Degradation or Redemption? A Parole Board Polices a Moral Boundary

Parole boards possess the notable power to grant release from prison, oftentimes well short of an incarcerated person's legally allowable length of sentence. Although the exercise of that power is, at least in part, governed by law, extralegal considerations likely play an influential part in decisions to grant release. Indeed, the analysis offered here of parole board hearings in Washington State reveals, in particular, the work that board members perform to reinforce the moral significance of past criminality. In parole hearings, board members find ample opportunities to morally condemn the index offenses that petitioners have perpetrated and to express skepticism about narratives of petitioner change. Instead of helping petitioners ease the burden of being profaned for their past acts, board members often act to reinforce the mark of a criminal record. These realities underscore the significant work necessary to shift attitudes toward those convicted of crimes, and expose the cultural challenges that attempts to reduce incarceration more generally are likely to face, especially in the United States.

Automated summary

Parole boards have the power to grant early release from prison, but the decision-making process is influenced by both legal and extralegal factors. An analysis of parole board hearings in Washington State reveals that board members often emphasize the moral significance of past crimes and express skepticism about prisoner rehabilitation, resulting in the reinforcement of their criminal records. This highlights the challenges of changing societal attitudes towards convicted individuals and reducing incarceration rates, particularly in the United States.