Examining the Use of Disciplinary Segregation within and across Prisons

Prison officials have historically been afforded considerable discretion to administer sanctions designed to maintain order and security within a prison. Such discretion can generate disparate treatment of offender groups, but few studies have investigated whether sanction disparities exist within prisons, despite considerable research on sanctioning decisions made by other criminal justice actors. We use data collected from a nationally representative sample of inmates housed in state operated confinement facilities to examine potential influences of prison officials’ decisions to impose one type of sanction—disciplinary segregation. Multi-level analyses reveal that both legally relevant criteria such as prior misconduct history and extralegal factors such as age and holding a prison job affected whether an inmate was placed in disciplinary segregation for a rule violation. Also, prisons in which a greater proportion of the inmate population is involved in prison work and prisons with a higher density of inmates classified minimum-security use disciplinary segregation less frequently.     

Revocation by consent: The United States Parole Commission's expedited revocation procedure

This article examines the United States Parole Commission's development and use of an expedited revocation procedure for parole violations not involving serious new felony offenses. The majority of parole revocation proceedings involve charges of administrative violations (such as alcohol abuse, drug use, or failure to report) or misdemeanor offenses, and most parolees charged with such violations admit them. When there is no dispute as to the charged violation, the sole issue is the determination of the appropriate sanction.In 1996, the commission began a pilot project designed to expedite the processing of parole violations involving administrative, misdemeanor, and lesser felony charges. Certain alleged parole violators were given the option of waiving the right to a revocation hearing, acknowledging responsibility for the charged violation, and accepting a specified revocation penalty determined by the commission on the basis of the case record. The goal was to conserve commission resources without negatively affecting the due process rights of the alleged parole violator or the integrity of the guideline system used to sanction parole violations. In 1998, the commission incorporated the expedited revocation procedure developed in the pilot project into its permanent regulations. By FY 2003, expedited revocation determinations accounted for 40 percent of all commission revocation actions. The savings generated by the expedited revocation procedure allowed the commission to devote more resources to conducting revocation hearings involving more serious and/or contested charges.     

Discretionary Justice: Decision Making in a State Juvenile Parole Board

The literature in Criminal Justice is replete with commentary on both the virtues and injustices associated with adult parole board decision-making. There has been far less attention paid to juvenile parole boards in part because so few of them exist. Institutional release decisions in most states still remain the purview of juvenile institutional staff members. This paper examines parole Authority decision-making in a citizen-dominated state juvenile parole board. The paper focuses on the conduct of hearings, dispositional guidelines, criteria used by board members in decision-making and the advocacy role of parole officers and institutional staff. The influence of deinstitutionalization and least restrictive policies on parole Authority decision making is also discussed. During recent years, the literature in criminal justice has become replete with commentary on the virtues and injustices associated with parole board decision-making. Consequently, many questions have been raised about disparate sentences, the criteria used by parole boards in making decisions, unstructured discretion, and the pressing need for guidelines and statistically accurate parole prediction instruments. The intent of this paper is to examine parole decision-making in a state juvenile parole board where individualized treatment and rehabilitation have been long standing goals. The paper focuses upon the criteria used by board members in decision-making, the conduct of hearings, the guideline system used to determine a recommended length of confinement and the advocacy role of parole officers and institutional staff. The influence of deinstitutionalization and least restrictive policies on parole board decision-making is also discussed. The author is presently completing the second year of a two-year appointment as a member of the Parole Authority under discussion. Since December, 1983, the author has continuously observed and participated in approximately 300 individual parole hearings over thirty-seven hearing days.     

Judging Police Misconduct: "Street-Level" versus Professional Policing

In their interactions with citizens, police officers are prohibited from (1) using unnecessary Force, (2) Abusing their authority, (3) speaking Discourteously, or (4) using Offensive language, all captured by the acronym FADO. However, acts of police misconduct are complex social phenomena that involve both following legal guidelines and responding to extralegal or mitigating circumstances. Using a factorial survey of police‐civilian interactions that introduce various dimensions of FADO and surrounding circumstances, respondents are asked to rate from zero to ten the seriousness of police misconduct in an encounter. Findings show that respondents' judgments of the seriousness of misconduct consider both legal and extralegal dimensions. On the legal side of the ledger, officers' unnecessary use of force and use of offensive language significantly increase judgments of serious misconduct; on the extralegal side of the ledger, civilians' confrontational demeanor significantly reduces judgments of serious misconduct. The findings suggest that citizens expect officers to behave professionally, or by the book, but with a recognition that “street‐level” discretion has a place in an officer's toolkit. Citizens' expectations that street‐level discretion has its place is also demonstrated by findings for the dimension abuse of authority: Abuse or threatening behavior by officers is not a significant predictor of serious police misconduct. In addition, characteristics of the respondents explain propensities to observe different degrees of police misconduct. Controlling for the social status, political orientation, and prior experience of respondents with the police, we find that (1) blacks rate police misconduct significantly higher than their white counterparts, and (2) liberals rate police misconduct significantly higher than their conservative counterparts. Differences in judgments by blacks and whites and by liberals and conservatives concerning judgments of police misconduct have important implications for the legitimacy of police authority.     

COURT COMMUNITIES UNDER SENTENCING GUIDELINES: DILEMMAS OF FORMAL RATIONALITY AND SENTENCING DISPARITY

Efforts to structure sentencing through guidelines involve a fundamental dilemma for the sociology of law—guidelines attempt to emphasize formal rationality and uniformity (Savelsberg, 1992) while allowing discretion to tailor sentences to fit situations and characteristics of individual defendants when courts deem it warranted (substantive rationality). This exercise of substantive rationality in sentencing based on "extralegal" criteria deemed relevant by local court actors risks the kind of unwarranted disparity that guidelines were intended to reduce. We view local courts as arenas in which two sets of sentencing standards meet—formal rational ones articulated by guidelines vs. substantive, extralegal criteria deemed relevant by local court actors. We use statistical and qualitative data from Pennsylvania, a state whose courts have operated under sentencing guidelines for over a decade. Our analysis examines extralegal differences in three county courts' sentencing outcomes, and then documents ways in which substantive rational sentencing criteria are intertwined with defendants' exercise of their right to trial and their race and gender.     

The Influence of Parole Officers’ Attitudes on Supervision Practices

The supervision of offenders conditionally released into communities is one of the primary functions of parole officers. Scholars have hypothesized that officers’ attitudes towards supervision may influence their job performance. Yet there are few studies which have examined the influence of parole officers’ attitudes on their actual supervision practices, and studies of the attitude–behavior relationship among other justice system actors have revealed mixed findings. This study involved an examination of the relationship between officers’ attitudes towards supervision and their supervisory responses to offender behavior. Findings revealed that officers’ attitudes influence their intended behaviors. However, results of the analyses of the potential relationship between officers’ attitudes and their actual behaviors were mixed. Officers’ attitudes had no effect on their rate of issuing community-based sanctions, but officers who held more authoritative attitudes were more likely to pursue revocation hearings for offender noncompliance.     

Justice by Other Means: Venue Sorting in Parole Revocation

We consider the factors that shape venue sorting, the process by which a legal case can be handled through different organizational arrangements with distinct procedures, institutional cultures, and sanctioning constraints. The empirical area for our investigation of venue sorting is California's parole revocation system, in which parolees accused of new crimes can be returned to prison by either criminal courts or the parole board. We find that seriousness of the alleged offense partially predicts the venue through which parolees are sanctioned. However, venue sorting is further explained by decision makers' perceptions of parolee threat, as well as concerns about organizational efficiency and legitimacy. We conclude by discussing how these findings may relate to the general phenomenon of venue sorting across a range of legal situations.     

AN ANALYSIS OF PAROLE DECISION MAKING USING A SAMPLE OF SEX OFFENDERS: A FOCAL CONCERNS PERSPECTIVE*

We use data from pre‐sentence investigations and official parole board records to study the correlates of parole release among a sample of men incarcerated for sexual offenses. Cox proportional hazard models are used to estimate change in the likelihood of parole over time, and the focal concerns theory provides the theoretical framework for the analyses. The findings suggest a complex interplay of legal and extralegal factors in understanding parole release decisions. Parole officials weigh heavily offense seriousness, institutional misconduct, and parole readiness scores in making release decisions. In addition, study results reveal that victim and offender age is a salient factor in determining parole judgments. Overall, the current analysis provides a baseline for future research on parole decision making in general, and sexual offenders, in particular.     

SUPERVISION REGIMES,RISK, AND OFFICIAL REACTIONS TO PAROLEE DEVIANCE*

Parolee deviance has emerged as a central issue in policy debates about crime and punishment in American society as well as in scholarship on “mass incarceration.” Although the prevailing approach to studying parolees conceives of parole violations as outcomes of individual propensities toward criminal behavior (i.e., criminogenic risk), we consider how indicators of individual risk and characteristics of formal social control systems combine to account for reported parole violations. Using data on California parolees, we examine the effects of parolees’ personal characteristics, their criminal histories, and the social organization of supervision on parole violations. We advance the notion of a “supervision regime”—a legal and organizational structure that shapes the detection and reporting of parolee deviance. Three components of a supervision regime are explored: 1) the intensity of supervision, 2) the capacity of the regime to detect parolee deviance, and 3) the tolerance of parole officials for parolee deviance. We find that personal characteristics and offense histories are predictive of parole violations. However, we also find that introducing supervision factors reduces the effects of offense history variables on violation risk, suggesting that the violation risks of serious, violent, and sexual offenders are partially explainable through the heightened supervision to which they are subject. In addition, we find that supervision intensity and tolerance are generally predictive of violation risk. Capacity effects are present but weak. We conclude with a discussion of how the supervision regimes concept illuminates the gap between macro‐ and micro‐analyses of social control.     

Examining the Effects of Community-Based Sanctions on Offender Recidivism

Offenders who violate their conditions of release (parole violators) pose a threat to public safety and a unique challenge for parole officials. Historically, parole officers have simply revoked the parole of these offenders and returned them to prison; however, increases in state correctional populations have forced many jurisdictions to experiment with sanctions administered by parole officers in the community. Community‐based sanctions are sanctions administered by parole officers as consequences for noncompliance with release conditions that are ultimately intended to reduce parole violators’ odds of recidivism. Yet, the effects of these types of sanctions are still relatively unknown. Drawing from perspectives on formal and informal social control, this study involved an examination of the effect of community‐based sanctions on parole violators’ odds of recidivism. Findings revealed that formal controls such as community‐based sanctions that were applied with certainty, severity, and in a swift manner along with informal controls such as measures of offenders’ stake in conformity had effects on parole violators’ odds of recidivism and time to recidivism.     

英国行政决定说明理由研究

行政决定说明理由正趋于成为英国行政法上的一般规则,它和自然正义、正当期待及公正等原则相关联。说明理由是良好行政的基本原则之一,有助于行政机关的自我拘束,有助于程序性权利的保障,有助于法院开展有效司法审查。官员在特定情形下必须为行政决定说明理由,但在特定的例外情形下可豁免于说明理由义务。欠缺理由说明可能导致行政决定无效或者被撤销。在中国,应进一步扩大说明理由的适用范围,对法律、事实和裁量问题予以充分说明。     

The parole hearing: Decision or justification?

A detailed content analysis of tape-recordings of 100 randomly selected California parole hearings revealed that these hearings take the form of short, unstructured diagnostic interviews in which the hearing officers ask questions of the prisoners who respond in a very minimal way. Different patterns of questioning and prisoner response occurred for hearings where the eventual decision was to grant parole as opposed to deny parole, and this decision outcome could be predicted with a high degree of accuracy by discriminant function analyses. In general, the hearing officers made their own psychological assessments of the prisoners, even though they lacked knowledge and training in this diagnostic skill. According to the results of this study, the parole decision-making process appears to be a reliable one, but nevertheless its validity is questionable.     

探究行政自由裁量权

行政自由裁量权是行政权力中的重要组成部分。从法律层面和行政职权内容层面看,行政自由裁量权都有其存在的必然性,但它的合理存在并不表示这种权力能够被合理的运用。对行政自由裁量权应进行必要的控制和驯服,最佳手段是合理性控制。行政合理性控制的核心内容是通过立法规范、司法审查、提高行政机关工作人员的职业素质来规范行政权的行使。     

Punishment within Prison: An Examination of the Influences of Prison Officials’ Decisions to Remove Sentencing Credits

Despite considerable research directed toward understanding the factors that affect punishment decision‐making leading to imprisonment, few studies have examined the influences of punishment decisions within prisons. Punishment decisions made within prisons can affect an individual's liberty during their imprisonment and/or the timing of their release from prison if the punishment results in the loss of sentencing credits or influences parole decision‐making. Moreover, if punishment disparities result from these decisions, then some offender groups may endure a greater loss of liberty relative to others. In this study, we examine the factors that influence prison officials’ decisions to remove sentencing credits in response to prison rule violations. Analysis of collected data from a Midwestern state prison system reveal that prison officials are primarily influenced by the seriousness and type of the rule violation, along with an inmate's violation history. Other relevant factors include those proximately connected to an inmate's risk of subsequent misbehavior such as gang membership and those that are linked to practical consequences and constraints associated with the organizational environment and particular inmates such as the proportion of their sentence an inmate has served and whether an inmate has mental health problems.     

Is There a Difference? Exploring Male and Female Correctional Officers' Definition of and Response to Conflict Situations

Abstract

Although the use of force in corrections is a topic of interest, little is known about the factors that influence correctional officers' decisions. In particular, very little is known about similarities and differences between male and female correctional officers in their definitions of and responses to conflict situations. Interviews were conducted with 192 officers at a large southwestern jail. Using a realistic vignette of an inmate disobeying a direct order, 96 female and 96 male officers were asked about their perceptions in defining and responding to conflict. Results indicate that male and female officers react to conflict situations in a similar manner, although it appears that the inmate's sex is a salient factor in the officers' decision on how to resolve conflict.     

Global Warming: Will There Be Exposure for Directors and Officers and Will It Be Covered?

This article will explore the potential legal liabilities of corporate officers and directors due to the effects of global warming on the business of their corporation, as well as the insurance coverage issues likely to arise under directors' and officers' (D&O) liability policies in light of those liabilities. The article focuses particularly on the pollution exclusion and the bodily injury and property damage exclusions, and also explores scenarios that may engender attempts by insurers to rescind the policy.     

Diverting and Abdicating Judicial Discretion: Cultural, Political, and Procedural Dynamics in California Juvenile Justice

Although tensions between substantive and formal rationality in the adult criminal justice system have received a great deal of attention, the existence of these tensions in the juvenile justice system has received little scholarly consideration. I seek to remedy this gap by exploring how punitive policies associated with the war on crime impact the formal and informal process of justice, the court community and work group, and the exercise of discretion in the juvenile courts. Drawing on qualitative data collected in three juvenile courts in Southern California, I identify the mechanisms by which prosecutors divert judicial discretion from the traditional rehabilitation-oriented bench officers to bench officers who are more accepting of the criminalization of juveniles. In addition, I investigate how and why rehabilitation-oriented bench officers at times abdicate their decisionmaking authority and make rulings that contradict their own assessments. My findings suggest that as the war on crime is extended to youth, the juvenile courts increasingly share the criminal courts' emphasis on offense rather than offender, enhanced prosecutorial power, and adversarial relationships within the court.     

The Effects of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Disorders on Institutional Misconduct Among Female Inmates

The US Sentencing Guidelines are among the most ambitious attempts in history to control sentencing discretion. However, a major sea change occurred in January of 2005, when the US Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Booker and Fanfan, that in order to be constitutional, the federal guidelines must be advisory rather than presumptive. The impact of the Booker/Fanfan decisions on interjurisdictional variation and sentencing disparity is an opportunity to examine the issue of whether the increased opportunity to sentence according to substantively rational criteria entails increased extralegal disparity. We draw on a conceptualization of courts as communities and a focal concerns model of sentencing decisions to frame expectations about federal sentencing in the wake of Booker/Fanfan. We test these expectations using USSC data on federal sentencing outcomes from four time periods: prior to the 2003 PROTECT Act, the period governed by the PROTECT Act, post-Booker/Fanfan, and post-Gall v US. In general, we find that extralegal disparity and between-district variation in the effects of extralegal factors on sentencing have not increased post-Booker and Gall. We conclude that allowing judges greater freedom to exercise substantive rationality does not necessarily result in increased extralegal disparity.     

LAW ENFORCEMENT IN A TIME OF COMMUNITY POLICING*

Community policing creates the expectation that oficers will become more selective in making arrests and that those decisions will be influenced more by extralegal considerations and less by legal ones. Data on 451 nontraffic police-suspect encounters were drawn from ridealong observations in Richmond, Virginia, where the police department was implementing community policing. The arrest/no arrest decision is regressed on variables representing legal and extralegal characteristics of the situation. Legal variables show much stronger effects than extralegal ones, but that depends upon the officer's attitude toward community policing. Supporters of community policing are, as predicted, more selective in making arrests and much less influenced by legal variables than are officers with negative views. However, pro-community-policing officers are like negative officers in the extent of influence exerted by extralegal factors. There are some differences between the two groups of officers on the strength and direction of effects of predictor variables taken individually, but only 1 of 17 is significant. Thus, in a time of community policing, officers who support it do manifest some arrest decision patterns distinguishable from those of colleagues who adhere to a more traditional view of law enforcement.