Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

NECESSITY OF PAROLE FUNCTION

Ms. JUST. I would not agree it is ineffectual or hopeless or that the City would be better off without the parole function.

Mr. RUDD. The parole system has existed for a long time across

the country.

I thank you for your voluntary statement on that.

On the 70-case load level, that is more or less what most parole officers carry?

Ms. JUST. I am sorry I am unable to answer that.

Mr. RUDD. That is a pretty heavy case load, isn't it?

Ms. JUST. Yes, or at least it would seem to me to be a heavy one, but I cannot really say it is because I do not know what the statistics are across the country.

Mr. RUDD. I am sure you have complaints, because they are always floating around on how much you should be carrying and how much you should not be carrying.

MEASURING PAROLE FUNCTION

The parole function as regards the corrections function, can it really be measured in the same way?

Ms. JUST. I suppose the parole function could be measured in one sense, and that might be an artificial measurement, but certainly one standard would be the rate of recidivism, the number of parolees who are subsequently convicted of new charges. I cannot say that in my opinion this is an absolute standard because, as you know, the various factors that contribute to criminal activity——

COMPARISON OF PAROLE FUNCTION WITH CORRECTIONS FUNCTION

Mr. RUDD. You disagree with the Corrections Department's statement, and I am not trying to start any battles here or anything like that. I am sorry I was not here at the time that occurred. I am going on reviewed testimony.

Can you really compare a parole function with a corrections function? You are interested in recidivism, certainly, but this is not really your primary function?

Ms. JUST. That is correct.

Mr. RUDD. It might be helpful if you want to explain your function for the record.

Ms. JUST. Are you asking me to explain the parole supervision function or the function of the Parole Board in making decisions? Mr. RUDD. I guess it is to justify your existence.

Ms. JUST. The parole supervision function, and this comes under the Department of Corrections, is to allow the offender who has been granted release at some time under the maximum term that had been imposed by the sentencing judge to provide support and help, perhaps counseling, and that type of thing to help strengthen the person to cope with whatever stresses he or she may find in the community and, hopefully, to avoid responding to those stresses by further criminal activity.

The function of the Parole Board is to try to determine at what point the offender who has been sentenced, who has served a minimum sentence might reasonably, and with the public safety

interest in mind, be released to resume employment and pay taxes and live the kind of life that we all want to be able to live in our cities.

That is the essential difference.

In terms of how the Department of Corrections might use the money that is now being used for the parole function, I can't comment on that because I was not aware of his statement.

Mr. RUDD. I thank you very, very much and good luck.

RATE OF RECIDIVISM

Mr. DIXON. Ms. Just, I understand from the thrust of your comments that you still believe in the rehabilitation of offenders. In that regard can you tell me what the recidivism rate is?

Ms. JUST. I cannot tell you what it is.

Mr. SHAPIRO. The first step to take is that we would have to define recidivism rate for the City and that which Corrections has used in the past. It is a record that Corrections themselves maintain so we would have to get that figure from them. We would be happy to supply it for the record.

Mr. DIXON. I am not trying to put you on the spot. The statement was made by the head of the Department of Corrections, which is what Mr. Rudd alludes to.

What is it that makes you feel the system is working?

Ms. JUST. I suppose the final test is that the person is not reconvicted and the person is able to live a crime-free life.

It has been my impression, as I go out on hearings and interview parole applicants, that the opportunity for self-rehabilitation becomes available to the offenders through the kinds of self-improvement programs that the institutions offer, such as educational improvement, vocational training, skills training and that kind of thing.

Unfortunately, the majority of people that I have seen in the five months that I have been on the Board, I would say that in perhaps 95 percent of the cases that there is present in the person's background a factor of alcoholism, drug abuse, mental retardation, or some kind of emotional illness. Very few of the people that I have seen have been the people who might be described as hard core, people who were just bent on crime.

As I say, it is hard to measure. The absolute measurement would be the absolute reduction of recidivism but, of course, that has not been realized.

NUMBER OF REPEAT OFFENDERS

Mr. DIXON. The Board has no figures as to the number of repeat offenders?

Ms. RIDLEY. We have figures in terms of the amount of cases that were revoked for a particular period. However, as far as recidivism is concerned, we do not have those figures. Those are kept by parole supervision and here again it depends on how one measures recidivism and who is defining it.

Mr. DIXON. I am talking about somebody who has served a period of time, is released on parole and has not satisfactorily completed

parole and has committed another crime and has been reincarcerated.

CURRENT PAROLE STATISTICS

Ms. JUST. I have a monthy report that has come from the chief of the parole supervision unit. He indicated for the month of March there are 2,100 people under parole supervision. He received during the month a total of 150 cases. So that would suggest that 150 people were released following a decision to release on parole. During that same month, we issued warrants for new crimes for 45 people. These 45 people are not the 150 people who went out on parole, if that is any indication.

Mr. DIXON. I am not sure I understand that function.

You issued warrants for 45 people who had committed new crimes who were or were not on parole.

Ms. JUST. They were on parole.

Mr. DIXON. So the parole officer recommended revocation?

Ms. JUST. The parole officer had requested a warrant be issued and the Parole Board issued the warrant.

In addition, there were 22 people for whom we issued warrants because of technical violations of their conditions of parole.

The fact that we issued 45 warrants where a new crime had been charged does not mean that convictions will actually follow in those 45 cases. In fact, we have noticed that a really large percentage-I can't give you an exact figure-but I would say perhaps 40 percent of the warrant we may issue because a new crime has been committed may ultimately be thrown out and the charges may be dismissed. That percentage is not an absolute one. It is something we are trying to investigate now.

Mr. DIXON. Did I hear the staff indicate there is some other agency that would have some accurate records on recidivism?

Ms. RIDLEY. Yes, Corrections would have those figures and the supervisors would have those.

DETERMINATE VERSUS INDETERMINATE SENTENCES

Mr. DIXON. I only pursue this because, obviously, there is a whole national controversy over determinate versus indeterminate sentences.

What criteria do you use?

Ms. JUST. In making the release decision or the decision not to release?

Mr. DIXON. Yes.

Ms. JUST. We are guided by the progress report that is filed on the inmate at the institution. We have found, for example, there seems to be a cluster of academic achievement scoring at about the third grade level when the person comes in. If the person has been programmed, as they say, to go to what is described as academic school and raised the grade to six or seven or frequently had gotten the GED and gone into the Lorton College Program, we see this as an enabling tool for being able to be self-supporting. So, we consider one's ability to be self-supporting in a legitimate way and the attitude that the person expresses or the attitude we feel we are sensing in the course of the interview.

We are using a combination of objective and subjective judgments.

ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE

Mr. DIXON. What is the minimum length of time that a person has to be incarcerated in order to be eligible for a hearing?

Ms. JUST. It depends on the minimum sentence. Where there has been a maximum sentence given, and this does not refer to the Federal Youth Act sentences, we tend to follow a guideline of one third.

Mr. DIXON. Thank you very much, Ms. Just. I appreciate your coming today.

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 1980.

PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE

WITNESSES

FRANCIS D. CARTER, DIRECTOR

W. ANTHONY FITCH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
PATRICIA SMITH, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT

« ÎnapoiContinuă »