some of the parole agents and decision-makers are aware and, to some extent, consider the effects of their decisions on public opinion. They also claim that this doesn’t affect their resolutions, but it is necessary to keep exploring if this awareness has indirect or more subtle effects on their decision-making process. Second, it would be desirable to add new voices, including those from parolees and the public itself. Finally, it is necessary to continue this comparative work in other contexts, including more experiences from different countries and jurisdictions that maybe can help us to unravel the most effective ways to relate to the public.
In conclusion, Parole on Probation’s most important contribution is to add knowledge about a topic barely explored—the relationship between the public and parole—with important effects on parole decision-making, setting out a conceptual and analytical framework that should guide future research and practice on this area. I strongly recommend the book for those interested in the study of parole boards’ role as an institution in the criminal justice system and society, as well as for those practitioners that want to know more about effective strategies to relate to the public while avoiding parole populism.