By Saori Toda

In recent years, parole decision-makers have grappled with an intensifying challenge in addressing public concerns. While discussions on the rise of ‘parole populism have emerged, especially in Canada, the United States, Australia, and England and Wales, little is known about the way public concerns influence parole release in Japan. This article engages in a legal-systematic analysis of the intricate relationship between public concerns and Japanese parole decision-making in general and release from life imprisonment in particular. The article argues that, while Japanese selective parole decision-making considering public concerns in secrecy may have partially contributed to political rhetoric encouraging parole, it also poses unique challenges distinct from those in Anglophone jurisdictions. It reveals the value of fostering a transparent and accountable parole decision-making system to promote a more balanced and fair approach to parole in the Japanese context.

Howard J. Crim. Justice.2024;63:98–117.

By Gerald Gaes and Julia Laskorunsky

This study examines the response of the Colorado Board of Parole to the COVID-19 pandemic.

To mitigate the spread of the virus within correctional facilities, it increased the parole grant rate, expedited case review, and utilized special needs and fast-track parole programs for non-routine releases. This response provided an opportunity to evaluate the Board’s decision-making processes and to investigate the role of early release mechanisms in reducing prison populations.

Several factors expedited early release including: pressure from the governor and legislature; board member’s sense of responsibility to safely release as many individuals as possible; and the availability of early release authority. Our findings show that to release more people, the Board slightly changed its release standards, placing less emphasis on risk scores but continuing to heavily emphasize readiness for release. The Board reverted to its previous release patterns a few months into the pandemic, highlighting the difficulty of reducing prison populations through back-end mechanisms.

Special needs and fast-track parole were the mechanisms used to promote early release. Special needs parole releases are typically people who have severe medical problems, long sentences, and serious commitment offenses. Targeting them in Colorado substantially decreased time served. The fast-track releases were mostly low risk people with shorter than average sentences. Targeting them had no effect on reducing time served. This demonstrates that early release mechanisms that target “safe bets” – that is, individuals who would have been released quickly through routine mechanisms are not an effective way to reduce prison populations.

We also discuss the importance of grant rate standards, suggesting that jurisdictions establish empirically based ranges contingent on risk and readiness composition of the release population. Future research should investigate how much parole grant rates can be increased without compromising public safety.

This study was conducted as part of a larger project which examined how state prison systems responded to the COVID-19 pandemic. It was generously supported and funded by Arnold Ventures. While we hope the findings from this study are useful to the parole board and funding partners, the views and opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of Arnold Ventures.

St. Paul, MN: Robina Institute,,,,2023. 29p.

By Gerald G. Gaes and Julia Laskorunsky

For most individuals who receive a prison sentence, the amount of time they will serve in prison is somewhat unpredictable because of officials’ discretionary capacity to exercise “back-end” release powers, including parole and good time and earned time credit. These back-end decisions influence how long someone ultimately spends in prison and, over time, can have a substantial impact on prison population size (Gaes and Laskorunsky, 2022). This project examines how back-end powers of prison release discretion operate within the Colorado prison system. Reitz, Griffith, and Rhine (2022) categorize the Colorado prison release system as one of high indeterminacy; meaning that for almost all incarcerated individuals, back-end authorities such as the Colorado State Board of Parole and the Department of Corrections (DOC) are given substantially more discretion over total time served than the front-end judicial authorities who issue prison sentences. To determine how these powers of discretion interact to govern prison stay length, we assessed temporal patterns in the release decisions of the Colorado State Board of Parole and the decisions of the DOC in awarding and withholding good-time and earned-time credits.

Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University; Minneapolis, MN: and Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota, 2022. 50p.

By Kelly Lyn Mitchell, Julia Laskorunsky, Natalie Bielenberg ,Lucy Chin and Madison Wadsworth

In response to the global pandemic in 2020, states and the federal government began to make non-routine releases from prison in order to reduce prison populations to allow for social distancing in prison facilities. This report is aimed at describing where such prison releases occurred, the legal mechanisms used to achieve these releases, and the factors within jurisdictions that made non-routine prison releases more or less likely to occur. We write this report, not to examine the national response to the pandemic, but to better understand when and how extraordinary measures may be used to effect prison release, and to determine whether there are lessons from this experience that can be applied to reducing the effects of mass incarceration.

Minneapolis, MN: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota, 2022 , 86p.

By Kaleena J. Burkes , Edward E. Rhine , Jason Robey and Ebony Ruhland

This report provides a comparative analysis of releasing authority chairs' views of the issues and challenges confronting them at two points in time: 1988 and 2015. Drawing from two surveys, one conducted during the tenure of an ACA Parole Task Force that functioned from 1986-1988, along with The Continuing Leverage of Releasing Authorities: Findings from a National Survey included above, this publication highlights both change and constancy relative to a wide range of comparative markers including, but not limited to, structured decision tools, prison crowding, and risk aversion, and the myriad factors considered in granting or denying parole.

Minneapolis: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota. 2017. 38p.

Edited by Madeline M. Carter

The manner in which jurisdictions respond to parole and probation violations should be thoughtful and deliberate. Although each case requires individual decision-making, the response to a given violation should be consistent with policy developed by that jurisdiction. Agency violation policies should be built around such considerations as assessment of risk posed by the offender, case processing requirements, local resource availability, and outcomes desired by the agency for certain types of violations. Agency violation policies guide line staff in making supervisory decisions and assist decision-makers in reaching consistent and equitable dispositions. During the past decade, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) helped 29 jurisdictions address violation issues by providing onsite technical assistance. Many other jurisdictions have expressed interest in receiving such support. Among the lessons learned is that goals, resources, and values differ from one place to another. It is vital that jurisdictions work through a process leading to informed policy options that meet their particular needs. This handbook is built around what we have learned about how agencies effectively address violations policy. Expanding on information and examples from the 29 jurisdictions, this document is designed to lead agency policy teams through a series of activities to help them develop their own set of violation policies. This is a difficult initiative for agencies to take on; however, it is important and essential work, and the resulting agency policy is worth the commitment. I urge agency administrators to use the materials in this handbook to develop probation and parole violation policies that best conform to the needs and resources of their jurisdictions.

Silver Spring, MD: Center for Effective Public Policy, 2001. 105p.