skip navigation


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: 77201 Add to Shopping cart Find in a Library
Title: Parole Guidelines - Suggested Research Questions
Journal: Crime and Delinquency  Volume:27  Issue:2  Dated:(April 1981)  Pages:213-224
Author(s): J L Galvin; K Polk
Date Published: 1981
Page Count: 12
Sponsoring Agency: Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)
Washington, DC 20531
Grant Number: 79-SS-AX-0002
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This paper brings into focus major research questions that should be addressed as the implementation of parole guidelines continues.
Abstract: Three factors have supported the development of parole guidelines: criticism of the rehabilitation model as a basis for parole decisionmaking and the accompanying movement toward a just deserts model of punishment, the development of sophisticated statistical procedures for risk assessment, and increasing questions about disparity in criminal justice decisionmaking. This paper raises questions related to each of these three factors that should be addressed by the research community as guidelines are implemented. With respect to offense severity and sentence served, key considerations are the rationale for sentence lengths, the degree to which discretion is being structured, inmates' perceptions of the guidelines, and the effect of guidelines on time served. Under risk assessment and parole prediction, the accuracy of the salient factors as predictors, the problem of false positives, and the possibility of unanticipated bias must be addressed. In terms of effects on the overall system, questions are raised about the extent to which discretion can be structured, the effect on correctional staffs of changing the purpose of correction, and the impact of such a shift on the already dwindling resources for the parolee. The paper closes with a call for a coherent program of research to accompany the implementation of guidelines. One table and 27 footnotes are provided. (Author abstract modified)
Index Term(s): Federal parole guidelines; Judicial discretion; Just deserts theory; Parole; Parole board discretion; Parole outcome prediction; Parolees; Probation or parole decisionmaking; Rehabilitation; Sentencing disparity
Note: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Philadelphia, PA, November 10, 1979.
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*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.