Editing Parole (section)

==United States==
{{See also|United States federal probation and supervised release}}

===Early history===
[[Penologist]] [[Zebulon Brockway]] introduced parole when he became superintendent of [[Elmira Correctional Facility|Elmira Reformatory]] in [[Elmira, New York]]. To manage prison populations and rehabilitate those incarcerated, he instituted a two-part strategy that consisted of indeterminate sentences and parole releases.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=o0rjRPnO7K4C&q=history+of+parole&pg=PA408 |title=Criminal Justice - Joel Samaha - Google Books |isbn=9780534645571 |access-date=2012-04-27|last1=Samaha |first1=Joel |year=2006 |publisher=Thomson/Wadsworth }}</ref> This was significant in prison reform due to its implication that prisoners began their rehabilitation during incarceration, which would be recognizable by a [[parole board]].<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal|last1=Reitz|first1=Kevin R.|last2=Rhine|first2=Edward E.|date=2020-01-13|title=Parole Release and Supervision: Critical Drivers of American Prison Policy|journal=Annual Review of Criminology|volume=3|issue=1|pages=281–298|doi=10.1146/annurev-criminol-011419-041416|issn=2572-4568|doi-access=free}}</ref> It also provided newfound emphasis on prisoners' protection from cruel and unusual punishment.

===Modern history===
In some jurisdictions in the United States, courts may specify in a sentence how much time must be served before a prisoner is eligible for parole. This is often done by specifying an indeterminate sentence such as "5 to 15 years", or "15 years to life". The latter type is known as an indeterminate life sentence; in contrast, a sentence of "life without the possibility of parole" is known as a determinate life sentence.<ref>''In re Jeanice D.'', [http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C3/28C3d210.htm 28 Cal. 3d 210] (1980) ("25 years to life" is indeterminate life sentence implying that minor convicted of first-degree murder was eligible for commitment to California Youth Authority rather than determinate life sentence which would require incarceration in regular prison).</ref>

On the federal level, Congress abolished parole in the [[Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984]] (Pub. L. No. 98-473 § 218(a)(5), 98 Stat. 1837, 2027 [repealing 18 U.S.C.A. § 4201 et seq.]). Federal prisoners may, however, earn a maximum of 54 days good time credit per year against their sentence (18 U.S.C.A. § 3624(b)). At the time of sentencing, the federal judge may also specify a post-imprisonment period of supervised release.<ref name="US-legal">{{Cite web|title=Supervised Release Law and Legal Definition |publisher=US Legal |url=https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/supervised-release/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100823060226/https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/supervised-release/ |archive-date=23 August 2010 |url-status=live |df=dmy}}</ref> The U.S. Parole Commission still has jurisdiction over parole for those prisoners convicted of felonies in the District of Columbia and who are serving their sentences there, as well as over certain federally incarcerated military and international prisoners.<ref>{{Cite web|title=United States Parole Commission |date=February 2012 |publisher=United States Department of Justice |url=https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2013/10/18/fy13-uspc-justification.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160313033033/https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2013/10/18/fy13-uspc-justification.pdf |archive-date=13 March 2016 |url-status=live |df=dmy}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=May 2003|title=History of the Federal Parole System|url=http://www.fedcure.org/information/TheHistoryOfTheFederalParoleSystem-2003.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171026004400/http://www.fedcure.org/information/TheHistoryOfTheFederalParoleSystem-2003.pdf|archive-date=26 October 2017|access-date=17 June 2018|publisher=United States Parole Commission|df=dmy-all}}</ref>

In most states, the decision of whether an inmate is paroled is vested in a paroling authority such as a parole board. Mere [[Good conduct time|good conduct]] while incarcerated in and of itself does not necessarily guarantee that an inmate will be paroled. Other factors may enter into the decision to grant or deny parole, most commonly the establishment of a permanent residence and immediate, gainful employment or some other clearly visible means of self-support upon release (such as [[Social Security (United States)|Social Security]] if the prisoner is old enough to qualify). Depending upon the jurisdiction, the parole board may look at various factors such as the inmate's criminal history, participation in rehabilitation, education, or vocational programs, expressions of [[remorse]], admissions of guilt, and [[insight]] (in the psychiatric sense) into the factors driving the inmate's decision to commit the crimes at issue (in order to estimate the likelihood that the inmate may reoffend upon encountering similar factors in the outside world after release).  Many states now permit sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (such as for [[murder]] and [[espionage]]), but any prisoner not sentenced to such sentences or the [[death penalty]] will eventually have the [[right to petition]] for release (one state{{spaced ndash}}[[Alaska]]{{spaced ndash}}maintains neither the death penalty nor life imprisonment without parole as sentencing options).

Before being granted the privilege of parole, the inmate meets with members of the parole board and is interviewed. The parolee also has a psychological examination.  If parole is granted, the inmate must first agree to abide by the conditions of parole set by the paroling authority. While in prison, the inmate signs a parole certificate or contract. On this contract are the conditions that the inmate must follow. These conditions usually require the parolee to meet regularly with his or her parole officer or community corrections agent, who assesses the behavior and adjustment of the parolee and determines whether the parolee is violating any of his or her terms of release (typically these include being at home during certain hours which is called a curfew, maintaining steady employment, not [[wikt:Appendix:Glossary of legal terms#Abscond|absconding]], refraining from illicit drug use and, sometimes, abstaining from [[alcohol (drug)|alcohol]], attending addiction treatment or counseling, and having no contact with their victim). The inmate gives an address which is verified by parole officers as valid before the inmate is released to parole supervision.

Upon release, the parolee goes to a parole office and is assigned a parole officer.  Parole officers make unannounced visits to parolees' houses or apartments to check on them. During these home visits officers look for signs of drug or alcohol use, guns or illegal weapons, and other illegal activities. Should parolees start to use drugs or alcohol, they are told to go to drug or alcohol counseling and [[Narcotics Anonymous]] or [[Alcoholics Anonymous]] meetings. Should they not comply with conditions on the parole certificate (including [[Felony disenfranchisement in the United States|abstention from voting]]) a warrant is issued for their arrest. Their parole time is stopped when the warrant is issued and starts only after they are arrested. They have a [[Morrissey Hearing|parole violation hearing]] within a specified time, and then a decision is made by the parole board to revoke their parole or continue the parolee on parole. In some cases, a parolee may be discharged from parole before the time called for in the original sentence if it is determined that the parole restrictions are no longer necessary for the protection of society (this most frequently occurs when elderly parolees are involved).

Service members who commit crimes while in the [[US military|U.S. military]] may be subject to [[court martial]] proceedings under the [[Uniform Code of Military Justice]] (UCMJ). If found guilty, they may be sent to [[Federal prison|federal]] or [[military prisons]] and upon release may be supervised by U.S. [[Federal Probation]] officers.

Parole in the United States has proven to be politically divisive. Beginning from the initiation of [[War on drugs|the war on drugs]] in the 1970s, politicians began to advertise their "tough on crime" stances, encouraging a tightening of penal policy and resulting in longer sentences for what were previously referred to as minor drug violations.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last=Angle|first=Roland E.|date=2014|title=Build a Mass Movement: Abolish the Probation & Parole Systems to Attack the Foundation of the U.S. Police State|journal=Race, Gender & Class|volume=21|issue=1/2|pages=236–245|issn=1082-8354|jstor=43496972}}</ref> During elections, politicians whose administrations parole any large number of prisoners (or, perhaps, one notorious criminal) are typically attacked by their opponents as being "soft on crime". According to the [[U.S. Department of Justice]], at least sixteen states have removed the option of parole entirely, and four more have abolished parole for certain violent offenders.<ref>{{Cite news|date=17 August 1997|title=Quality of snitches declining as result of sentencing laws|page=6|newspaper=Arizona Republic}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Gormley |first1=Michael |title=Parole system 'unfair' |url=https://www.berkshireeagle.com/archives/parole-system-unfair/article_0bc8e8b0-2451-5d1e-b645-8cde87e7cdc7.html |access-date=July 23, 2022 |work=[[The Berkshire Eagle]] |date=May 6, 2007}}</ref> However, during the rise of mass incarceration in the 1970s, the states that continued to use parole and indeterminate sentencing contributed more to rising incarceration rates than those without parole boards. Said states implemented a dramatic decrease of parole releases, which inevitably resulted in longer sentences for more prisoners. From 1980 to 2009, indeterminate sentencing states made up nine of the ten states with the highest incarceration rate.<ref name=":12"/>

Starting in the 1980s, parole was revisited as a method once again to manage prison populations and as financial motivation to prevent further budget straining. The new approach to parole release was accompanied with the growth of a [[mass surveillance]] state. The supervision practices of increased drug testing, intensive supervision, unannounced visits and home confinement are widely used today.<ref name=":12" /> Additionally, a growing condition of parole was to assume the role of informant towards frequently surveilled communities.<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal|last=SCHOENFELD|first=HEATHER|date=2016|title=A Research Agenda on Reform: Penal Policy and Politics across the States|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/24756113|journal=The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science|volume=664|pages=155–174|doi=10.1177/0002716215601850|jstor=24756113|s2cid=155248074|issn=0002-7162|url-access=subscription}}</ref>

The [[Great Recession in the United States|Great Recession]] of 2008 coupled with the [[September 11 attacks|Twin Towers attack]] on September 11, 2001 contributed to the public emphasis on the [[war on terror]] and eventually led to a trend of lowering incarceration. In fact, presidential politics between 2001 and 2012 were, for the first time in ten years, not focused on domestic crime control and even saw the promotion of the [[Second Chance Act (2007)|Second Chance Act]] by George W. Bush, who used the act to pledge federal money for reentry as a symbol of his "compassionate conservatism".<ref name=":3" />

=== Debates and reform efforts ===
Since the 1990s, parole and indeterminate sentencing have been the focus of debate in the United States with some emphasizing reform of the parole system and others calling for its abolishment altogether. These debates are fueled by a growing scholarship that criticizes U.S. parole boards and also the parole system more broadly.

Parole boards are seen as lacking in efficient qualifications and too politicized in the appointment process.<ref name=":3" /> The decision for granting parole has been criticized for neglecting the due process of prisoners on a case-by-case basis.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Reingold|first=Paul|date=2017|title=From Grace to Grids: Rethinking Due Process Protection for Parole|url=https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7602&context=jclc|journal=Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology|volume=107|pages=213–251}}</ref> Additionally, the process for being granted a commutation has been criticized, as many prisoners have been denied a commutation for not showing the right amount of "remorse" or proving substantially that they were ready to contribute again, which are aspects that many argue are too normative and subjective.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=De Giorgi|first=Alessandro|date=2017|title=Back to Nothing: Prisoner Reentry and Neoliberal Neglect|journal=Social Justice|volume=44|pages=83–120|via=ProQuest}}</ref>

Most agree that, as was originally intended, the parole system puts a necessary focus on rehabilitation, despite its current problems which are widely debated. Critics note that it is becoming more and more expensive to the taxpayer, with little evidence of successful rehabilitation for prisoners. The conditions of parole themselves are often attacked as well, critiqued for being overwhelmingly criminogenic and perpetuating mass surveillance and a permanent state of imprisonment that does little to ensure a smooth reentry into society.<ref name=":2" /> Critics note that greater discretion is required to decide which parolees require costly supervisory resources and which ones do not, rather than placing digital, physical, and structural restrictions on every parolee.<ref name=":12" />

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) stated in 2005 that about 45% of parolees completed their sentences successfully, while 38% were returned to prison, and 11% absconded. These statistics, the DOJ says, are relatively unchanged since 1995; even so, some states (including [[New York (state)|New York]]) have abolished parole altogether for violent felons, and the federal government abolished it in 1984 for all offenders convicted of a federal crime, whether violent or not. Despite the decline in jurisdictions with a functioning parole system, the average annual growth of parolees was an increase of about 1.6% per year between 1995 and 2002.

A variant of parole is known as "[[time off for good behavior]]", or, colloquially, "good time". Unlike the traditional form of parole{{spaced ndash}}which may be granted or denied at the discretion of a parole board{{spaced ndash}}time off for good behavior is automatic absent a certain number (or gravity) of infractions committed by a convict while incarcerated (in most jurisdictions the released inmate is placed under the supervision of a parole officer for a certain amount of time after being so released). In some cases "good time" can reduce the original sentence by as much as one-half. It is usually not made available to inmates serving life sentences, as there is no release date that can be moved up.

===Difference from mandatory supervision===
Some states in the United States have what is known as "mandatory supervision", whereby an inmate is released before the completion of their sentence due to legal technicalities which oblige the offender justice system to free them. In the federal prison system,<ref>"[http://famm.org/projects/federal/us-congress/good-time-credit-for-federal-prisoners/ "Good Time Credit" for Federal Prisoners] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170614143028/http://famm.org/projects/federal/us-congress/good-time-credit-for-federal-prisoners/ |date=2017-06-14 }}." [[Families Against Mandatory Minimums]]. Retrieved on May 10, 2017.</ref> and in some states such as Texas, inmates are compensated with "[[good conduct time|good time]]", which is counted towards time served. For example, if an inmate served five years of a ten-year prison term, and also had five years of "good time", they will have completed their sentence "on paper", obliging the state to release them unless deemed a threat to society in writing by the parole board. Where parole is granted or denied at the discretion of a parole board, mandatory supervision does not involve a decision making process: one either qualifies for it or does not. Mandatory supervision tends to involve stipulations that are more lenient than those of parole, and in some cases place no obligations at all on the individual being released.

===Immigration===
{{main|Parole (United States immigration)}}
In US [[immigration law]], the term ''parole'' has two meanings related to allowing persons to enter or leave the United States without the normally required documentation.