skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 52190 Find in a Library
Title: HOW THE NORTH CAROLINA PAROLE COMMISSION MAKES DECISIONS
Journal: POPULAR GOVERNMENT  Volume:42  Issue:2  Dated:(FALL 1976)  Pages:19-25
Author(s): C A COSGROVE
Corporate Author: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Government
United States of America
Date Published: 1976
Page Count: 7
Sponsoring Agency: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Government
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-5381
Type: Report (Study/Research)
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: A STUDY THAT DEVELOPED A CASE EVALUATION FORM AND PRELIMINARY DECISIONMAKING GUIDELINES TO REFLECT THE UNWRITTEN CRITERIA FOR SCREENING CANDIDATES FOR PAROLE IN NORTH CAROLINA IS DESCRIBED.
Abstract: THIS STUDY IS PART OF A LARGER STUDY OF SEVEN PAROLING AUTHORITIES. THE GUIDELINE MODEL DEVELOPED FOR NORTH CAROLINA IS CONSIDERED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OTHER SIX. AT A MEETING WITH THE RESEARCH STAFF IN FEBRUARY OF 1975, THE PAROLE COMMISSIONERS DESCRIBED THEIR PAROLE CRITERIA AND POLICIES. THEY INDICATED THAT, UNLIKE THE UNITED STATES BOARD OF PAROLE, THEY ARE NOT PRIMARILY CONCERNED WITH THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH INCARCERATION OCCURRED. SINCE STATE STATUTES REQUIRE THAT AN INMATE SERVE ONE-FOURTH OF HIS SENTENCE BEFORE HE IS ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE, THE PAROLE COMMISSIONERS CONSIDER THAT THE JUDGE VIEWS THIS PORTION OF THE IMPRISONMENT AS BEING SUFFICIENT FOR RETRIBUTIVE AND DETERRENT PURPOSES. THE COMMISSION DOES NOT, THEREFORE, PAROLE OR EXTEND IMPRISONMENT BASED ON ITS JUDGMENT AS TO THE LENGTH OF IMPRISONMENT REQUIRED FOR A PARTICULAR OFFENSE. THE COMMISSIONERS AGREED THEY WERE PRIMARILY CONCERNED ABOUT THE DANGER THE INMATE WOULD POSE TO THE COMMUNITY IF PAROLED. IN DETERMINING THIS, CRIMINAL RECORD, LENGTH OF TIME BETWEEN OFFENSES, AND RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PERIODS OF COMMUNITY SUPERVISION WERE INDICATED TO BE CONSIDERED. THE RESEARCH TEAM SUBSEQUENTLY GATHERED INFORMATION ON 3,300 DECISIONS AND FROM THIS DATA DEVELOPED A SCREENING MODEL OF DECISIONMAKING THAT DELINEATED THE MAJOR CATEGORIES OF CRITERIA USED IN DECISIONMAKING AND THE GUIDELINES EMPLOYED FOR DECISIONS AT VARIOUS STAGES OF THE SCREENING PROCESS. THE MODEL WAS BASICALLY CONFIRMED IN PRACTICE BY THE COMMISSIONERS. IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS MODEL FOR PAROLE DECISIONMAKING IS APPROPRIATE IN STATES WHERE INMATES MUST SERVE A FIXED PROPORTION OF THEIR MAXIMUM SENTENCE BEFORE BECOMING ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE; A MODEL BASED ON THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENSE AND PAROLE PROGNOSIS WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIAE IN STATES WHERE THE INMATE IS ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE PAROLE BOARD. SAMPLES OF THE CASE EVALUATION FORM, PRELIMINARY GUIDELINES, THE PRIOR CRIMINAL RECORD CLASSIFICATION, AND THE INSTITUTIONAL DISCIPLINE CLASSIFICATION FORMS ARE PROVIDED. (RCB)
Index Term(s): Decisionmaking; Models; North Carolina; Parole board; Studies
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=52190

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.