SpringerLink
Log in

Public Opinion and Parole Board Decision-Making

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Parole on Probation

Part of the book series: Palgrave Socio-Legal Studies ((PSLS))

  • 212 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter, we turn to the questions that motivated our study and underpin this book: what do parole boards make of public opinion on parole and do public views (whether real or perceived) matter when it comes to parole board decision-making? Before revealing our findings from interviews with parole board members from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the UK, we first review the existing research on the relationship between public opinion and parole decision-making.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
EUR 29.95
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
EUR 37.44
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
EUR 48.14
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This chapter draws significantly on Fitzgerald et al. (2022).

  2. 2.

    In Canada, the ‘faint hope clause’ (s 745.6 of the Canadian Criminal Code), in operation from 1976 to 2011, represented an exception to public jury involvement in parole release decision-making. The provision specified that members of the public could be empanelled to hear applications for the release of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole after a minimum of 15 years. Ironically, it was the Government’s view that public opinion was against the possibility of release for those serving life sentences that led to the ultimate repeal of a provision that gave members of the public ‘a voice in the punishment of offenders convicted of the most serious crimes imaginable’ (Roberts, 2009, p. 542).

References

  • All websites were checked on 10 August 2022.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, L., & Weatherburn, D. (2020). Building community confidence in community corrections. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 32, 292–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beale, S. (2006). The news media’s influence on criminal justice policy: How market-driven news promotes punitiveness. William and Mary Law Review, 48, 397–481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, R., Owens, R., Wedeking, J., & Wohlfarth, P. (2016). The influence of public sentiment on Supreme Court opinion clarity. Law and Society Review, 50, 703–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cumberland, J., & Zamble, E. (1992). General and specific measures of attitudes toward early release of criminal offenders. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 24, 442–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dagan, N. (2021). Parole as resentencing: Exploring the punitive accounts of parole decision-making through the comparative case study of Israel. European Journal of Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1177/14773708211039635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, R., Freiberg, A., & Bartels, L. (2020). Redemption or damnation in parole: Understanding diversity in Australians’ attitudes to parole. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 20, 169–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, R., Freiberg, A., Dodd, S., & Bartels, L. (2022). Building public confidence in parole boards: Findings from a four-country study. The British Journal of Criminology, 62, 1395–1413. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azab097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freiberg, A. (2001). Affective versus effective justice: Instrumentalism and emotionalism in criminal justice. Punishment and Society, 3, 265–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freiberg, A., Bartels, L., Fitzgerald, R., & Dodd, S. (2018a). Parole, politics and penal policy. Queensland University of Technology Law Review, 18, 191–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freiberg, A., Bartels, L., Fitzgerald, R., & Dodd, S. (2018b, April 10). Political interventions have undermined the parole system’s effectiveness and independence. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/political-interventions-have-undermined-the-parole-systems-effectiveness-and-independence-94248

  • Freiberg, A., & Carson, W. (2010). Evidence, emotion and criminal justice: The limits to evidence-based policy. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 69, 152–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gately, N., Ferguson, C., Ellis, S., & Cock, R. (2017). The Prisoners Review Board of Western Australia: What do the public know about parole? Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 28, 293–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, D. (2006). Public opinion versus public judgement about crime: Correcting the ‘comedy of errors.’ British Journal of Criminology, 46, 131–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, D. (2018). Killing time: Life imprisonment and parole in Ireland. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hail-Jares, K. (2021). Weighing words: The impact of non-victim correspondence on parole board decisions. Justice Quarterly, 38, 678–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hough, M., & Roberts, J. (2012). Public opinion, crime, and criminal justice. In A. Liebling, S. Maruna, & L. McAra (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminology (pp. 279–300). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huebner, B., & Bynum, T. (2006). An analysis of parole decision making using a sample of sex offenders: A focal concerns perspective. Criminology, 44, 961–991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karstedt, S., Loader, I., & Strang, H. (Eds.). (2011). Emotions, crime and justice. Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, L., McIvor, G., & Richard, K. (2020). Prisoners’ understanding and experience of parole. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 30, 321–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mack, K., Roach Anleu, S., & Tutton, J. (2018). The judiciary and the public: Judicial perceptions. Adelaide Law Review, 29, 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moffa, M., Ruyters, M., & Stratton, G. (2022). Still no bodies: Five years of ‘no body, no parole’ in Queensland, Australia. Journal of Criminology, 55, 162–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, K., & Smith, B. (2005). Victims, punishment, and parole: The effects of victim participation on parole hearings. Criminology and Public Policy, 4, 333–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persak, N. (2019). Beyond public punitiveness: The role of emotions in criminal law policy. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 57, 47–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, J. (1999). The ‘new parole’: An analysis of parole board decision making as a function of eligibility. Journal of Crime and Justice, 22, 193–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhine, E., Petersilia, J., & Reitz, K. (2017). The future of parole release. Crime and Justice, 46, 279–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. (2009). ‘Faint hope’ in the firing line: Repeal of section 745.6? Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 51, 537–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, T., & Roberts, J. (2000). Public attitudes towards conditional sentencing: Results of a national survey. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 32, 199–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, E. (2018). Public confidence in criminal justice: A history and critique. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vîlcică, E. (2016). Studying parole in the ‘spotlight’: Lessons from a large American jurisdiction. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 22, 61–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Social Science, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia

    Robin Fitzgerald

  2. Faculty of Law, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Arie Freiberg

  3. Thomas More Law School, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Shannon Dodd

  4. Centre for Social Research and Methods, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia

    Lorana Bartels

Authors
  1. Robin Fitzgerald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arie Freiberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shannon Dodd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lorana Bartels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robin Fitzgerald .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Fitzgerald, R., Freiberg, A., Dodd, S., Bartels, L. (2023). Public Opinion and Parole Board Decision-Making. In: Parole on Probation. Palgrave Socio-Legal Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19385-9_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19385-9_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-19384-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-19385-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation