California's Options in Response to the Parole Elimination Trend

If the past has any bearing on the future, the only certainty in the fate of California’s parole system is that its future is uncertain. Surveying parole systems among the fifty states illustrates a wide range of public sentiment regarding parole’s role in criminal justice. Californians echo the national voice. Various factions support differing reform measures. Still, all seem to agree that at least some change is necessary. So, with social forces gathering behind parole change, the time seems ripe to make progress. But the question remains, what constitutes progress in the parole system? With sixteen states completely eliminating parole, and dismal parole practices here in California, should the state follow suit and eliminate parole altogether?

I submit that any change to California’s parole system is meaningless if that change does not conform to society’s penalogical objectives. Therefore, parole reform decision makers must first identify Californian’s objectives in the reform process. Only when those objectives are identified may the direction for change be set. Under this framework, I submit three reform alternatives for California’s parole system based on three general penalogical views. No doubt countless intermediate positions are possible, but the following options illustrate three generalized positions California may adopt.

Option 1: Eliminate Parole

The fact that sixteen states have recently eliminated parole may indicate that society’s view is shifting. The idea is that people don’t believe that justice is being served through parole. While many factors could contribute to this view, the most obvious inference is that people feel that crimes deserve certain sentences. Anything short of those sentences robs justice of the punishment and deterrence the crime requires. Under this view, punishment serves the primary objective in criminals’ sentences.

Punishment may be society’s oldest identifiable criminal objective. In our time, many Californian’s continue to see punishment as the primary, if not solitary, objective our criminal justice system should pursue. Even individuals who prefer rehabilitative objectives often admit strong punitive feelings toward violent and sexual crimes. With punishment forming the foundation of sentencing, sentences must be fully served. The nature of our current parole system reduces sentences for mitigating reasons. This approach contravenes complete and just punishment. Were this not so, initial sentences must necessarily be too long. Therefore, parole only destroys adequate punishment. Therefore, parole should be eliminated. Parole elimination proponents also cite ancillary benefits from their course. For example, the public would save the entire cost of the parole system. While opponents may counter that the cost analysis should consider the expense of keeping would-be parolees in prison, proponents can counter that nearly seventy percent of parolees quickly return to prison anyway. As such, incarceration costs exist with or without the parole system. In sum, should society determine that punishment best serves the primary objective for our penal system, then eliminating parole seems to be the logical choice for reform efforts.

Option 2: Increase Discretionary Parole Availability Conditioned on Rehabilitation

Despite the fact that 16 states have eliminated parole, or under the assumption that these eliminations are only a result of broken parole systems generally, Californians may determine that parole is not just worthwhile, salvable, and desirable, but that it is necessitated by the state’s focus on rehabilitation. Modern history tells the story of society’s long-term perspective to the criminal dilemma. Simple incarceration merely removes wrongdoers from society with no forethought of criminals’ reentry into local communities. Incarceration without rehabilitation fails to correct the root of crime, subjecting communities to potential crime upon every release. On the other hand, rehabilitating criminals improves society by reducing crime rates and prison costs while increasing society’s economic productivity.

In theory, fully rehabilitated criminals no longer threaten society. At this stage, deterrence is unnecessary. Successful rehabilitation may also diminish punishment’s utility. First, the criminal’s effort and progress during rehab constitutes positive steps that counter punitive value. Second, incarcerating fully rehabilitated individuals may no longer actually punish someone with once their moral void is filled. Nevertheless, one should not assume that rehabilitation and punishment are mutually exclusive. It is entirely feasible to issue a sentence that includes a mandatory punitive component, followed by a period only extended until complete rehabilitation occurs. Regardless, should society determine that rehabilitation trumps punishment or deterrence, post-rehabilitation incarceration is difficult to justify. The parole system solves this issue.

Perhaps Californians’ biggest criticism with the parole system is that many parolees are not actually reformed. The recent travesty involving Jaycee Dugard and Phillip Garrido exemplifies this critique, leaving people puzzled as to how an apparently nonrehabilitated Garrido managed to get paroled, slip through monitoring mechanisms, and commit unthinkable crimes against Dugard. While the point may appear obvious, a parole system justified by rehabilitation presupposes actual rehabilitation. As such, prisons must invest in rehabilitative programs and establish mechanism to determine when rehabilitation is complete. Opponents criticize this approach because of the initial expenses these reforms will require. The state can’t afford the current system. How can it justify an increase to the prison system budget? The counter to this argument is that an initial increase in expense will more than pay off in the future with reduced recidivism, saving money in crime detention, prosecution and detention. Additionally, the security and comfort local communities feel when prisoners return rehabilitated rather than delayed has value, albeit difficult to quantify. In sum, should Californian’s determine that rehabilitation forms their primary penalogical objectives, parole reform should begin with establishing rehabilitation programs in the prisons and mechanisms to identify rehabilitated prisoners.

Option 3: Maintain Current Parole Philosophy with Improved Implementation

Finally, Californians can opt to keep their current system. In theory, the will of the people is reflected in the current system. But theory and reality many not inseparably connected. Determining whether the current system meets Californian’s expectations is dually problematic. On one hand, without comprehensive polling it is difficult to know Californian’s penalogical goals. Do Californian’s prefer punishment, deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, or a mix? Do these objectives shift depending on the crime? On the other hand, even if the people’s objectives are clearly identified, is the current parole system even remotely related to those objectives? The seemingly inconsistent application of parole makes this difficult to determine. Nevertheless, perhaps determining identifiable penalogical objectives is itself a futile task. As such, there may be no principled methodology by which parole can be reformed. Additionally, pragmatism may guide decision makers to make incremental rather than monumental parole changes. Regardless, many possible reforms can improve the current parole system while leaving it largely intact. Examples of meaningful and identifiable targets for progress include increased numbers of parole officers, integrated parole monitoring, improved community immersion programming, and increased fairness in parole board hearings.

In conclusion, whether Californians accept one of the three aforementioned options or any possible variation, I reiterate my call to do so only after identifying the objectives and goals that the parole system serves.